Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: gge12 on June 02, 2025, 11:19:05 am
-
I'm on exactly the same boat,
If you would care for advice on your case, please to start your own thread.
-
I'm on exactly the same boat, having received PCN nearby to brockwell park based off a single A4 sheet of the TTRO stuck on a pole near where I parked. No actual signage anywhere. Lambeth rejected appeals nonsensically. Adjucation by the tribunal set for early december where I'm pretty confident of a win. Council's own traffic order itself says “will only apply at such times as shall be indicated by the placing or covering of traffic signs and ‘no-parking cones’.” None of which were of course present, which is why I parked there. Absolute nonsense.
-
If you are going to tribunal just register the appeal and request a telephone or online Teams hearing.
You can add material later and your formal reps stand.
I'm sure Mr Anderson will look at the rejection.
-
Anyone?
-
Can anyone support with the tribunal step please?
-
I used the reps that you advised above verbatim and now want to go to Tribunal with these points, the lack of signage, mix up of dates on Lambeth's website and the address error!
-
So many procedural improprieties, it's as if they simply want the keeper to appeal and for them to not contest.
But first, pl post your reps.
If 'We moved house just after the challenge was made and despite providing our new address in my representations' is as clear in the formal reps as you imply, then this is another procedural impropriety.
-
Only just got a response from Lambeth rejecting my formal appeal. We moved house just after the challenge was made and despite providing our new address in my representations and changing address with the DVLA, they still sent it to our old address. Therefore we have had to call and request online for them to send a copy and they have emailed it in a PDF (please see below).
https://imgur.com/a/5CW6fT8
-
Your grounds are that the contravention did not occur.
The rest of my draft is a warning to them that any NOR must contain cogent reasons, not just 'we have considered...we disagree'.
-
As regards formal reps, I'd submit the same as before but with a slight change.
PCN *******
On *** informal representations were made against this PCN, the central theme of which was the council's failure to ensure the placing 'on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road' contrary to The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and the council's Temporary Traffic Order which created the restriction. Those representations set out the legal framework in detail.
On ** the authority rejected those representations in a manner which could best be described as off-hand without any attempt to address the grounds in detail and in the mistaken belief that a traffic order is a traffic sign whose display meets the council's LATOR obligations.
Those representations are herewith submitted as my formal representations and, in accordance with the Secretary of State's statutory guidance, should these be rejected the authority is required to 'give the owner clear and full reasons for its decision..,', failure to do which may be seen as 'maladministration'.
Yours
Wait for comments.
So would this count as procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority? I need to choose the grounds for my representation.
-
Thanks will submit the above. Should I also include mention of Lambeth's online requests to pay the fine even after I had submitted my initial appeal? I'm aware this point alone has successfully won cases at tribunal (please screenshot in my earlier post on the 1st page of this thread).
-
As regards formal reps, I'd submit the same as before but with a slight change.
PCN *******
On *** informal representations were made against this PCN, the central theme of which was the council's failure to ensure the placing 'on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road' contrary to The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and the council's Temporary Traffic Order which created the restriction. Those representations set out the legal framework in detail.
On ** the authority rejected those representations in a manner which could best be described as off-hand without any attempt to address the grounds in detail and in the mistaken belief that a traffic order is a traffic sign whose display meets the council's LATOR obligations.
Those representations are herewith submitted as my formal representations and, in accordance with the Secretary of State's statutory guidance, should these be rejected the authority is required to 'give the owner clear and full reasons for its decision..,', failure to do which may be seen as 'maladministration'.
Yours
Wait for comments.
-
Earlier rejection addressed to me and NTO addressed to her confusingly. Maybe it's because I have previous with them in this car!
No it's because they don't the registered keeper's address until NTO time.
-
Earlier rejection addressed to me and NTO addressed to her confusingly. Maybe it's because I have previous with them in this car!
-
Formal reps would have to be in her name. Is the NTO addressed to your wife and was their earlier rejection of your reps to you by name?
-
https://imgur.com/a/ElSJTEt
My wife is actually the registered keeper but I was the driver at the time and made the initial appeal in my name.
-
The full NTO pl.
And so that we're clear, you are the registered keeper, yes?
Anyway, NTO dated 18 July is deemed served Tues. 22nd therefore the 28-day periods end on 18 Aug.
-
NTO received, though dated 18th July, I only saw it yesterday as just back from holiday so am a bit late to the party.
-
https://imgur.com/a/CzBLSJA
Lambeth have rejected my appeal. They state that 'signage is present at the location and meet necessary requirements for enforcement action'. As stated above, there were no temporary traffic signs on the day and they have been unable to evidence any, respite their assertion. Furthermore, their website was still urging me to pay 80 quid even after I had submitted my appeal (see screenshot in earlier post).
I am awaiting the NTO to formally challenge.
What a load of utter tosh they write !
All London councils ruthlessly game the system to maximise the cash flow, so they refuse all informal representations knowing that >95% of people then cough up so they don't lose the discount. Most people know nothing about parking and traffic law enforcement, so won't take the risk of taking the matter further. If you are sure you are in the right, (having been confirmed in this forum), you just have to stand your ground and wait for the Notice to Owner.
-
https://imgur.com/a/CzBLSJA
Lambeth have rejected my appeal. They state that 'signage is present at the location and meet necessary requirements for enforcement action'. As stated above, there were no temporary traffic signs on the day and they have been unable to evidence any, respite their assertion. Furthermore, their website was still urging me to pay 80 quid even after I had submitted my appeal (see screenshot in earlier post).
I am awaiting the NTO to formally challenge.
-
Do you think it's better to appeal as above on the basis that The Traffic Management Order is invalid or due to procedural impropriety?
When the time comes, everything is in play.
-
Take a photo(s) just in case.
-
Lo and behold the signs have since been covered and replaced with signs for the new traffic order
-
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Do you think it's better to appeal as above on the basis that The Traffic Management Order is invalid or due to procedural impropriety?
-
Please screenshot their website re price status and increase etc.
-
Brilliant, thanks so much. Will give this a whirl.
-
I think you have a very strong case to put in front of an adjudicator, but could we get the authority to fold before then, I wonder?
..........
On Sunday 1 June, I parked at the location which is a parking place situated opposite no. 53 Brockwell Park Gardens. There was a single traffic sign within the parking place which clearly stated the following:
Parking: Mon-Sat 7am - 7pm.
As it was a Sunday and in the absence of any other traffic signs to the contrary, parking was therefore unrestricted.
Nonetheless, a CEO issued a PCN.
The alleged contravention is: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours. (temporary traffic order)
It is unarguable that the only traffic sign displayed did not convey a 'no waiting' restriction. It is therefore the authority's burden to prove that the alleged restriction(no waiting) was conveyed in accordance with regulatory requirements. These are as follows(Part III of the Schedule to The Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 refers):
PART III
TRAFFIC SIGNS
6.—(1) In this Part of the Schedule, “the authority”—
(a)in relation to an order, means the traffic authority who made the order;
(b)in relation to a notice issued under section 14(2) of the 1984 Act, means the traffic authority or the concesssionaire who issued the notice.
(2) In this Part of the Schedule, a reference to an instrument is a reference to an order or notice issued under section 14(2) of the 1984 Act as applicable.
7. The authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a)before the instrument comes into force, the placing on or near each road to which the instrument relates of such traffic signs in such positions as the authority may consider requisite for the purposes of securing that adequate information as to the effect of the instrument is made available to persons using the road;
(b)the maintenance of such signs so long as the instrument continues in force; and
(c)in a case where the instrument contains provisions suspending statutory provisions to which section 14(7) of the 1984 Act applies, such removal, replacement or covering up of existing traffic signs as the authority may consider requisite for the purpose of avoiding confusion to the users of the road.
Clearly, the authority have failed to satisfy 7(a) because there were no traffic signs conveying 'adequate information as to the effect of the instrument is made available to persons using the road'.
Similarly, the authority failed to satisfy 7(c) because at all times(and indeed still) the only existing traffic sign in the parking place was not 'removed, replaced or covered up'.
I would caution the authority against relying upon the single laminated A4 sheet blowing in the wind and attached at midriff height on the traffic sign post which I saw only after receiving the PCN. Not only is this not a 'traffic sign', its font size is so small as to make it unreadable. Its contents(which I have subsequently been able to retrieve online) relate only to the restriction and do not meet the authority's regulatory burden to place adequate 'traffic signs' and to avoid misleading motorists by failing to cover up the existing 'traffic sign'.
The PCN must be cancelled at the earliest stage and I look forward to your prompt confirmation.
Yours..
-
As I thought, signs were not covered:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
No, but this is part of the 'bit by bit' analysis which I'm recommending the OP follows.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/1215/schedule/made -see the Schedule, Part III. 7(a) and 7(b) replicate LATOR, whereas 7(c) stands on its own:
(c)in a case where the instrument contains provisions suspending statutory provisions to which section 14(7) of the 1984 Act applies[which does], such removal, replacement or covering up of existing traffic signs as the authority may consider requisite for the purpose of avoiding confusion to the users of the road.
-
There may not be anything to see as this is a one day measure for events at Brockwell Park but there are other events coming up.
Maybe I'm missing something but shouldn't there be a no waiting roundel sign to enforce a no waiting restriction.
-
I'm pretty sure the normal sign wasn't covered.
So am I !
-
Ok thanks. Disregard the event day sign on the other side of the road. I am going to visit the location later and try and get a picture of the normal traffic sign with the (non)laminated traffic sign in the shot. I'm pretty sure the normal sign wasn't covered.
-
Your photo of the 'event day' yellow sign is confusing matters because it's on the other side of the road.
The CEO's photos don't show a traffic sign, only an illegible laminated single sheet of A4 attached to a post, in this case the only post within the parking bay.
Any chance of getting a photo of the sign in your bay(including the laminated sheet in the same shot?). I ask because, as a minimum, it had to be covered because you cannot have the lawful right to park in a parking place suspended by order and replaced with a 'No waiting' restriction while still exhibiting the normal parking place traffic sign.
There's also the Temp Traffic Order regs to look at, but one step at a time. The 14-day period ends on 14 June...on which point, pl post the back of the PCN.
-
Yes, having been able to actually read the order retrospectively online, I was in Schedule 1.
GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/24bnY5W99sqdHKk19?g_st=ac
-
Thanks for the order.
And were you in the 'banned' area in Schedule 1?
The sign regarding 'permit holders only' is, of course, b******s. The order BANS waiting, it does not differentiate between classes of user.
Pl post a GSV showing where you were parked. Let's take this apart bit by bit.
-
The pictures of the notice I took at the time are in my original post Imgur link and they are barely legible, hence my confusion. If you notice, the back of the order is obscured by the cable tie that attaches it to the lamppost and it's not even laminated. Feels to me like it's been scribbled on the back of a fag packet which is why I think I have a case here. Loads of people were caught out and we park in this same location most Sundays and had no idea.
Managed to find the order on Lambeth's website:
https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-05/597_Brockwell_Park_2025_NoM_09-05-25.pdf
-
Nothing to do with the traffic sign per se, whether on your side of the road or not. It's a 'temporary traffic order' contravention i.e. the laminated paper you see on the post is a copy of a temporary traffic order suspending the use of the bay or part thereof and substituting a waiting restriction which does not need a yellow line.
OP, we need to see that order - a readable photo pl. Or get a copy from the council. Maybe there's one online.
-
Yes I saw it wasn't on your side but there are probably signs elsewhere.
But I don't think there is a sign that substantiates the contravention. See what others say.
-
Just to clarify, the yellow 'permit holders only' sign was on the other side of the road to where I was parked. I am not a resident permit holder. I merely highlighted that because I thought that was the only temporary restriction in place on the road, which is why I parked on the opposite side. The signs on the side I was parked on are the white paper ones which I could not make sense of.
-
I can't see the sign you took a pic of creates a waiting restriction - the contravention you have is an 01 (like for a yellow line).
(https://i.ibb.co/rRLZvvyG/image.png)
----------
Council pics show no sign.
(https://i.ibb.co/9HG0dVzs/l6.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/SDyqTZzJ/l4.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/gMRVT5YZ/l3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/zVRrvy99/l2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Y73yVhRr/l1.jpg)
-
The main sign shows permit holders 'HR'. The event days sign just says "permit holders only', the assumption being that the main sign governs the permit code.
So assuming you parked on the side for permit holders, are you an 'HR' permit holder ?
As regards the traffic order sign, this is just advice. To implement it, they must erect adequate signage that informs the motorist what the restrictions are. It would seem they have done this, but wait for others to comment.
-
Dear all, received the above PCN yesterday next to Brockwell Park. I tried to read the traffic order sign but couldn't make any sense out of it and saw the big yellow 'permit holders only' sign on the other side of the road so didn't think there was any issue with parking there.
https://imgur.com/a/xNBTveD