Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: user334232 on June 07, 2025, 10:45:14 pm
-
So that's all you've had? Seems a notice of rejection has gone missing or they have their wires crossed and issued the template letter you have.
I think all you can do is contact them saying no NOR was received. You can't appeal to the tribunal without it as it has a code.
If they don't respond and issue a charge certificate you have a statutory recovery at debt stage.
-
Dear London Borough of Brent,
Your informal rejection states that:
There may not be yellow lines and/or marked bays on the road/street in certain areas within
the event day zone (usually Environmental and/or Conservation Areas) to indicate that it is a
restricted street – sign plates would indicate where permit holders only can park within the
zone. The signage requirements within the event day zone have been authorised by The
Secretary of State for Transport.
Be that as it may, there are only two types of zone that do not require signs and marked bays,
these are Restricted Parking Zones and Permit Parking Areas, the zone in question is neither.
When entering an RPZ or a PPA a motorist is put on notice by the zone boundary sign that
the restrictions will not necessarily be signposted on the streets within the zone, and that
alerts the driver to look for signs even if there are none in the vicinity of his chosen parking
location and the road appears otherwise unrestricted.
However even with a PPA or an RPZ, a marked parking bay would be accompanied by an
upright sign to inform road users of the terms of use of the bay, given that the bay signifies a
departure from the requirement for a permit (for a PPA) or the prohibition on waiting and/or
loading (for an RPZ), such that if one were to find a marked bay within either an RPZ or a
PPA without an upright sign the signage would not necessarily be adequate in any event.
The zone you have created is not a PPA or an RPZ and whatever the status of authorisation of
the signage might be, the council is subject to an overriding duty under regulation 18(1)
of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996,
which for brevity I will call the LATOR 18 duty.
The LATOR 18 duty requires the provision of signage which, when looked at as a whole,
provides adequate information as to the effect of the traffic management order, such that
persons using the road are adequately informed of the effects of the traffic management order
without recourse to other sources such as performing an online search.
The LATOR 18 duty also includes the following at paragraph c:
in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the
removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to avoid
confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions.
In this instance the council has left a marked bay with no upright sign, this misleadingly
creates confusion for persons using the road because in all circumstances (including RPZs,
PPAs and red route) a white bay with no sign would indicate that parking is permitted
without any restrictions. It follows that the white bay markings, in the absence of a regulatory
sign, are liable to cause confusion to road users. It is also well known that a parking bay is
only subject to the restrictions indicated on the sign for the bay, and motorists are often
warned not to rely on signs away from the bay because they cannot rely on such signs to
determine the restrictions within a bay.
My vehicle was parked in the long marked parking place outside 126 to 104 Windermere
Avenue. There is no traffic plate within that parking place and none mounted on lamp
columns 26 or 27 that sit within the bay.
While LATOR 18 imposes a duty on local authorities, in Nottingham City Council, R (on the
application of) v Bus Lane Adjudicator & Ors [2017] EWHC 430 (Admin) the High Court
confirmed that:
It is well-established that a failure to comply with the regulation 18 duty as to signage is a
proper ground on which an adjudicator may allow an appeal against the issue of a penalty
charge notice on the ground that the alleged contravention of the relevant traffic regulation
order did not occur. (See R (London Borough of Camden) v. The Parking Adjudicator [2011]
EWHC 295 (Admin), per Burnett J. at [50] – [51]).
In light of the failure to discharge the obligations under regulation 18 of LATOR the alleged
contravention did not occur, and the penalty charge must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
----------------------------------------------
Link to council response (https://imgbox.com/LM3YjMnD)
I'm a bit confused because it says that I will receive other info in a Notice of Rejection letter, but surely this is the notice of rejection?
-
Let's see what you sent and their rejection.
-
Hi all
Unsuprisingly received the NoR from Brent with the payment reduced back to £80...
Please could you gurus weigh in on whether you think this case is worth taking to tribunal?
Brent didnt give me any reason for rejection
Best wishes
-
Loads of time. Bump the thread to nudge us.
-
Dated the 28th Oct. Arrived yday
-
If you read back HC Andersen has provided the basis of reps.
I'll try and draw this together or maybe he will but he's been moving house.
What is the date of the NTO.
-
Hi all
Brent have issued the NTO
Any advice on where to go from here?
What do you think the probability of me winning the case is?
Best wishes and thanks again in advance
If you now have the Notice to Owner, you should submit the same representations, but updated following comments made in this thread. The discount option has gone, (although they may re-offer it when rejecting your formal reps), Absolutely no point in paying the NtO, wait until your reps are inevitably rejected, then if they re-offer the discount you can make a decision whether to take them to adjudication at London Tribunals, or pay up.
As to the probability of a win, Stamfordman has said that with the right arguments on the appeal, this is winnable. Essentially it's a double-or-quits gamble.
-
Hi all
Brent have issued the NTO
Any advice on where to go from here?
What do you think the probability of me winning the case is?
Best wishes and thanks again in advance
-
IMO, yes.
"controlled parking zone”
Is 'an area........
.......
(ii)
into which each entrance for vehicular traffic has been indicated by the sign provided for at item 1 or 3 of the sign table in Part 3 of Schedule 5 [Traffic Signs Regs]
......
"Controlled” may be varied to “Meter”, “Disc”, “Ticket”, “Disc and Meter”, “Disc and Ticket” or “Pay and Display"
The regs:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/1
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/5
Their repeated references to Controlled Parking Zone and the detail of their response can only lead to a single conclusion: the council consider that the area is within a Controlled Parking Zone.
The regs specify the signs which MUST be used to indicate such zones.
The sign in situ is not so specified.
See what others say.
-
So Brent got back to me about the sign authorisation saying the below:
Wembley Stadium is a public transport venue. The scheme’s restrictions are enforced to ensure that the area remains congestion free, and that minimum
disruption is caused to the local community by visitors to the stadium. Anyone parking illegally in the event day zone is liable to receive a Penalty Charge Notice
and may have their vehicle removed.
Event day restrictions operate between 8am and midnight on main roads to the stadium, and generally between 10am and midnight elsewhere outside Controlled
Parking Zones (i.e. streets which do not have parking controls on non-event days).
In Controlled Parking Zones within the scheme area, the restrictions are 10am to midnight, and zone T (Brentfield Road) which operates at all times.
Also in Controlled Parking Zones within the scheme area, existing residents’, business and other permits remain valid. In streets outside the CPZs, the Council
offers a range of event day permits as follows:
Event day resident permit
Event day visitor permit
Event day business permit
Event day school permit
Event day place of worship permit
Originally, Event Day Permits were paper-based and not vehicle-specific.. Residents are required to ensure that the permit is clearly displayed in the vehicle
windscreen on event days to avoid being issued with a Penalty Charge Notice.
Since June 2019, all Event Day Permits are issued as vehicle-specific, valid for three years, and a flat rate charge is made to contribute to the administrative cost of
issuing the permit. These are also now issued as virtual permits, and the registration number of the registered vehicle is automatically recognised when
checked by a Civil Enforcement Officer.
Applicants for an event day resident permit will have their residential status checked in the same way as other applicants for a resident permit. The maximum
number of event day permits that can be purchased per eligible household is three. Residents of private roads in the scheme area are also entitled to permits to allow
them to park in enforceable parts of the event day zone during an event.
Eligible households can also obtain event day visitor permits subject to a maximum of two per household. Residents of private roads in the scheme area are
not entitled to visitor permits
The authorisation for the signage requirements is indeed authorised by the Secretary of State for Transport, under section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Traffic Signs Manual - Chapter 1 Introduction
Does this new information help my case?
-
You want certainty in a world where none exits. C'est la vie.
-
It says in their letter I have 14 days discount period (so until the 10)?
-
Ok, I’ll have a think. Is there any evidence for how commonly Brent will reoffer?
-
I do understand, you have to decide on what you know now. You can draw some reassurance from the common practice of authorities to re-offer the discount even after unsuccessful formal reps against a NTO.
-
Sorry I meant the pay early 14 day window from their initial rejection, not my second appeal
-
If you're the registered keeper then your next 'window' opens when you receive the NTO.
-
Does the first case posted not imply they would take the same view with my situation? There’s a sign far away but I’m meant to know I’m still within the zone. I’ve requested the requirements of the event day zone signage from the DfT but I’m not sure if they will respond within the 14 day window
-
Got it. I’ll use the draft posted above to form my response. Should I include reference to these prior cases and point out error in the outcome? Ill put my response here before I send it in
-
What we're saying is with the right direction to an adjudicator this is winnable.
In the second case as pointed out the adjudicator didn't know what he was looking at and busked it.
Same in the first case - where is the legislation that allows 'marked bays' in a permit zone to have no parking signs?
Is my reading - Mr Andersen and Mr Mustard may comment further.
Just because a council does something doesn't mean it's right.
-
No. You wait for the NTO when ever this might be received by the registered keeper.
Here's the full enforcement process:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/parking-penalty-charge-notice-enforcement-process
-
So I can wait 28 (now 26) days and send another response to them?
-
No, the decision is not relevant:
The evidence in this case leads me to conclude that the appellant’s vehicle was parked in a permit parking area.
The sign must face the motorist much like the signs at the entrances to a controlled parking zone.
This case refers to a PERMIT PARKING AREA, a TOTALLY different legal structure from where you were parked.
"permit parking area”
an area—
(a)
into which each entrance for vehicular traffic has been indicated by the sign provided for at item 5 of the sign table in Part 3 of Schedule 5
Have a look at a PPA sign yourself!
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/5
-
So… I’m ****** and should just pay now?
-
I had a quick Look on the tribunal database and found a couple of refused case in this zone.
But both leave questions as to whether the adjudicators knew what they were doing.
-----------
Case reference 2240583583
Appellant Doctors Plus Ltd
Authority London Borough of Brent
VRM LD20 OHX
PCN Details
PCN BT22624618
Contravention date 25 Jul 2024
Contravention time 10:20:00
Contravention location Dollis Hill Lane
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked in permit space without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 02 Apr 2025
Adjudicator Philippa Alderson
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
1. Reasons The Appellant is appealing a PCN issued in respect of parking during a parking/loading ban at the location.
2. The Council relies upon the contemporaneous evidence of the Civil Enforcement Officer, a copy of the PCN, a copy of the relevant legislation and correspondence.
3. The driver contends that the signage indicating the restrictions was inadequate. He says that he entered Dollis Hill Lane from the A4088 end. He contends that there was no visible signage, approaching the restriction from this direction, indicating the nature of the bay restrictions. He contends that there was no signage indicating which days were "match days" or informing drivers where this information may be obtained. He contends that subsequently he has identified one relevant sign but this was on the opposite side of the road and turned to face the pavement.
4. I have carefully considered all the evidence in this matter
5. The CEO’s photographs show the vehicle parked and unattended in what appears to be a multi-vehicle bay at the location. It is parked at the end of the bay, the broken bay markings being visible to the rear of the vehicle. The CEO has provided a photograph of the signage relied upon by the Council. This signage indicates that parking is permitted for specified "EV" permit holders in marked bays on event days, 10am - midnight. The photograph is close-up of the signage and the wider context of the location cannot be established. The sign is not readily visible in any of the photographs taken of the vehicle by the CEO.
6. However, in one of the photographs taken by the CEO, the back of a sign is visible some way down the road behind the vehicle, on the same side of the road. In addition, a separate bay is also visible just before this sign. Having carefully considered and compared the CEO's photographs and the further photographic evidence provided at Enclosure H, I find that this sign is the Wembley Stadium Permit Zone signage, which indicates a No parking restriction on event days, between 10am and midnight, save for "permit holders in marked bays". This signage is on the right of the carriageway and I am satisfied, having considered the evidence contained in Enclosure H, that there is another sign on the left of the carriageway, which would be readily visible to a driver entering that zone. Given the direction in which the parked vehicle is facing, I find it likely that this signage was passed by the driver prior to parking. In addition, the Council's photographs of the entry point signage are annotated, "Dollis Hill Lane near the junction of A4088" and I therefore find it likely that these photographs shows the signage on the route taken by the driver, who contends that he entered from the A4088 "end".
7. I am satisfied that a driver is on notice, by way of the Permit Zone entry point signage, that all bay parking at the location is reserved for permit holders. There is no requirement for each bay to be individually signed. The onus is on drivers to then inform themselves as to whether an event is taking place.
8. I am satisfied to the requisite standard that a contravention has taken place and that no statutory ground of appeal or exemption has taken place.
9. I must therefore refuse this appeal.
--------
Case reference 2230372311
Appellant Sarah Wickenden
Authority London Borough of Brent
VRM FL14 KUW
PCN Details
PCN BT19158131
Contravention date 22 Apr 2023
Contravention time 10:53:00
Contravention location Grasmere Avenue
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked in permit space without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 28 Sep 2023
Adjudicator John Lane
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons The issue of this appeal is whether the said vehicle was parked in a permit holders’ only parking place without clearly displaying a valid permit or having a virtual permit.
I accept that the civil enforcement officer checked all the vehicle’s windows, was sufficiently close to take photographs. A penalty notice can be seen affixed to the vehicle.
The administrative practicalities of the parking scheme require a vehicle’s owner, at all times it waits in a bay or space, to pay for that time and display proof of that by way of a ticket or voucher or meter reading. With telephone payments the vehicle registration mark (VRM) and location requirements must be correct. Should the telephone or display requirements be omitted then a contravention occurs. The Scheme imposes owner liability. That implies that the owner may be liable even if he did not know about the contravention, which in turn implies liability without fault. An Adjudicator must balance any decision between fairness and administrative practicality. Sometimes the latter overrides the former. A Scheme requires that parked vehicles pay for their waiting time and that the payment is visibly displayed or duly made by ‘phone. Should either requirement be absent then a contravention occurs. I find that this principle must also apply to permit parking spaces.
The appellant has stated there were no signs on the side of the road where the vehicle was parked to indicate there were restrictions there. The appellant has provided evidence of a screenshot.
The evidence in this case leads me to conclude that the appellant’s vehicle was parked in a permit parking area.
The sign must face the motorist much like the signs at the entrances to a controlled parking zone.
The evidence leads me to conclude that the appellant’s vehicle was parked in an area behind the sign and therefore in contravention.
The evidence leads me to conclude that a contravention occurred.
The circumstances described by the appellant are mitigating circumstances or extenuating factors. They do not amount to a ground of appeal. Mitigation moderates the seriousness of something but does not amount to a full ground of appeal.
The local authority has clearly considered the relevant circumstances but has chosen not to exercise their discretion in the appellant’s favour. Mitigation is the province of the local authority. An Adjudicator may only cancel a penalty charge notice if a ground of appeal has been established. An Adjudicator may not exercise their discretion and cancel or reduce a fixed penalty when mitigating circumstances and not a ground of appeal has been established. Mitigation is for the local authority. An Adjudicator is not permitted to mitigate a fixed penalty, a penalty fixed by law.
I have to find that t was entitled to issue the penalty notice. I am satisfied that the penalty notice expressed the correct penalty amount, fixed by law. It did not therefore exceed the relevant amount in all the circumstances.
A procedural impropriety is a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed upon it by the Traffic Management Act 2004, the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 and the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum.
I am not persuaded that the local authority has failed to observe a requirement of the legislation.
In those circumstances, as I find that no ground of appeal
-
Here’s the PDF without my name and personal details
-
Sorry I missed this. They rejected on the 27th August 2025
-
What's the date of their rejection?
-
So are we in agreement I should proceed and challenge the council?
-
OP, you didn't post the whole of their rejection(less your personal details) because you left out the date it was issued therefore we've no way of knowing whether the discount is still on offer.
Even so, discounted payments are re-offered regularly with unsuccessful formal reps.
-
The way I see this the zone entry signs apply to everywhere except marked bays.
The OP was in a marked bay outside the shops.
There was no sign within the bay and is therefore unrestricted.
In order to issue a PCN the CEO (traffic warden) strolled along the road past the end of the bay to lamp-post 25 which is opposite Thirlemere Gardens and therefore does not apply to the bay.
The council cannot prove there is a a contravention as they have not adequately signed it in line with legal requirements.
Sit and wait for the Notice to Owner.
-
Will this not cost me the full £160 (!!!) if they win? Sorry I am unfamiliar with the process
Well, yes.That is how the process works. The discount is an admittance of the alleged contravention, not just a bonus for early settlement. In the criminal law, pleading guilty usually results in a lighter sentence
-
Will this not cost me the full £160 (!!!) if they win? Sorry I am unfamiliar with the process
-
'The next step is a notice to owner to which you make formal reps.'
So make formal reps and let the authority justify its position: they have to prove, not you disprove.
-
Where can I look to see if they can dispense of bay signs?
-
Is it Wembley Stadium Event Day zone or Wembley Stadium Permit Zone?
There's no provision for 'Event Day zone' in TSRGD.
The burden is on the council to prove that it may dispense with signs in individual bays by placing Permit Zone signs at vehicle entrances.
And what's in 'marked bays'?
-
It's not a CPZ though - it's a 'permit zone'.
There is also the test of whether the event day(s) on the zone entrance can be evidenced by Brent.
https://i.imgur.com/nWHEUkX.png
-
On ** I parked in a parking bay o/s no. 104/106 Windermere Avenue;
This parking bay extends from 104 to 126 Windermere Avenue;
There are 2 lamp columns situated within the bay, these being numbered 26 and 27;
Neither of these carries a traffic sign regarding parking neither is such a sign displayed anywhere within the bay.
At ** on ** a PCN was attached to my car alleging the following contravention: ********;
On *** I made informal representations that the contravention did not occur which were rejected by letter dated *** which gave as its main reason:
The PCN was issued because the car was parked in a permit space or zone without displaying a valid virtual or clearly displaying a valid physical permit.
It therefore falls to the authority to prove that I was parked at a location which required the display etc. of a permit. Its evidence in this regard is a sign stating 'Permit holders in marked bays on event days 10 am - Midnight'. It is an irony which cannot be lost on the authority that this sign (which it must be remembered is its evidence) is situated on lamp column no. 25 which is not even situated in the parking bay, but on a lamp column 30m away from the location.
Of course it lies with the authority as judges in their own cause for the moment to reject these representations in the misguided belief that the provisions of s18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Order (Procedure) Regs do not apply.
I would suggest that an adjudicator would take a different view.
If the authority wishes to enforce the bay o/s 104-126 Windermere Avenue then it is required to place the required traffic sign(s) within the bay (either or both of the otherwise unused lamp columns would suffice) with, in this case, reference to 'Event days'. Without such signage any references to 'Event days' on CPZ signs are irrelevant and cannot as a matter of law create the basis for enforcement of a penalty at the location.
The contravention did not occur.
A bit OTT perhaps, but their complacency and arrogance gets my goat.
-
I think it's worth going but see what Mr Andersen says.
-
So do you think I should just cough up the 80? 😔
-
It's a zone repeater sign as I said earlier.
There is a real PPA in a cup de sac nearby that just says permit holders only on event days and there are no bays beyond.
It's a muddle.
-
This sign says: Permit holders in
marked bays on event days
10 am - Midnight
Although this sign was NOT in my bay it was in other bays. Not sure why the warden photographed and attached that sign if it’s not in my bay.
-
OP, the traffic sign photo in their reply is out of focus.
What does THIS sign say?
-
The next step is a notice to owner to which you make formal reps.
We think they can't have a 'marked bay' without a parking sign.
This in the rejection seems to say it's a permit parking area in part but it's muddle.
(https://imgur.kageurufu.net/Vfd47eT.png)
-
Hi all,
Unsurprisingly they have rejected my appeal. Is it worth taking to tribunal? Their response is attached. Thanks
-
Many thanks
So basically the same case as me, and they won
Do you think I’ll have to take this to tribunal though
-
We've established that it isn't signed or marked as anything that is standard.
It's not a CPZ - they have all kerbsides controlled in some way
It's not a PPA as such - as I said it's sort of a reverse PPA where permit bays are marked, but PPAs have unmarked kerbsides and non-permit holders would have specific signed bays, if any such bays were put in.
It's not an RPZ (restricted parking zone).
Strangely there is nothing in the register for Windermere Avenue since 2013 but there is this - but maybe it was a CPZ back then:
2120129386
I have carefully considered the evidence adduced and I am not satisfied that the signage is adequate. I have heard the Appellant give evidence and I find this account to be credible and reliable, and supported by photographic evidence. I am satisfied that there was no signage in the bay in which his vehicle was parked, that the signage at the beginning of the street (a Controlled Parking Zone sign) would only have any relevance to his vehicle if the bay was marked as a permit bay (which I have found it was not). The parking attendant has produced photographs of the signage, but as they were taken at night it is not possible to establish where they were in relation to where the vehicle was parked.
I therefore allow the appeal.
-
It is NOT a permit parking area because it's marked but doesn't have a traffic sign. In a PPA bays are either UNMARKED parking places reserved for the permit holders on the entrance sign OR may be used by other users in accordance with the traffic sign within the MARKED areas.
You are neither.
Sorry I don’t quite follow. Am I at fault or are the council wrong?
-
Can we get facts in play pl.
A stand-alone parking place indicated by prescribed road markings is situated outside 126-104 Windermere Avenue.
GSV(10 months old) shows that there isn't a traffic sign within or in the vicinity of this parking place.
Therefore there are NO parking restrictions to contravene.
It is NOT a permit parking area because it's marked but doesn't have a traffic sign. In a PPA bays are either UNMARKED parking places reserved for the permit holders on the entrance sign OR may be used by other users in accordance with the traffic sign within the MARKED areas.
You are neither.
-
On google earth you can see the council removed a sign (opposite where I parked) which detailed where and when you could park in the bays
(https://imgur.kageurufu.net/zgZ50G9.jpeg)
-
It's a huge zone and it's worth retracing your route to the parking place. They may not be able to show the event day date was displayed.
If they cannot prove this, is my case void? No way for me to check if there was an event sign displayed as I didn't check at the time
-
Here is my PCN
Thanks for your help
BT25595323
FY20MKC
Brent ticket portal (https://brent.tarantoportal.com/PCN/)
(https://imgur.kageurufu.net/ZDuEUgR.jpeg)
-
It's a huge zone and it's worth retracing your route to the parking place. They may not be able to show the event day date was displayed.
The entry signs refer to marked bays not signed bays, which I'd say is a distinction without a difference to people used to signed parking bays.
The signs in the zone are essentially repeater signs but at least one would expect a clear reminder by a busy area such where the OP was.
Also there is nothing in the zone to check for an event day such as sign plates with an event day hotline.
-
OP, where's the PCN pl?
Leave in your VRM and PCN no. then we can see the council's photos. At present, I'm suffering from information overload, not all of which is relevant.
I've no idea what the 'P' sign wording is, it's certainly not prescribed. Either a sign applies to a bay or an area. If a bay, then it's these markings which give effect to the parking sign, the words 'in marked bays' therefore being redundant, hence not prescribed. If a permit parking area then it's wrong because as an 'area' restriction it has to carry '..past this point or in ** street'.
-
Stongest point is surely that there is no "Next Event" date on the entry sign. There seems to be a mounting plate for it in the photo, so maybe they do put these up, but worth investigating, I think.
-
Assuming you saw my original response to the council - what do you think they will respond with?
I couldn’t find any similar tribunal cases, but did see a case on here but in Barnet, although there was never a follow up post which revealed the outcome of the appeal
-
We've come across these weird Wembley zones before - not a CPZ but a sort of reverse permit parking area as usually in small PPAs the kerbside is unrestricted for residents and marked (and signed) bays are for other purposes (eg pay bays).
The zone looks big - how you're supposed to clock it's an event day from the entry sign and also be aware that all bays are controlled with or without nearby signs I think is poor and open to challenge. It's worth looking at tribunal cases.
(https://imgur.kageurufu.net/nWHEUkX.png)
-
(https://imgur.kageurufu.net/9rLNhyp.png)
Is the council photo. The issue is that this sign was over 30m away and barely noticeable
-
Just added the Google Maps/Earth link
Here is a link to the event day parking restrictions:
https://www.brent.gov.uk/-/media/files/resident-documents/parking-roads-and-transport-document/all-cpzs-map.pdf?rev=edc3b80a2809458bacbbefff27a38c7e (https://www.brent.gov.uk/-/media/files/resident-documents/parking-roads-and-transport-document/all-cpzs-map.pdf?rev=edc3b80a2809458bacbbefff27a38c7e)
(https://imgur.kageurufu.net/aWttTsO.jpeg)
I parked in the highlighted area
-
The sign you posted looks like a permit parking area not a CPZ.
What is the Google Maps location and are there more council pics with any signage.
-
Hi
Just came across this website.
Unfortunately I have already sent my challenge off to the council, but thought it would still be useful to share my case below.
I parked within a CPZ on an event day, in a bay with no clear signage within 30m. I now have a ticket for £160, or £80 if I pay within 14 days.
My challenge is below:
Dear Sir/Madam, Re: PCN xxxxxxxxx, Issued on 7 June 2025 – Windermere Avenue
I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), issued on 7 June 2025 on Windermere Avenue. I believe the PCN was issued unfairly due to unclear and inadequate signage.
I was surprised and disappointed to receive the notice, as I made every effort to park responsibly and within what I believed were unrestricted conditions. On 7 June, I parked on the left-hand side of Windermere Avenue near the shops, having carefully checked around my bay for any parking restrictions. While I did notice a permit holders only sign near the station as I drove up the road, its positioning - set back from Windermere Avenue - and angle suggested it applied only to the small road behind it, not the main stretch of Windermere Avenue where I parked.
No permit-related signage was visible near my bay. The only parking sign nearby referred to electric vehicle charging and did not indicate any permit requirement on either side of the road. I also observed other vehicles parked nearby without permits, none of which were ticketed at the time, or upon my return — further adding to the confusion.
After receiving the PCN, I used Google Earth to measure the distance to the nearest relevant sign, which is over 35 metres away. This sign is also angled parallel to the direction of traffic on Windermere Road, making it extremely difficult to see or read - especially when driving along the same side of the road as the shops. Please see the attached photo for reference.
Under section 3.14 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD), "a single sign must be clearly visible and not compromise enforcement or safety, with two signs preferable where visibility is limited." The sign’s placement fails this standard, rendering the restriction unclear and unenforceable.
While I understand that Controlled Parking Zones are usually marked by entry signs, the presence of occasional signs within the zone creates a reasonable expectation that local signage will clarify restrictions - particularly for drivers unfamiliar with the area, like myself. I contend that the signage does not meet the legal requirement for clear visibility as per TSRGD 2016.
Had the restriction been clearly indicated at the bay, I evidently would not have parked there.
In addition, I am <young> and work as a xxxxx. I also work weekend shifts as xxxxx to save for university in London next year. The £80 fine (or £160 if unpaid within the discount period) represents a significant financial burden, equivalent to over a day’s pay.
I respectfully request cancellation of this PCN due to inadequate signage. I hope you will exercise discretion given my circumstances.
Yours sincerely,
xxxxxx
Images are below:
(https://imgur.kageurufu.net/KAfewq5.jpeg)
(https://imgur.kageurufu.net/f7wkZvp.jpeg)
(https://imgur.kageurufu.net/5vWIa3H.jpeg)
(https://imgur.kageurufu.net/yWpLJDE.jpeg)
From Brent's own CPZ FAQ's:
(https://imgur.kageurufu.net/WSngvOG.png)
Which implies all the signage should be clearly marked
Looking forward to hearing from you all
Thanks in advance!
Videos:
https://imgur.com/W67Y2nC (https://imgur.com/W67Y2nC)
https://imgur.com/W67Y2nC (https://imgur.com/W67Y2nC)
Location:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RKAsZgZESU84r42D8