Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: wolzal on June 10, 2025, 04:43:23 pm
-
This is beautiful Stamfordman.
From memory, my hearing is in May - so I'll examine this in more detail closer to the date. But this fills me full of optimism!
EDIT: Am I able to contact the council directly now and say "you lost this appeal under the exact same circumstances - I would ask you reconsider whether you wish to pursue this?"
If not, how do I incorporate this into my appeal?
-
Case reference 2250451308
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM LM15MZL
PCN Details
PCN IZ35588904
Contravention date 06 Jun 2025
Contravention time 18:41:00
Contravention location Roman Way
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 08 Jan 2026
Adjudicator Chez Cotton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Introduction
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for being parked in a resident/shared use bay without a valid permit (Code 12).
2. This a postal appeal.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is that the signage in place is inadequate. The Appellant noted the general restrictions operating Monday to Friday and parked accordingly. The Appellant discounted the additional restrictions on a ‘Match Day’ as it was 6 June, and so outside of the football season.
4. In these circumstances the Appellant asks for the PCN to be cancelled.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
5. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on photographic evidence to show the contravention occurred. A plan of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) area with the addition of ‘next match Fri 6, Sat 7 Jun’ added at the bottom has also been provided. The EA says this shows the restriction is signed and clear, and, further, enforceable under a valid Traffic Management Order (TMO), a copy of which is provided.
6. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations. The EA state, ‘While the appellant states that the contravention occurred outside of football season, all drivers should be aware that much day restrictions can be implemented when there is a large crowd of people expected to attend the stadium. The controls that are put in place, are for events and not just matches. In this case clear signage had been placed to indicate to drivers that much day controls were in place.’
7. The EA does not wish to exercise their discretion.
8. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
9. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully.
10. Based on the photographic evidence footage provided, and additional evidential materials from the EA, I am satisfied the Appellant’s vehicle was in the relevant location, at the relevant time. I am further satisfied that if a contravention has occurred, it is enforceable by way of a valid Traffic Management Order, which I have seen.
11. The question I must decide relates to whether the signage in place was substantially compliant, clear and adequate. In this respect I note the signage at the relevant location refers to ‘Match day only – additional controls’. On balance, I consider a reasonably conscientious motorist would understand this to mean a football match, given the proximity to Arsenal Emirates. While I consider it might be argued that ‘event day’, incorporates a match, I am not persuaded that the reverse is true. On balance, I reject the EA’s argument that ‘match day’ reasonably incorporates ‘events and matches.’
12. I move to the EA’s point that it is the CPZ signage that is the primary source of information for a motorist, and that this is updated to show the next event day. In relation to the photograph of the signage provided, I note that underneath the CPZ circular icon, there are four additional information plates, each containing different restriction times and days. On balance, I find the addition of a small sign setting out the next match date, underneath three already dense information plates, to be inadequate to warn a reasonably conscientious motorist.
13. Further, the EA has provided no information as to the location of the CPZ in relation to where the Appellant’s vehicle is parked, or any evidence that the Appellant might have seen a CPZ sign in any event.
14. For the reasons outlined, on balance, I do not find the relevant signage to be substantially compliant, clear and adequate.
15. For these reasons I find a contravention did not occur and the PCN has not been validly issued.
Decision
16. The appeal is allowed.
-
It appears I've been given a date for May 2026 over video call.
Appears or have been given?
We have a long wait to receive their evidence to the Tribunal i.e. 7 days prior to 'a date in May'.
Didn't get an email update about it, but that's what it says when I logged in to their portal to see if I could edit what I had submitted.
-
It appears I've been given a date for May 2026 over video call.
Appears or have been given?
We have a long wait to receive their evidence to the Tribunal i.e. 7 days prior to 'a date in May'.
-
You've appealed to London Tribunals?
All you had to do was register the appeal - there was no need to send anything at this stage.
Yeah. I didn't realise that was an option, I did the full thing.
It appears I've been given a date for May 2026 over video call.
-
You've appealed to London Tribunals?
All you had to do was register the appeal - there was no need to send anything at this stage.
One vital thing though is to put for a telephone or Microsoft Teams hearing.
-
I submitted a hastily written appeal last night before midnight to get one in before the deadline covering all the points on here, including the bit about my contention on there being no signage about the event in the CPZ boundaries. With that said, am I still able to edit what I submitted?
Apologies for being flip-floppy, but what you have all brought up recently is actually quite a bit more compelling than what was discussed before. One of my issues around this PCN being issued, while not the main issue, was the fact that there was no photographic evidence included in the PCN which detailed the specific event. I wasn't aware until now that the council is obliged to have signage regarding the event on the CPZ boundaries.
It wouldn't exactly be hard for a council to take photograhps of these signs when they send people out to update them to be included in the evidence bundle of any PCNs being issued in relation to that event, so the fact that I am contending that there was no such signage, and the council is unable to provide evidence to the contrary - does this not mean my appeal should be allowed based on the case referenced by Stamfordman?
Also, I would appreciate everyone's opinion on the councils contention that they are not obliged to change the signage in the borough to reflect the various different events that may be taking place as all the signage in the borough is compliant with the Department of Transport's traffic signs regulations and general directions.
I find this to be a bit of a bullshit argument because to me, they are suggesting that the TSRGD says it is ok to use the term 'Match Day' to cover events. If my interpretation is correct, the TSRGD does no such thing. The only time the word 'Match' is mentioned in the TSRGD is to say the following;
5. The expressions “Match”, “match”, “Event”, “event”, “Market”, “market”, “Day”, “day”,
“On”, “on”, any of those expressions in the plural or the expression “Next” or that expression
without a capital letter may be used with any of the expressions permitted by paragraph 1, 2, 3 or
4 as appropriate.
All this is doing is setting out to the local authority what terms are acceptable to use on their signage. It is not stating that any one of the terms are interchangable with all of the others. If we were to accept Islington's interpretation of the TSRGD, they could place the term 'Market Day' on their signs next to local stadiums and use them to enforce parking restrictions during football matches, or put 'Match Day' on signs on roads next to Market Places.
The signage would be compliant with a literal interpretation of what is acceptable as set out by the TSRGD - but this surely wouldn't make any sense? Surely the Local Authority is expected to pick out which of the acceptable terms is most appropriate for what the signs are enforcing?
I'd appreciate the thoughts of anyone who is willing to offer an opinion, as what has been contributed recently makes it seem like this may actually be worth following through.
-
I suspect he would have accepted this argument had appellant had brought it up,
The Appellant's case is basically that a 'Match Day' cannot include a concert.
-
I think we're in danger of reading too much into that decision on the meaning of "match day".
While Carl Teper might not "have jurisdiction to strike down the Traffic Management Order as invalid, nor can I disregard a statutory definition on the basis of fairness or otherwise" he does have the ability (and duty) to determine if the signage accurately conveys the contents of the TMO to a diligent motorist, which it does not. If not, then we're in a ludicrous situation where councils can dispense with signage entirely.
I suspect he would have accepted this argument had appellant had brought it up, but didn't need to go there on this occasion because he'd already ruled in the appellant's favour.
-
A fair few appeals are won on councils not being able to show entry signage to CPZs is satisfactory. I still think the word match fails at the roadside especially when a quick check is made with their website.
The entry signage does only control yellow lines. One other thing an adjudicator has noted is that authorisation for event days may be for one event and councils shouldn't list two upcoming events as I think Islington does but this would require some research.
What's important though is to stick to process within deadlines and if it were me I'd register the appeal and withdraw it if they say they'll reinstate the discount following your message.
-
Hang on - just read that last case you shared.
Am I correct in understanding that the appellant won the case because the council could not prove that the relevant signage about the match/event was present at the boundaries of the CP zones?
Isn't that applicable to my case?
-
The timeframe is for paying or appealing to the tribunal not for raising issues with the council.
-
You had an NTO did you not and then a rejection letter? Did you try and pay within the time they said?
Essentially yes. The rejection letter offered me the discounted rate of £55, but on their website it wants £110.
I submitted their contact form within the time frame, but no response yet.
I guess I'll just mention this is why my appeal was submitted late if Islington try to backtrack on their discount offer.
-
You had an NTO did you not and then a rejection letter? Did you try and pay within the time they said?
Generally you must register an appeal at the tribunal or pay by the rejection letter deadline otherwise you could get a charge certificate.
If they've messed up, the tribunal will probably allow the appeal or instruct Islington to accept the discounted penalty.
But if they say it's on hold I guess you can trust them...
-
Just a quick question - the reason I decided to abandon the appeal and pay the fine now was because their last letter 28 days ago said I could still pay the discounted fine of £55.
When I logged on to their website to pay it, it was still demanding a payment of £110. The letter also says I need to submit my appeal within 28 days, which is today.
I used their contact form to raise this, and the automated response said;
We can confirm that we have received your correspondence which will be attached to this case. The PCN will be placed on hold until we reply, which will be within 56 days.
Does this still apply even though it is not in response to the initial PCN nor the Notice to Owner which I had already responded to?
Just don't want to end up getting caught out and missing the appeal deadline on a technicality.
-
So we have an adjudicated case on match day.
I am disappointed with the adjudicator - I really don't think it's on for authorities to play fast and loose with the English language just because they've got a traffic order that is inaccessible to a motorist at the roadside.
The start of the website wording didn't come up here.
What did come up is the location of zone entry signage and I think Mr Teper was looking for something to allow this but felt his hands were tied by the traffic order.
-------------
Case reference 2250483767
Appellant Linton Davies
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM LO21XZN
PCN Details
PCN IZ35631989
Contravention date 07 Jun 2025
Contravention time 13:06:00
Contravention location Leigh Road
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 27 Oct 2025
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The Appellant has attended his appeal by video link, the Authority was not represented.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required, or without payment of the parking charge when in Leigh Road on 7 June 2025 at 13.06.
The Appellant's case is basically that a 'Match Day' cannot include a concert.
The Authority in this case alleges a contravention of match day restrictions, and they rely on CPZ boundary signs to bring match days to the attention of motorists. CPZ boundary signs indicate the restrictions applicable to waiting restrictions i.e. yellow lines, in a CPZ any designated parking places will only be subject to the restrictions indicates on the sign for each bay, it is not immediately clear that the Authority is entitled to rely on CPZ boundary signs to convey a restriction that has effect within a bay. However , because the point was not pursued and I did not hear any arguments on this issue, I make no findings on that and I proceed on the basis that in principle a CPZ sign can be used to inform a motorist of event zone restrictions within a designated parking place.
Even if I make such an assumption in the Authority's favour, I cannot be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that any contravention occurred. I find as a fact that the Appellant was not aware that the day in question was a Match Day, this is not determinative but it does raise the issue of whether the fact that it was a Match Day was brought to the attention of persons using the road by traffic signs that were both substantially compliant with the regulations and also adequate within the meaning of regulation 18(1) of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
The Authority has provided a single photo of a CPZ sign dated 4 June 2025, if the Authority could show that the Appellant must have passed this sign then the Appellant might have been in some difficulty. However, I do not see how the Authority can establish that the Appellant must have passed this sign. The Authority's case summary states that: "The Appellant has not indicated their direction of travel, however the EA has provided an image of the CPZ sign displayed on Leigh Road. The CPZ sign clearly shows that additional controls would be in force on 7 June 2025 (evidence J)."
It is not for an Appellant to provide information that could assist the Authority, and the evidential requirements for zone restrictions have been spelt out by Adjudicator Greenslade in Commercial Plant Services Ltd v London Councils (2230131417, 3 May 2023), I adopt that approach. It is possible that the Appellant might have passed that particular sign, but the Authority has not persuaded me that it is more likely than not that he did.
I therefore find as a fact that the signage was not adequate within the meaning of regulation 18(1) because I cannot be satisfied that the Appellant passed any sign that would have informed him that 7 June 2025 was a match day, I further find that a contravention did not occur.
I would not have accepted the Appellant's arguments around the definition of a Match Day, I am bound to apply the statutory definition of a match day found in the traffic management order, which provides that the term "match day": means a day on which an event is taking place or which is planned to take place at the Arsenal FC Emirates Stadium, Hornsey Road, London N7 which:
(a) under normal circumstances, would have an expected attendance of 10,000 persons or more, not including any staff or contractors engaged in either the operation or management of the aforementioned stadium or event; or
(b) is any other event at that stadium that the Council deem should be treated as though it were an event specified in sub-paragraph (i) above for the purposes of the application of the provisions of this Order;
While I accept the Appellant feels aggrieved by the Authority using the term "match day" to cover events other than matches, I do not have jurisdiction to strike down the Traffic Management Order as invalid, nor can I disregard a statutory definition on the basis of fairness or otherwise: by virtue of Part VI of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with any challenge to "the validity of, or of any provision contained in, an order to which this Part of this Schedule applies", I further note that the time limit for any such challenge to be brought has long since expired.
The appeal is allowed.
-
If it were me I'd take it to the tribunal but I'd be willing to punt £55. Outside London in England/Wales this penalty is still only £50, £25 at discount.
Maybe we need a fighting fund to pay the discounted penalty of selected cases if lost.
-
OP, thanks.
These bits were provided, I just didn't include them as I assumed it's pretty similar to all the other ones they send out.
Where? Post the full NOR. NB. it is the NOR which is mandated to include this reference i.e. the letter above the signature block, NOT enclosures.
If I remember correctly:
Should ALL restrictions be signed comprehensively? Yes. This includes SYL and parking bays.
Are there exceptions? Yes. Adjudicators accept that the balance of practical v mandatory should be relaxed in the case of 'match days' additions to signs in that these dates may be displayed clearly on the relevant ZONE entry signs. It must therefore follow that if a sign does NOT carry a permit identifier then where should a motorist be looking for this information?
OP, I can't see their photographic evidence clearly enough to determine whether a zone identifier was present.
-
Thanks for your responses.
My position is that unless someone here can tell me that this is definitely worth pursuing as I'd very likely win on appeal, then I'd much rather just pay the £55 now so I can move on and forget about this. My heart just isn't in it anymore.
OK, fair enough, it's your money at risk, after all. Although we can give some indication of whether an appeal will succeed or not, in your case it is certainly not what we call a "slam-dunk" win case.
-
Thanks for your responses.
My position is that unless someone here can tell me that this is definitely worth pursuing as I'd very likely win on appeal, then I'd much rather just pay the £55 now so I can move on and forget about this. My heart just isn't in it anymore.
-
This is what you see at the top of their Emirates parking page - if you're checking at the roadside on a phone I'm not sure you'd look further.
When is a match not a match? It's a fiddle.
(https://i.ibb.co/cc4gbcNv/Screenshot-2025-10-12-at-18-51-58.png)
-
In your case, IMO, in order to help you reach a decision pl deal with these questions:
Did the bay in which you were parked stipulate the permit identifier (and therefore zone in which it is located) conditions and restricted hours on 'match days'?
Did you pass a sign into this zone stating that the day on which you parked was a 'match day'?
Did you comply?
Did you consult any other source of information regarding 'match days' before or after you received the PCN?
If before, why?
[/i]
Did the bay in which you were parked stipulate the permit identifier (and therefore zone in which it is located) conditions and restricted hours on 'match days'?
It mentions the location code for paying over the phone in the image I posted on page 1. It doesn't mention anything regarding a zone from what I can tell.
Did you pass a sign into this zone stating that the day on which you parked was a 'match day'?
I'm afraid I cannot remember the route I would have taken into the zone. All I can remember is not seeing a sign at the time (it was raining pretty heavily at the time).
Did you comply?
See above
Did you consult any other source of information regarding 'match days' before or after you received the PCN?
At the time of parking, I checked to see if there were any matches taking place at the Emirates stadium (which there were not) by checking online. I didn't check for events because the signage on the roadside didn't suggest events would be included. I've never been in this situation before so I thought that would be enough.
If before, why?
As the signage indicated that the restrictions would be enforced if a match were taking place.
-
IMO, there's a defect in the NOR in that it does not inform you correctly of your rights of appeal. These are:
1. That an appeal may be made within the period of 28 days beginning on the date of service. In this case, 'may be made' takes on a legal meaning which is that reps so made and if in correct form MUST be registered by the tribunal AND such registration prevents the council from increasing the penalty and serving a Charge Certificate; and
2. That an appeal may be submitted to the adjudicator after the 28-day period has elapsed who may at their sole discretion register such an appeal with the effect that if the council have not served a CC they may not then do so and if they have then this must be cancelled.
2 is missing.
IMO, 2 is as important as 1 because there can be a whole host of valid reasons why an appeal is not submitted within 28 days e.g. NOR not delivered, recipient not able to deal with matter for reasons beyond their control such as illness, hospital confinement and possibly extended holidays abroad. Add to this the fact that as a matter of regular practice the Tribunal will accept appeals submitted after the end of the 28-day period. Whatever the reason which might apply, it does not lie with the authority to omit bringing this to the attention of the recipient as the law requires.
[/i]
These bits were provided, I just didn't include them as I assumed it's pretty similar to all the other ones they send out.
-
I would refer you to the decision posted on 23 August by stamfordman.
This goes on about this and that and websites and ends:
..The Enforcement Authority have provided an image of a sign on Gillespie Road showing the match day but there is no evidence that the Appellant entered Plimsoll Road from Gillespie Road. I am not satisfied that the Enforcement Authority have provided adequate evidence of the signage relating to this restriction. On that basis[I would add and no other], I allow this appeal.
In other words, allowed only because the adjudicator did not believe that the authority had offered 'adequate evidence of signage' because, in that case, the owner had told them they entered the zone from road A and the authority produced evidence of road B. Whether they were swayed in reaching this decision by other factors, who knows?
In your case, IMO, in order to help you reach a decision pl deal with these questions:
Did the bay in which you were parked stipulate the permit identifier (and therefore zone in which it is located) conditions and restricted hours on 'match days'?
Did you pass a sign into this zone stating that the day on which you parked was a 'match day'?
Did you comply?
Did you consult any other source of information regarding 'match days' before or after you received the PCN?
If before, why?
IMO, there's a defect in the NOR in that it does not inform you correctly of your rights of appeal. These are:
1. That an appeal may be made within the period of 28 days beginning on the date of service. In this case, 'may be made' takes on a legal meaning which is that reps so made and if in correct form MUST be registered by the tribunal AND such registration prevents the council from increasing the penalty and serving a Charge Certificate; and
2. That an appeal may be submitted to the adjudicator after the 28-day period has elapsed who may at their sole discretion register such an appeal with the effect that if the council have not served a CC they may not then do so and if they have then this must be cancelled.
2 is missing.
IMO, 2 is as important as 1 because there can be a whole host of valid reasons why an appeal is not submitted within 28 days e.g. NOR not delivered, recipient not able to deal with matter for reasons beyond their control such as illness, hospital confinement and possibly extended holidays abroad. Add to this the fact that as a matter of regular practice the Tribunal will accept appeals submitted after the end of the 28-day period. Whatever the reason which might apply, it does not lie with the authority to omit bringing this to the attention of the recipient as the law requires.
-
Post the full rejection letter. I think they are on sticky ground here but understand your caution. But unless we test these cases ar the tribunal it's hard to hold authorities to account. Here Islington obviously doesn't want to spend on changing signs. There's a good chance they wouldn't contest this in my view.
Here you are;
(https://i.ibb.co/wfhh3Q0/PCN9.png) (https://ibb.co/gxZZHWj)
(https://i.ibb.co/cSHDVMhz/PCN10.png) (https://ibb.co/jP2gsBk7)
(https://i.ibb.co/ZpYLqPC6/PCN11.png) (https://ibb.co/HfxF5sQD)
-
No don't use imgur. I use https://imgbb.com/ but set uploads not to auto delete.
-
Post the full rejection letter. I think they are on sticky ground here but understand your caution. But unless we test these cases ar the tribunal it's hard to hold authorities to account. Here Islington obviously doesn't want to spend on changing signs. There's a good chance they wouldn't contest this in my view.
Are we still using Imgur to upload images or moved on to another platform because of OSA?
-
Post the full rejection letter. I think they are on sticky ground here but understand your caution. But unless we test these cases ar the tribunal it's hard to hold authorities to account. Here Islington obviously doesn't want to spend on changing signs. There's a good chance they wouldn't contest this in my view.
-
Good Afternoon all - this will likely be my final update.
In short, the latest update in the post today is that they've maintained their stance that the PCN was issued correctly; adding that the signage is in compliance with the Department of Transport's Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.
They've given me the option to again either pay the fine or appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.
Importantly, they've once again offered me the opportunity to pay at the discounted rate of £55.
To be honest, it's been quite stressful each time I get an update about this in the post. It's now gotten to the point where I'd happily pay the £55 simply not to think about this matter anymore.
Quite simply, even if my grounds for appeal are sound (which there is no guarentee of), my desire to see this through to the end has diminished singificantly.
Thanks to everyone who commented on this thread, particularly stamfordman. I really appreciate all your help. Sorry this one ended up being a bit of an anticlimax.
-
I can't think of anything else to say - wait for others. There is the issue of passing CPZ entry signs but they just say next match day(s) and hard to clock and don't apply to parking bays anyway, where you'd read the sign and check.
NTO dated 22 August.
--------------
Dear Islington,
I am not satisfied that you have successfully redefined the word 'match' as a pop concert to enforce this PCN and I am making representations that the contravention did not occur according to the sign in the parking place.
A match as all online dictionaries I have consulted is a sports fixture between teams or people, and as far as I know Robbie Williams was not competing with anyone at tennis, football or any sport. I'm sure you agree we can dispense with other definitions of match - a flammable stick, or a person suited to another person for example.
I conducted due diligence to check matches at the Emirates stadium, which is the home of the Arsenal football club, and saw there was no home fixture on that day.
You refer to your website but the very first line I saw when searching 'Islington match days' is:
Emirates Stadium restrictions
"Find out about additional parking restrictions on Arsenal home match days."
I put it to you that this is what it says on the tin and no reasonable authority would expect anyone to explore further after also checking for men's and women's home football fixtures, of which there were none on this day.
The contravention has not occurred and I look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
-
I'll draft reps for you. There's no rush - bump if I've not done it in a few days.
Hey - still up for doing this. I guess I'm still within the time frame to respond? Almost completely forgot about it!
-
I'll draft reps for you. There's no rush - bump if I've not done it in a few days.
Really appreciate that. Thanks so much for doing this and all of your assistance so far! :)
-
I'll draft reps for you. There's no rush - bump if I've not done it in a few days.
-
Here's a case won that was actually a match - but a women's fixture.
Your reps need to address Islington's insistence in its initial rejection that a match is sometimes not a match but something entirely different in you case.
---------------
Case reference 2250196765
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM CA14CFU
PCN Details
PCN IZ3342389A
Contravention date 08 Dec 2024
Contravention time 13:01:00
Contravention location Plimsoll Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 18 Aug 2025
Adjudicator Herjinder Mann
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons 1. This is a postal appeal against a penalty charge notice.
2. The Appellant states that he parked in a bay in Plimsoll Road on the 7th December to stay with family until the 10th December 2024, He explains that he got visitor vouchers for Zone H. He checked the Islington Council website for match day restrictions. This website provided a link for Arsenal’s website, which showed that they were playing away at Fulham.
3. The Enforcement Authority state the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in a resident permit holders parking bay without a valid permit on the 8th December 2024 at 13:01. They say that this date was an Arsenal Women’s match day. They have provided an image on Gillespie Road, which shows the match day information.
4. The Appellant has provided a number of visitor permits. They appear to be for the 7th December, 9th December and 10th December 2024.
5. The 8th December was a Sunday. The Islington council website shows that to find out about additional parking restrictions for Arsenal on home match days, that users should access the Arsenal website. The Appellant has provided a screenshot that this showed that Arsenal was playing away. The Enforcement Authority have not provided any evidence that this date was showing as a match day on their own or Arsenal’s website.
6. I find that the Appellant did carry out an adequate check to see if this was a match day. The Enforcement Authority have provided an image of a sign on Gillespie Road showing the match day but there is no evidence that the Appellant entered Plimsoll Road from Gillespie Road. I am not satisfied that the Enforcement Authority have provided adequate evidence of the signage relating to this restriction. On that basis, I allow this appeal.
Thanks for this. This is somewhat encouraging, albeit there are significant differences between this case and mine.
To be honest, I would appreciate any assistance from any who are willing in drafting my arguments for this as I'd really like to get it right.
-
You must respond to the NtO, or it's game over. Just post your original reps.
This was my original response;
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally challenge Penalty Charge Notice [IZ35607033], issued for parking on Highbury Station Road at approximately 16:00 on Saturday 7th June 2025.
According to signage on the road, additional parking restrictions apply on “Match Days Only.” At the time of parking, I was aware of these restrictions and checked online to confirm whether a football match or sporting fixture was scheduled at Emirates Stadium that day. Upon finding that there were no matches taking place, I reasonably concluded that the restrictions did not apply and that I was permitted to park.
However, I later learned the PCN was issued on the basis that a Robbie Williams concert was taking place at the stadium, and that this was being treated as a “match day.” This seems both misleading and unreasonable.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a match as:
“(especially British English) a sports event where people or teams compete against each other.”
A Robbie Williams concert is clearly not a match under any conventional understanding of the term. I do not believe it is reasonable for a motorist to be expected to interpret “match” as including concerts or other non-sporting events. The use of the term “match” inherently limits the restriction to sporting fixtures, and a reasonable person would rely on that plain meaning when deciding whether they are in compliance.
To add further confusion, I later had to drive to Haringey that same day, where signage explicitly stated “Event Day Restrictions,” making clear that concerts and other events were covered. The contrast between boroughs in terms of clarity is striking. It is clear Haringey has adopted transparent language to prevent confusion, while Islington’s ambiguous use of “match” creates unnecessary uncertainty.
To support my position, I will be including two photographs demonstrating how Hackney Council amended its signs between April 2018 and March 2019, changing the term from “Match Days Only” to “Event Days Only.” This shows that other London boroughs have acknowledged the ambiguity of “match” and acted to make their signage clearer and fairer to motorists.
I would also like to note that I have always paid PCNs in the past where I have been at fault. I do not make a habit of appealing without cause. However, in this instance, I feel genuinely misled by the signage, and I fully intend to follow this process through to tribunal if necessary. I believe I have acted reasonably and in good faith, and I am confident that any adjudicator will agree that it is not acceptable to move the goalposts and retrospectively apply restrictions based on an interpretation of “match” that no ordinary person would hold.
Lastly, I have seen forum posts stating that signage at the entry to streets affected by match day restrictions should include advance notice of upcoming events. I can confirm that no such signage was present when I parked, and Google Street View confirms that this road does not carry an advance warning board at its entrance. I can only assume that if any such signage were present, the parking warden would have included it as part of their evidence bundle.
In summary, this PCN should be cancelled on the grounds that the restriction was not clearly communicated, and the definition of “match” cannot reasonably be stretched to include concerts without explicit clarification.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/1A9zOdf.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/orixWfc.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/q4A7hjf.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/gDZsO3u.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/pALryyo.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GhFVM0w.jpeg)
-
Here's a case won that was actually a match - but a women's fixture.
Your reps need to address Islington's insistence in its initial rejection that a match is sometimes not a match but something entirely different in you case.
---------------
Case reference 2250196765
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM CA14CFU
PCN Details
PCN IZ3342389A
Contravention date 08 Dec 2024
Contravention time 13:01:00
Contravention location Plimsoll Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 18 Aug 2025
Adjudicator Herjinder Mann
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons 1. This is a postal appeal against a penalty charge notice.
2. The Appellant states that he parked in a bay in Plimsoll Road on the 7th December to stay with family until the 10th December 2024, He explains that he got visitor vouchers for Zone H. He checked the Islington Council website for match day restrictions. This website provided a link for Arsenal’s website, which showed that they were playing away at Fulham.
3. The Enforcement Authority state the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in a resident permit holders parking bay without a valid permit on the 8th December 2024 at 13:01. They say that this date was an Arsenal Women’s match day. They have provided an image on Gillespie Road, which shows the match day information.
4. The Appellant has provided a number of visitor permits. They appear to be for the 7th December, 9th December and 10th December 2024.
5. The 8th December was a Sunday. The Islington council website shows that to find out about additional parking restrictions for Arsenal on home match days, that users should access the Arsenal website. The Appellant has provided a screenshot that this showed that Arsenal was playing away. The Enforcement Authority have not provided any evidence that this date was showing as a match day on their own or Arsenal’s website.
6. I find that the Appellant did carry out an adequate check to see if this was a match day. The Enforcement Authority have provided an image of a sign on Gillespie Road showing the match day but there is no evidence that the Appellant entered Plimsoll Road from Gillespie Road. I am not satisfied that the Enforcement Authority have provided adequate evidence of the signage relating to this restriction. On that basis, I allow this appeal.
-
I've just received the Notice to Owner in the post. Do I still make representations even though I challenged the PCN earlier? If I do, is it just copy/paste what I submitted previously?
Any guidance would be appreciated as this is my first time going down this process.
You must respond to the NtO, or it's game over. Just post your original reps.
-
Please post up all sides of the NtO - just redact yr name & address - leave all else in.
-
I've just received the Notice to Owner in the post. Do I still make representations even though I challenged the PCN earlier? If I do, is it just copy/paste what I submitted previously?
Any guidance would be appreciated as this is my first time going down this process.
-
If it were me I'd go on with it but I would be happy to punt the extra £55 in a double or nothing gamble if they force it to the tribunal as I think an adjudicator would be persuaded by the word match and what you see on the top of the webpage Islington refers to.
Selfishly I'd like to see Islington tested on this.
-
I cited that case for fun - while some would much prefer chicken wings over Robbie Williams, I think he got far more than 10,000 for his show.
The point really is that while they've redefined match as event in the order, the basic test of signage at the bay stands as match.
It's 1-0 to the Arsenal, not Robbie (who is the president of the mighty Port Vale FC).
So you're still of the opinion I shouldn't pay? If so, I'll probably continue to contest it unless there are any further dissenting opinions on here.
-
I cited that case for fun - while some would much prefer chicken wings over Robbie Williams, I think he got far more than 10,000 for his show.
The point really is that while they've redefined match as event in the order, the basic test of signage at the bay stands as match.
It's 1-0 to the Arsenal, not Robbie (who is the president of the mighty Port Vale FC).
-
Thanks for sharing that example.
If the first test is to see if the penalty was in line with the TMO - will I not have the problem that the TMO conditions for a match day are somewhat clearer in my case than in the example you gave? i.e. that a Robbie Williams concert would satisify category A (or b for that matter).
-
There was no match at the stadium on that day. Words mean something on traffic signs.
A sort of related case below.
---------
Case reference 2240509048
Appellant Mohammed Khan
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM J444MRN
PCN Details
PCN PN39339866
Contravention date 28 Jul 2024
Contravention time 16:16:00
Contravention location Leytonstone Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked for longer than permitted
Referral date -
Decision Date 08 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons I heard this appeal by telephone speaking to the Appellant’s representative Mr Dishman. His case is essentially that the sale of chicken does not amount to an event day and that the signage indicating the presence of an event day was in adequate. The onus is on the Council to prove that the day was an event day in law and that this fact was clearly and correctly indicated.
An event day is defined in the Traffic Management Order provided by the Council as (so far as is relevant to the present case) “any other sporting or non-sporting activity which in the opinion of the Traffic Manager for the London Borough of Newham is likely to benefit from the scheme being in force”. There seems to me to be no evidence from such a person that he/she formed that opinion. In the circumstances I am unable to be satisfied the day in question was an event day within the meaning of the TMO and the Appeal must be allowed on that ground alone.
(It is therefore unnecessary to consider whether the signage in place on the route described by the Appellant was sufficiently clear – something which might well have necessitated an adjournment for the Council and/or the appellant to provide photographic evidence of the particular sign passed and its location.)
-
So is it better I pay or should I continue with my intention to contest this? You've both raised points that don't exactly work in my favour.
I don't want to give these bastards money - but I'm wondering now if it's better to cut my losses and take the discounted penalty if my chances of success at adjudication/appeal are in doubt.
-
The traffic order defines match day as below as an event, and then the term match day is used throughout. I think this is a cop-out because Islington doesn't want to pay to update the signage. There is also the rather wooly definition of event (how would you know about 10,000+) and 'the Council deem should be treated'.
"match day" where referred to in the map schedule legend in relation to the
permitted hours, prescribed hours, restricted hours or no stopping hours, as
the case may be, of a parking place or loading place, or of a length of waiting,
loading or stopping restrictions, means a day on which an event is taking
place or which is planned to take place at the Arsenal FC Emirates Stadium,
Hornsey Road, London N7 which:
(a) under normal circumstances, would have an expected attendance of
10,000 persons or more, not including any staff or contractors engaged
in either the operation or management of the aforementioned stadium
or event; or
(b) is any other event at that stadium that the Council deem should be
treated as though it were an event specified in sub-paragraph (i) above
for the purposes of the application of the provisions of this Order;
Order:
https://www.islington.gov.uk/-/media/sharepoint-lists/public-records/transportandinfrastructure/parking/2023-consolidation-order/made-orders/charged-pps.pdf?la=en&hash=64698EEAAE1E4724745F00DDD948CE0FA6E5BAD5
-
The next match day signs (or event day in other councils) are on the controlled zone entry signs, which control only single yellow lines.
Some adjudicators have found this is not good enough to determine parking restrictions in parking bays.
But I think the match day signs in the parking bays are unambiguous and cannot apply to a pop concert. What's happened is that Islington added the match day plates for Arsenal men's home team matches and has since extended it to events other than sport.
Let's say you did manage to see the zone entry sign - when you parked you'd check if it was a match. It wasn't.
I'll see if I can dig out the traffic order.
-
You can see a map of the CPZs here
https://www.islington.gov.uk/-/media/sharepoint-lists/public-records/transportandinfrastructure/information/maps/20192020/20190501cpzmap.pdf?la=en&hash=279CB44454DF2CEC4601EBC639FF998C06463A97
The signs should be at the boundary of the zone you were in.
-
'At the entrance of Highbury....' is not the test. Did the CPZ entry signs carry this info?
****....Seems the border of the CPZ on the north and south side of Liverpool Road have such signs.
Guess I'm **** and better off to pay then?
-
There is no signage at the entrance of Highbury Station road to indicate the specific restrictions as they state
'At the entrance of Highbury....' is not the test. Did the CPZ entry signs carry this info?
-
As the regs state: 'The expressions “Match”, “match”, “Event”, “event”, “Market”, “market”, “Day”, “day”, “On”, “on”, any of those expressions..'
The word(s) are 'expressions' and not to be disregarded on a whim by a motorist who decides that the 'expression' doesn't meet their standard of accuracy.
Ah, I wasn't aware of this. If this is the case, then that undermines my argument significantly.
'There would also be signage at entry points to the Controlled Zone up to three days prior to the event.'
Was there? This is the issue IMO.
This was part of my challenge. There is no signage at the entrance of Highbury Station road to indicate the specific restrictions as they state. This is apparent on google street view that there are no signs where such signage would be added to. They also haven't adduced evidence that such signage existed as part of their case.
From look at google street view, there is such signage on Laycock Street at the junction of Liverpool Road, however it is my view that any reasonable person would assume that it applies to that road only based on the positioning of the signs. This road is one road south of where the contravention took place. From looking at google street view, there are no such signs if you were to enter approaching from the North on Liverpool Road.
So from my point of view, there was no such signage. Would it count in my favour that they cannot produce evidence of this, or would the presumption be that if the local authority says there was signage; that they are telling the truth?
-
'There would also be signage at entry points to the Controlled Zone up to three days prior to the event.'
Was there? This is the issue IMO.
If yes, where? They claim 'at entry points to the Controlled Zone up to three days prior to the event.'. If they're correct then your argument seems to be that despite the zone signs stating that the day was a 'match day' you decided that it wasn't a match and therefore disregarded its effect.
IMO, on this point you would not succeed at adjudication. You were put on notice that the additional controls specified on the traffic sign were in effect. Frankly, IMO they could have used 'event', 'match' etc.
As the regs state: 'The expressions “Match”, “match”, “Event”, “event”, “Market”, “market”, “Day”, “day”, “On”, “on”, any of those expressions..'
The word(s) are 'expressions' and not to be disregarded on a whim by a motorist who decides that the 'expression' doesn't meet their standard of accuracy.
But there'll be other views I'm sure.
-
The next step is a notice to owner not the tribunal - are you the keeper and is the logbook address correct.
Find out about additional parking restrictions on Arsenal home match days.
Yes and yes.
If it were me I'd take it to the next stage.
On the link they provide the first thing you read is:
Find out about additional parking restrictions on Arsenal home match days.
As well as my main argument about the match day vs event day terminonlogy, two of my key arguments will be;
* That one ought to be able to make a determination whether they are compliant with the parking restrictions at the roadside without the assistance of additional aids (like a phone with mobile data).
Do you know if there have been any previous rulings on this type of argument?
* That they haven't provided evidence that the specific details about the event in question were available at the road entry.
Would it be held that the onus is on the local authority to prove this? Or would they presume that if they say it was there that they are telling the truth?
-
The next step is a notice to owner not the tribunal - are you the keeper and is the logbook address correct.
If it were me I'd take it to the next stage.
On the link they provide the first thing you read is:
Find out about additional parking restrictions on Arsenal home match days.
-
bump
-
Islington got back to me over 6 weeks after I submitted my challenge;
Penalty Charge Notice No. IZ35607033
Date of Issue: 07/06/2025 at 16:00
Location of Contravention: Highbury Station Road [Zone Em]
Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
We have considered the challenge you submitted and have found no grounds for cancellation of the penalty charge.
Whilst we appreciate you state that you may have been unaware, however, on the day of the contravention, it was an events day at the Emirates Stadium. An events day has additional restrictions around the Borough, and drivers are informed of the additional restrictions via signage stating "Match Day" restrictions.
We have noted your comments in relation to the term "Match Day", however, the onus is on the driver to ensure they are aware of all events at the Emirates Stadium. The Council website clearly states that "Match Day" relates to football or events. There would also be signage at entry points to the Controlled Zone up to three days prior to the event.
The match day restrictions can apply to any event held at the Emirates Stadium. This includes (but is not limited to) concerts, friendly matches, pre-season fixtures, cup and testimonial games, including men’s, women’s and academy matches. Any event or match with an attendance of 10,000 attendees would fall into the restrictions.
Information regarding parking with event/match day restrictions can be found on the Islington Council website including Controlled Parking Zone restriction times and parking maps:
🔗 https://www.islington.gov.uk/parking/parking-restrictions/emirates-stadium-restrictions
If you would like information about parking near the Emirates, or to see if fixtures or events are taking place at the stadium, you can phone the events hotline on 0207 619 5000.
It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times.
With that being said, we would have to inform you, the circumstances described do not warrant the cancellation of the PCN, and your appeal has been rejected at this stage.
Included are images taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer for your information below. These can also be found on the Islington Council website.
(Shows a selection of images in first post)
You should now choose one of the following options:
1. Pay the penalty charge.
We will accept the discounted amount of £55.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 11 August 2025. After that date, the full penalty charge of £110.00 will be payable.
OR
2. Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge.
Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to.
The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.
Payment methods:
You can make a credit or debit card payment on our automated payment line on 020 7527 8000 at any time.
You can also pay online at: 🌐 www.islington.gov.uk
If you prefer to pay by cheque, please make it payable to LB Islington and send it to the address at the top of this letter.
Please write the PCN number on the back of the cheque.
You may also send postal orders (quoting the PCN number).
Yours sincerely
The question is, do I pay the discounted fine or take it to a tribunal. What do you guys think?
-
That was long-winded and mostly unnecessary but update us when you get a reply.
-
You would have passed a zone entry sign some way back if entering Liverpool Road from Holloway Road:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XWvJTrJWrZykAB2S8
But your challenge will be on the match issue.
Draft something and post here.
To be honest, I jumped the gun and submitted my challenge already when you said I had a case. This is what I came up with;
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally challenge Penalty Charge Notice [IZ35607033], issued for parking on Highbury Station Road at approximately 16:00 on Saturday 7th June 2025.
According to signage on the road, additional parking restrictions apply on “Match Days Only.” At the time of parking, I was aware of these restrictions and checked online to confirm whether a football match or sporting fixture was scheduled at Emirates Stadium that day. Upon finding that there were no matches taking place, I reasonably concluded that the restrictions did not apply and that I was permitted to park.
However, I later learned the PCN was issued on the basis that a Robbie Williams concert was taking place at the stadium, and that this was being treated as a “match day.” This seems both misleading and unreasonable.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a match as:
“(especially British English) a sports event where people or teams compete against each other.”
A Robbie Williams concert is clearly not a match under any conventional understanding of the term. I do not believe it is reasonable for a motorist to be expected to interpret “match” as including concerts or other non-sporting events. The use of the term “match” inherently limits the restriction to sporting fixtures, and a reasonable person would rely on that plain meaning when deciding whether they are in compliance.
To add further confusion, I later had to drive to Haringey that same day, where signage explicitly stated “Event Day Restrictions,” making clear that concerts and other events were covered. The contrast between boroughs in terms of clarity is striking. It is clear Haringey has adopted transparent language to prevent confusion, while Islington’s ambiguous use of “match” creates unnecessary uncertainty.
To support my position, I will be including two photographs demonstrating how Hackney Council amended its signs between April 2018 and March 2019, changing the term from “Match Days Only” to “Event Days Only.” This shows that other London boroughs have acknowledged the ambiguity of “match” and acted to make their signage clearer and fairer to motorists.
I would also like to note that I have always paid PCNs in the past where I have been at fault. I do not make a habit of appealing without cause. However, in this instance, I feel genuinely misled by the signage, and I fully intend to follow this process through to tribunal if necessary. I believe I have acted reasonably and in good faith, and I am confident that any adjudicator will agree that it is not acceptable to move the goalposts and retrospectively apply restrictions based on an interpretation of “match” that no ordinary person would hold.
Lastly, I have seen forum posts stating that signage at the entry to streets affected by match day restrictions should include advance notice of upcoming events. I can confirm that no such signage was present when I parked, and Google Street View confirms that this road does not carry an advance warning board at its entrance. I can only assume that if any such signage were present, the parking warden would have included it as part of their evidence bundle.
In summary, this PCN should be cancelled on the grounds that the restriction was not clearly communicated, and the definition of “match” cannot reasonably be stretched to include concerts without explicit clarification.
-
You would have passed a zone entry sign some way back if entering Liverpool Road from Holloway Road:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XWvJTrJWrZykAB2S8
But your challenge will be on the match issue.
Draft something and post here.
-
Yeah I checked for matches at Emirates Stadium, but didn't find anything on as I was searching specifically for matches at the stadium.
I don't remember from which side I entered the road, but I note approaching from the North doesn't appear to have any signs.
Also, these signs you have mentioned have not been included in the warden's evidence bundle. Does this make a difference?
-
It's not an appeal at this stage - just an informal challenge.
I think they can't weasel their way out of 'match days only' on the parking signs.
They will no doubt refer to a controlled zone entry sign one of which is nearby on Liverpool Road which should have given the next 'match' days but there is still the ward match.
When you parked did you check anything for matches - bearing in mind they could be men's/women's Arsenal, internationals etc.
(https://i.imgur.com/dK7ORuQ.png)
-
Ok, definitely going to appeal it then.
I've had appeals denied in the past where I've just paid the PCN to be on the safe side, but I think this PCN is particularly egregious. You reckon this one is worth taking to court if they deny the appeal?
-
I went out for a bike ride earlier and went along the Emirates area on the border between Islington and Hackney - Hackney has event day on its signage and I think changed some signs from match to event some time ago.
-
I think you have a good case - they are hoist by their own petard by putting the words "match days only" on the parking signs.
+1
But they don't want to change anything in case it stops the money rolling in !
-
I think you have a good case - they are hoist by their own petard by putting the words "match days only" on the parking signs.
-
I parked on Highbury Station Road at around 1600 on Saturday 7th June 2025 on a road which states that additional controls exist on 'Match Days Only'. My car was indeed in contravention during the Match Day hours, but would not have been during non-match day hours.
My issue with the ticket it was there were no 'Matches' taking place at the local stadium on that day. There was in fact a Robbie Williams concert taking place. This led me to believe that I was allowed to park there because no one would ever describe a concert as a 'Match'. This was extra frustrating to me as I had to travel to Haringey later that day where they specifically put on their parking signs 'Event day restrictions', so it is clear that the extra restrictions would apply for sporting matches AND concerts.
This is the crux of my argument, as it has become clear since the incident that Islington council does appear to include concerts as part of their Match Day restrictions.
I do not believe this is fair as it is not reasonable to expect the driver to have to do this extra research to find out that 'Match days' does in fact encompass concerts and non sporting events as well.
I've seen from my research from previous posts similar to mine that people say at the entry of the road there should be a larger sign explaining what events are on in the near future which would be captured within this restriction. I can tell you this was on the case last saturday, and I can see from google street view that the entry to this road does not have any such sign.
The PCN and supporting evidence
(https://i.imgur.com/LExJCgs.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/jPZWRj1.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Pv4eBEY.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/IB4386C.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ToRWSBO.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/n2Ge9Aw.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/WJnJfD2.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Qepf3J9.png)
Location
Parking Location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/HkPsqvtnnroYtch66
Entrance to Road: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ikc4iTw3DHREZ7w99