Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Vada_nevada on June 20, 2025, 12:41:03 am
-
Yesterday: Havering case. 2250396006
-
TMO: The Kingston upon Thames (Parking, Waiting, Loading and Stopping Restrictions) Order
PART III
SECTION 1 - General
Article 10.
-
Going to the library tomorrow. Let's hope I don't get banned from there too as it's just up the road from The Coronation Hall.
-
The duty to consider fairly here is a factor. I'd take a pic of the baby in its carrier on the pavement and ask the adjudicator how they'd then repark the car assuming you even could see you were out of the bay having avoided the post by the door. I guess you'd put the baby by another door and start again but the space is what it is at the time and markings only possibly visible depending on other cars.
I'd also ask what signage alerts you to parking in bay markings.
Plus the other things.
All part of the game. ;D I tried to download the TMO yesterday to no avail. I may do it the old-fashioned way and visit a library!
-
Does this affect a credit score if I lose?
NO. Stop worrying and trust that I will do my best for you. Now I am involved, I am saying nothing more until the case is decided.
-
If you lose you must pay £90 - that's it. If you don't pay they can escalate to bailiffs but there's no impact on financial status.
It's possible in this case you will lose but the adjudicator may make a non-binding recommendation to Kingston to cancel.
It is also possible that Kingston won't contest it and you win by default.
-
What is that you suggest needs to get done? I wanted to see what are the consequences if Tribunal doesn’t cancel, how much would I pay then and what are other negatives? Does this affect a credit score if I lose?
-
OP, you can ask questions as you wish. But this does not affect the enforcement process whose timetables must be followed.
With respect to Hippocrates, I think a council would not deal with this long list of items but instead IMO would be likely to treat the request as falling under FoI and respond that the cost to the authority of complying with this request exceeds the threshold:
Currently, the cost limit for complying with a [FoI] request or a linked series of requests from the same person or group is set at £600 for central government, Parliament and the armed forces and £450 for all other public authorities. You can refuse a request if you estimate that the cost of compliance would exceed this limit. This provision is found at section 12 of the Act.
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi/guide-to-managing-an-foi-request/charging-a-fee-and-cost-limits/
-
The duty to consider fairly here is a factor. I'd take a pic of the baby in its carrier on the pavement and ask the adjudicator how they'd then repark the car assuming you even could see you were out of the bay having avoided the post by the door. I guess you'd put the baby by another door and start again but the space is what it is at the time and markings only possibly visible depending on other cars.
I'd also ask what signage alerts you to parking in bay markings.
Plus the other things.
-
Dear Sir or Madam
Dear Sir or Madam
Please may I have responses to the following?:
1. The exact measurements of parking bays in The Bittoms as per the attached photo.
2. The initial date the parking legends were placed.
3. The last time the parking legends were maintained at this location.
4. The exact measurements of similar parking bays in nearby streets as per the map.
5. Payment question: should a person pay and yet receive a PCN for whatever reason throughout the whole borough, do you reimburse? In particular, if the allegation is that they have parked beyond the parking bay lines.
6. If so, is this automatic or do people have to apply?
7. If the answer to the second part of 5 is yes, why does not the borough automatically refund the associated payments ?
8. Traffic Management Order: please provide this.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/q39bqNPC/k7.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/ksrFxd68/k6.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/zHVbnH21/k5.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/fdTB2HyR/k4.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/BbvzZd3/k3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/99mNBnBs/k2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/TqTtMzJZ/k1.jpg)
Can't see. But @astralite has assisted me. Thanks anyway.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/q39bqNPC/k7.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/ksrFxd68/k6.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/zHVbnH21/k5.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/fdTB2HyR/k4.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/BbvzZd3/k3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/99mNBnBs/k2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/TqTtMzJZ/k1.jpg)
-
Hi, thank you for the draft. Please could hippocrat look into this as NTO was issued on 9 September? Can anyone tag him? Thank you.
Just got your e mail.
RBK's website is annoying as the photos appear for a split second. NTO is OK. Go with stamfordman's draft.
I took a look yesterday. Can anyone post ALL the photos as their site is still playing up?
-
I will file the appeal later today.
It's time councils pay back parking charges if people pay and then get a ticket! I'll get this sorted too - globally.
-
I'll email you my phone number now.
-
Hi all, I am back home now. Please advise on how to appeal at this stage. Thanks
-
Thank you, all. I posted in a hurry as was leaving house. Please could anyone explain what is the next step, is that realistically achievable to get a cancellation? How far my fine can go from that point if I continue to challenge?
I had already emailed you the next step. As HCA has now said too. I'll assist when you are back.
-
1. They have not re-offered the discount, therefore you're on the hook for the full penalty.
2. You register your appeal. Simply follow the instructions and register. You rely upon your formal representations and procedural improprieties arising from the Notice of Rejection. You do not need to go into detail at this stage.
The letter is signed by someone or something, it's indecipherable. It says:
*******
Kingston Parking Services
Which means that they are employed by Kingston Parking Services, not ***** on behalf of.
Not only are there issues regarding authorisation as regards officers, this also applies from the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance:
The process of considering challenges, representations and defence of appeals is a legal process that requires officers dealing with these aspects to be trained in the relevant legislation and how to apply it. They should be well versed in the collection, interpretation and consideration of the evidence, writing clear but concise case-specific responses to challenges, enquiries and representations, presenting the authority’s case to adjudicators.
Formal representations
Many enforcement authorities contract out on-street and car park enforcement and the consideration of informal representations. Enforcement authorities should not contract out the consideration of formal representations. Enforcement authorities remain responsible for the whole process, whether they contract out part of it or not, and should ensure that a sufficient number of suitably trained and authorised officers are available to decide representations of their merits in a timely and professional manner.
The authority’s standing orders should be specific as to which officers have the authority to cancel penalty charge notices. There should also be a clear audit trail of decisions taken with reasons for those decisions
-
Thank you, all. I posted in a hurry as was leaving house. Please could anyone explain what is the next step, is that realistically achievable to get a cancellation? How far my fine can go from that point if I continue to challenge?
-
Matthew Hill is head of Place and Gareth Campbell is head of parking. APCOA is the contractor. Loch Ness monster spews out the paperwork as in this case.
-
An indecipherable employee working from home or employee of a contractor? There's no reference to anyone other than the council.
IMO, still require the info but modify the context i.e. the signature is unreadable and does not state that they are working on behalf of RBK but sign themselves as 'Authorised officer'. You require evidence that whoever is duly authorised as required by Regulation 6 etc.....
-
You've left your name and address on so have blanked them.
They've ignored the practical details with the baby and really should fail on lack of duty to consider.
(https://i.ibb.co/3m1K1RCN/u7-D8uv-E-1.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/5hW8gnPF/u2m-PQe-L-xl.jpg)(https://i.ibb.co/tMXWSCnB/u7-D8uv-E-2.png)
-
Is that it in its entirety?
There's so much wrong and omitted I'm flabbergasted, although it is Kingston so maybe I shouldn't be.
And the one which really gets me is that there is no such person as PARKING SERVICES authorised under the council's Officer Scheme of Delegation made under the council's Constitution to consider formal representations. So, would you pl write back to the Head of Parking Services and require them to inform you who considered and authorised the reply to your representations, an establishment post number would suffice if they want to maintain anonymity, and confirm, by including the relevant copy of the Officer Scheme of Delegation that this officer is authorised to act on behalf of the council to discharge the authority's duties as specified under Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Councils and authorities aren't tangible e.g. they cannot write letters etc. They must act through officers and those officers need to be authorised to act on behalf of the council in capacities specified by reference to legislation.
-
https://imgpile.com/p/u7D8uvE
-
Put the rejection on https://imgbb.com
-
Good morning, I have just received another rejection and would like to post it, but imgur doesn’t seem to be available anymore. What else can I use instead?
As Imgur is no longer available in the UK, you will need to use
ibb.co (https://imgbb.com/) or https://imgpile.com/
for posting images.
Wherever possible, use the BBCode
-
I have read the NOR. No brainer to go to the Tribunal as discount is not reoffered.
-
Good morning, I have just received another rejection and would like to post it, but imgur doesn’t seem to be available anymore. What else can I use instead?
-
Hi, thank you for the draft. Please could hippocrat look into this as NTO was issued on 9 September? Can anyone tag him? Thank you.
Just got your e mail.
RBK's website is annoying as the photos appear for a split second. NTO is OK. Go with stamfordman's draft.
-
Hi, thank you for the draft. Please could hippocrat look into this as NTO was issued on 9 September? Can anyone tag him? Thank you.
Anyone can tag another menber in a post, but the tag option does not always work.
You may also send a PM (Private Message) or e-mail to a member, using the relevant icon from those that appear at the end of a member's ID panel to the left of each post.
-
Hi, thank you for the draft. Please could hippocrat look into this as NTO was issued on 9 September? Can anyone tag him? Thank you.
-
Hippo will look at the NTO.
I'll see if I can find the order.
Apart from that I would make reps as below.
------------
I am making representations because I feel you did not take into account the circumstances in my informal challenge that showed I could not have been aware of any contravention at the time, and also I feel you did not act fairly by not addressing the practicalities of parking so I could accommodate getting my baby safely out of the car.
I also paid for parking (see attached).
To repeat:
I had to park so I could get my young baby out of the front passenger’s side door and could not do so without avoiding an upright post on the footway.
I was not aware of being in any contravention as no bay markings ahead or behind were visible, and even if after parking I could not have left my baby on the pavement while I attempted to repark the car should anything have seemed amiss!
When I parked, there were cars positioned both in front and behind me, which significantly limited visibility of bay markings and space to manoeuvre. These cars had left by the time the photographs were taken at 14:42, creating a misleading impression of how the vehicle was positioned at the time of parking.
Moreover, the bay markings in the provided photos are not clearly visible, suggesting that the lines may have been either very worn or not present at all in certain areas. This made it even more difficult to assess the exact boundaries when parking.
As the parent of a small baby, who was seated in a rear-facing car seat on the front passenger side. I was aware there was a post near the front passenger door, which made it difficult to open the door fully. I needed to allow sufficient space to safely remove the car seat and take my baby out of the vehicle. I also required clear rear access to retrieve the buggy from the boot. These considerations impacted the exact positioning of the car, and I did my best to park safely and responsibly within the conditions presented.
I also make the point that there are no instructions at the roadside about parking in bay markings and at this stage I also request what traffic order you are relying on and how it is communicated to motorists at this location.
Again I respectfully request that this penalty charge be cancelled and thank you for your understanding this time.
-
Please see the NTO attached below https://imgur.com/a/C4Ozkhh
-
We need to see the whole of the PCN please.
-
Hi, this is just a quick reminder, could you advise on how to proceed with defense? Can I use the fact that NTO was served later than expected as per the link above?
-
Please see NTO attached.
https://imgur.com/a/8hJOSvA
-
Post the front page of the NTO for reference blanking only name and address.
There's no rush - I'll draft something soon.
-
Hi all, we just received NTO today. What would be our best course of action, how to appeal?
-
Check the logbook to ensure the address is OK.
But from the ticket history all that seems to have happened is they've logged that no payment was received following the rejection and no NTO has been served.
(https://i.imgur.com/2Tnd4RN.png)
-
Hi all, I am just a tad worried we have not received NTO yet, is there a timeline where they can no longer press the charges if they forget to mail NTO?
They have 6 months to serve an NtO, but the Statutory Guidance suggests far less than this. Have a read : -
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
-
Hi all, I am just a tad worried we have not received NTO yet, is there a timeline where they can no longer press the charges if they forget to mail NTO?
-
Wait for NTO.
-
Please see the link below:
https://imgur.com/a/gKjKS7j
I am pretty sure there was an option to make a challenge a few days ago. Is it better to try now without waiting for NTO?
-
Can you post the rejection. I think it's worth going on with it but you'll need to wait for the NTO.
-
So am I able to challenge it again, what points can be used? I feel the bay width is not correct as should be 2 meters. Please advise what can be done now if it is worth a battle.
-
Length surely - car is intruding into the bay in front.
But there's more to this as set out in the challenge.
-
Width. But no evidence of onside position of the car to the kerb.
-
Does anyone know if they fined me for not fitting width or length? If width, then I am not parked on the line neither over it based on their photos. Because the middle bit is likely the number not the line? See attached. I can see that there is still option to appeal again. Is that an error?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
My husband is the registered keeper. I figured each bay is numbered with faded 1/2/3/4/5 and I am not sure if the width of 175cm is correct one but definitely making it very tricky to fit in. I took some photos of other cars parked in this location showing everyone being over that width line. Horizontal lines are unclear and faded but also confusing given those number are not visible and can be taken as another border line.
Please see the link below i have taken as many photos as possible if that helps.
https://imgur.com/a/7lrUSJI
-
Are you the registered keeper with current DVLA details?
And for accuracy, it's an on-street parking place, you keep referring to off-street.
-
Looking at the pics again it does look like there is some kind of line ahead of the car.
And the bay looks very narrow although this is a giant SUV - the pics show you could hardly see the sidelines anyway when parked.
-
"the markings are slightly worn"
Clearly this person has never been on-site to see the markings, which seem to have almost disappeared, if the photos are to be believed.
-
I would be inclined to go with this. They've not addressed the practicalities of the baby you raised in the circumstances of parked cars at the time.
You can also say you paid to park.
There are also the odd markings but not sure about this unless you can go back and take pics with no cars there - maybe old markings are showing.
If this were to go the tribunal they would also have to produce a correct traffic order, which often trips them up.
See what others say.
-
Please see the link below.
https://imgur.com/a/7lrUSJI
-
You may wish to redact yr name & address from the NoR and repost.
-
Good morning. I have just received a response on my appeal and it was denied. I can see they do not recognize double horizontal lines (extra lines) at all and still insist I was outside the bay. Please see their response via the below link:
https://imgur.com/a/7lrUSJI
-
Yes, exactly the extra line / which is not that obvious for others.
On the other hand, there is a limit of symbols for appeal, I can see my notes are a bit lengthy - far too many symbols. What do I do?
-
What do you mean about the markings? These are the council pics.
The latest Maps view I can see is:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/vgrU1XQFzp9wPQzJ9
Is there an extra line or something?
(https://i.ibb.co/MyxhfbXr/k5.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/TqkK7MMM/k3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/hRVxJFtj/k2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/bMn7tnCX/k1.jpg)
-
I almost forgot, I got back to this off street parking and I noticed the markings are very strange that is for sure. As you can see from the evidence, my front wheel is between two lines, that makes the bay either too short or too long. This style continues on the entire stretch of this location as I parked there again this week. It does look very confusing, not sure why they do not renew those markings…
-
The baby is 5 months old and of course I paid for parking using RingGo. Thank you very much for your help.
-
I think playing the baby card is your best bet.
How old is baby?
Did you pay to park?
---------------
I am challenging the PCN because I parked in good faith of the parking conditions and had to park so I could get my young baby out of the front passenger’s side door and could not do so without avoiding an upright post on the footway.
Although I was not aware of being in any contravention, I could not have left my baby on the pavement while I attempted to repark the car!
I feel sure you will give consideration to the needs of my baby and wish to make two points.
1. When I parked, there were cars positioned both in front and behind me, which significantly limited visibility of bay markings and space to manoeuvre. These cars had left by the time the photographs were taken at 14:42, creating a misleading impression of how the vehicle was positioned at the time of parking.
Moreover, the bay markings in the provided photos are not clearly visible, suggesting that the lines may have been either very worn or not present at all in certain areas. This made it even more difficult to assess the exact boundaries when parking.
2. As the parent of a small baby, who was seated in a rear-facing car seat on the front passenger side. I was aware there was a post near the front passenger door, which made it difficult to open the door fully. I needed to allow sufficient space to safely remove the car seat and take my baby out of the vehicle. I also required clear rear access to retrieve the buggy from the boot. These considerations impacted the exact positioning of the car, and I did my best to park safely and responsibly within the conditions presented.
I also make the point that there are no instructions at the roadside about parking in bay markings.
I respectfully request that this penalty charge be cancelled and thank you for your understanding.
-
I'll look at this tomorrow. It can be tweaked.
-
Hi stamdordman, please could you have a look at what I drafted and advise further? Thanks
-
To: Parking Services
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: PCN Number QT10697229 – Vehicle Registration RJ74 HWR
Issued: 19 June 2025 | Location: The Bittoms
I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.
I parked my vehicle at approximately 12:45. At that time, there were cars positioned both in front and behind me, which significantly limited visibility of bay markings and space to manoeuvre. These cars had left by the time the photographs were taken at 14:42, creating a misleading impression of how the vehicle was positioned at the time of parking.
Moreover, the bay markings in the provided photos are not clearly visible, suggesting that the lines may have been either very worn or not present at all in certain areas. This made it even more difficult to assess the exact boundaries when parking.
In addition, I am a parent of a small baby, who was seated in a rear-facing car seat on the front passenger side. As visible in your photos, there is a fixed post near the front passenger door, which made it physically difficult to open the door fully. I needed to allow sufficient space to safely remove the car seat and take my baby out of the vehicle. I also required clear rear access to retrieve the buggy from the boot. These considerations impacted the exact positioning of the car, and I did my best to park safely and responsibly within the conditions presented.
I wish to emphasise that my vehicle was not obstructing the road or footpath, and I made every reasonable effort to park correctly, safely, and with consideration for others.
In light of the above circumstances — including the poor marking visibility, presence of other vehicles at the time of parking, physical obstructions, and the genuine need for accessibility as a parent — I respectfully request that this penalty charge be cancelled.
Thank you for your understanding.
-
You don't need to cite cases at this stage.
Draft something on the circumstances of your parking (parking with baby, access to buggy etc), and kindly ask for discretion in this case. Post here first.
But add:
I would appreciate it if you would also direct me to signage that would have alerted me to the contravention as I don't think there is any at this location.
-
Hi, thanks for your reply. Please could you walk me through how do I mention those cases exactly in the appeal?
-
I would challenge asking for discretion as the primary point but there are cases allowed at the tribunal on no signage about parking within bay markings being present so you could put them on notice about this and we can look at the traffic order..
-----------
Case reference 2240374029
Appellant Neel Bacheta
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM N333ELB
PCN Details
PCN HG21326104
Contravention date 13 Nov 2023
Contravention time 18:04:00
Contravention location High Street
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Not parked correctly within markings of bay/space
Referral date -
Decision Date 13 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Alastair Mcfarlane
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons This case comes before me following the making of a witness statement and I therefore consider the merits afresh.
The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of the bay in Romford High Street on 13 November 2023. A penalty charge notice was issued at 1804.
The Appellant states that there was no error with his parking and that he did park within the bay provided and explained the difficulties were caused by a lorry in front of him and a car behind him. He refers to front tyre being out of the bay.
The Council rely upon the evidence of its civil enforcement officer. Whilst these are dark, it can be seen that the entire front wheel of the Appellant's vehicle is within the adjacent loading only bay.
However there is no evidence before me any condition to park fully within the bay has been communicated to the motorist. The Council describe the bay as a parking bay and that the vehicle was straddling into a loading bay. However it is a requirement for delegated legislation that the obligation to park fully within the bay must be communicated.
As there is no evidence before me as to how this was done for the bay in question, the appeal must be allowed.
---------
Case reference 2240567623
Appellant Sabah Sirajuddin
Authority London Borough of Bromley
VRM LX70GDY
PCN Details
PCN BY24142851
Contravention date 04 Aug 2024
Contravention time 16:45:00
Contravention location Elmfield Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Not parked correctly within markings of bay/space
Referral date -
Decision Date 12 Feb 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 driver Mr Rafique.
His case is essentially that he parked in good faith and that there was no notice requiring him to park within the bay markings.
It is certainly, in my view, common sense that if a parking place is divided into parking places by white lines within the bay the motorist is expected to park within those lines. What else, after all, are they there to indicate? However the issue is whether the lines of themselves indicate that they are there not merely for guidance but that it is a legal requirement that vehicles park within them. Although it is not uncommon it is (and I speak from experience) by no means universally the case that Traffic Management Orders create such a legal requirement and it seems to me the motorist is entitled to be put on notice in a case where the particular TMO imposes such a requirement. In the circumstances I am not satisfied that it can be said the restriction relied on was sufficiently clearly indicated and the Appel is therefore allowed.
-
As the photos show you straddled 2 spaces I fear that all you have at this stage is an appeal to their good nature. There's at least one other poster to the forum who would attest to sympathy being in short supply at Kingston and is often accompanied by procedural incompetence. But to test this you would need to be prepared to risk the full penalty.
Are you the registered keeper with current DVLA details because the next stage would involve them receiving a Notice to Owner for the full penalty.
-
https://maps.app.goo.gl/grw5RjAT2fFSyLY67
This is 26 The Bittoms, Kingston upon Thames. My car is parked next to the post.
-
Please post a GSV link to the exact location where you parked. Photos show you seem to be straddling two bays, so we need to see the bay.
-
Hi all. Today I parked on off street parking and focused on the side markings making sure I was as close to the curb as possible, trying to squeeze between front and back parked cars, I returned within paid time to get a ticket for not parking correctly. Soon after I realized that was to do with the horizontal boarder and I seemed to be between 2 spaces. I had a baby on the front seat and trying to avoid the post to the left was sort of juggling how to park to have access to the boot to get my baby’s buggy. Either way, it was not my intention to take 2 spaces for sure,is there a chance to appeal for markings not being clear? Or any other valid reasons?
https://imgur.com/a/wJmYEk9
[attachment deleted by admin]