Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: ipswichfan2 on August 04, 2025, 09:35:49 am
-
OK just wondering as its very similar to my case
-
The OP has no doubt taken it to the tribunal but the hearing hasn't happened yet.
Hopefully we'll get an update. The council may not bother contesting this.
-
What was the outcome of this?
-
Yes I used your response - is there anything to change when appealing to the tribunal?
Thanks!
-
Did you use my draft? They just seem to have repeated the initial rejection.
They are talking nonsense and I can only think their officer is untrained.
I would register a tribunal appeal and if they contest apply for costs.
They have reoffered the discount. Their letter has XXX instead of times observed which is just lazy.
To be clear, a controlled parking zone entry sign specifies only restrictions on single yellow lines. Parking bays can have number of parking signs that specify who can park and when. No sign = no restriction.
I think whoever wrote this is confusing a CPZ with a permit parking area, which Newham also does.
(https://i.ibb.co/Q270PMw/VD2am4h.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/k22ggDvn/b00YrAa.jpg)
-
Hello again,
I have had my appeals back from Waltham Forest council and unfortunately they have doubled down on their reasoning for the pcn saying that the controlled zone signs are sufficient
Is it worth taking this to the tribunal as I believe my defence is solid?
Thanks!
https://imgur.com/a/IPPkf8K
-
My representations are that the contravention did not occur as the parking bay where my car was had no parking sign. While other bays on the same road have parking signs, this one did not. Your CEO's photographs confirm no sign was present in this bay.
You rejected my initial challenge on the grounds that the controlled parking zone entry signs say when parking rules apply in the zone. But as you must know, CPZ entry signs apply only to single yellow lines, not to designated parking places, which can have widely different restrictions to the CPZ.
With no sign in the bay to show the bay was a restricted bay of any sort, the contravention stated on the PCN cannot have occurred.
I trust you will now cancel this PCN and look forward to your early confirmation.
-
How does this sound?
I am writing to formally challenge the PCN FR65684022 for my vehicle registration number WX17XTA
The contravention alleges that I parked in a permit holders only bay without a valid permit, however the bay in question had no visible sign indicating a restriction. While other bays along the same road display permit holder only signs, this one does not. Your wardens own photographs confirm no sign was present.
My initial appeal was rejected as they stated that Controlled parking zone entry signs tell you when the parking rules apply in the zone, however these do not apply to marked bays, only to single yellow lines. With no sign on the bay, the PCN is not valid.
The CEO has also failed in their duty under Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR) to maintain the signs. In addition, the duties of their CEOs demand that they report missing signs and not serve PCNs to any cars parked therein.
-
It should be a simple matter that a designated parking place in a controlled parking zone must have a parking sign showing the times of operation and who is allowed to park there.
Occasionally a rogue adjudicator has to be reeled in as our Mr Mustard did in the appealed case below.
---------------
Case reference 2250149506
Appellant xxxx
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM PF18UJB
PCN Details
PCN PN21615103
Contravention date 14 Jan 2025
Contravention time 08:43:00
Contravention location Holbrook Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 04 Jun 2025
Adjudicator Gerald Mohabir
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
1. Reasons Mr DISHMAN appeared on behalf of the Appellant, xxxxx today in a hearing that was heard between 2.45pm - 3.15pm.
2. The Authority were unrepresented and did not appear.
3. There is no submission to the contrary that as the registered owner of PF18UJB, the Appellant had parked in Holbrook Road at 08.43 on 14/1/25 in the London Borough of Newham.
4. Mr Dishman has submitted a skeleton argument with a number of other decisions reached by colleagues in fact specific cases. He accepted at the outset that every decision is fact specific and at best persuasive. Not withstanding that, in a rolled up submission, he contends that there has been no contravention and procedural impropriety.
5. During our discussions, he agreed that that Holbrook Road was within a controlled parking zone ('CPZ') and that there was signage as submitted by the Authority to that effect. He accepted that on 14/1/25, West Ham were playing Fulham as advertised in the time plates and that vehicles in the CPZ were subject to 'match day' restrictions..
6. He further agreed that the TMOs of 2010 and 2017 were in place but makes a somewhat novel submission that the parking bay that the Appellant's car was in, did not have a time plate as per the TSDGR 2016 regulations and was therefore a 'free bay' and not subject to the CPZ restrictions.
7. I was referred to the individual decisions but have to say, even if similar, I disagree with their reasoning. In discussion, Mr Dishman agreed that the CPZ time plates would mean that if a motorist were to park on a yellow line, the onus would be on them to seek out a time plate. However, he says that this does not refer to parking bays. I disagree with that line of reasoning.
8. Were this bay not within a CPZ, there would be some force in that submission, but this was in a delineated area with the clearest compliant signage at either end of every entry and exit point. In those circumstances I find that the onus is on the motorist in the same way had he parked on a yellow line in a CPZ to make themselves aware of any restrictions. Accordingly, I find there to be a contravention.
9. I cannot find to the requisite standard that the Appellant has established that there was a procedural impropriety and so am bound to find for the Authority in this appeal.
10. 10. I understand that the amount owing is £130 if received within 28 days of 4/6/25. This amount will increase by 50% thereafter with the Authority then being able to pursue enforcement thereafter.
11.
Decision Date 30 Jun 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Previous decision Appeal refused
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
1. Reasons This is an application by Mr Dishman on behalf of the Appellant for review of the decision of my learned colleague Mr Mohabir refusing the Appeal in the following terms:-
1. Mr DISHMAN appeared on behalf of the Appellant, xxxxx today in a hearing that was heard between 2.45pm - 3.15pm.
2. The Authority were unrepresented and did not appear.
3. There is no submission to the contrary that as the registered owner of PF18UJB, the Appellant had parked in Holbrook Road at 08.43 on 14/1/25 in the London Borough of Newham.
4. Mr Dishman has submitted a skeleton argument with a number of other decisions reached by colleagues in fact specific cases. He accepted at the outset that every decision is fact specific and at best persuasive. Not withstanding that, in a rolled up submission, he contends that there has been no contravention and procedural impropriety.
5. During our discussions, he agreed that that Holbrook Road was within a controlled parking zone ('CPZ') and that there was signage as submitted by the Authority to that effect. He accepted that on 14/1/25, West Ham were playing Fulham as advertised in the time plates and that vehicles in the CPZ were subject to 'match day' restrictions..
6. He further agreed that the TMOs of 2010 and 2017 were in place but makes a somewhat novel submission that the parking bay that the Appellant's car was in, did not have a time plate as per the TSDGR 2016 regulations and was therefore a 'free bay' and not subject to the CPZ restrictions.
7. I was referred to the individual decisions but have to say, even if similar, I disagree with their reasoning. In discussion, Mr Dishman agreed that the CPZ time plates would mean that if a motorist were to park on a yellow line, the onus would be on them to seek out a time plate. However, he says that this does not refer to parking bays. I disagree with that line of reasoning.
8. Were this bay not within a CPZ, there would be some force in that submission, but this was in a delineated area with the clearest compliant signage at either end of every entry and exit point. In those circumstances I find that the onus is on the motorist in the same way had he parked on a yellow line in a CPZ to make themselves aware of any restrictions. Accordingly, I find there to be a contravention.
9. I cannot find to the requisite standard that the Appellant has established that there was a procedural impropriety and so am bound to find for the Authority in this appeal.
10. 10. I understand that the amount owing is £130 if received within 28 days of 4/6/25. This amount will increase by 50% thereafter with the Authority then being able to pursue enforcement thereafter.
The grounds on which review is sought are as follows:-
2. “The decision is illogical and perverse to the point of being Wednesbury Unreasonable. It is a 'brave' adjudicator indeed who ignores the combined intellectual and experienced might of three adjudicators, Houghton, Brennan and Walsh, who have all found that a cpz entry sign does not apply to a bay. This is not a point the principle of which I have had to argue since I started being a pro bono representative in 2013. It is in the interests of justice that this patently incorrect decision be reviewed. It is paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 which contain the meat of the illogical decision. What was novel was not my argument, founded upon the decisions of at least 3 experienced adjudicators, but that I was asked to explain, on the hoof, why a cpz entry sign does not apply to a marked out bay”
Mr Dishman then goes into further detail on the basis of “The traffic Signs Manual ,logic and the decision in Herron”
3. It seems to me that Mr Dishman is correct. It is certainly correct that the vehicle was parked “in a delineated area with the clearest compliant signage at either end of every entry and exit point”. However CPZ signage does not apply to an area as a whole; what it applies to is the yellow lines indicating the waiting restrictions within the area ( which is why it bears the No Waiting rondel), and has no application at all to designated parking places (where the restrictions themselves will always, and the operational hours will very often, be entirely different.) To the best of my knowledge it has never been suggested that a designated parking place can be signed by a CPZ sign any more than it could be signed by a yellow No Waiting time plate, (save, as I am bound to add for the sake of completeness, those comparatively rare instances where permitted variants such as Pay and Display Zone or Permit Zone are used – and even in these instances the CPZ sign only operates to apply the operational hours shown on it to the type of bay mentioned on the signs).
4. What this clear Zone signage indicated was that on the event days shown on the sign the operational hours of every single yellow line until further notice were as specified on the sign. The signs , authorised by the Secretary of State also operated ( as Adjudicators have accepted over many years) as a general notice to motorists of when the event days were ; however in the case of designated parking places the designation must provide for a restriction which actually applies on on an event day and that restriction must be signed accordingly . The Zone sign stating a day to be an event day is of no effect in a designated parking place unless there is a sign for that parking place (supported by a TMO) to say that parking on event days is actually prohibited. In the absence of any sign for the designated parking place itself it could perfectly well be a type of bay which had no event day relevance.
References
5.
6. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 defines a Controlled Parking Zone ( of this type ) as
(a)
an area-
(i)
in which every part of every road is subject to a prohibition indicated by single or double yellow lines or single or double yellow kerb markings (except where parking spaces have been provided, where entrance to or exit from the road is made, where there is a prohibition or restriction on waiting, stopping, loading or unloading indicated by a different sign or where there is a crossing) whether or not an upright sign to indicate the same prohibition is placed in conjunction with the line or kerb marking; and
(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;
7.
8. The Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3
9.
10. 14.1.2. Both types of CPZ have zone entry signs which show the times that waiting is prohibited. For a type (a) CPZ, these times may be the same as the operational period of the on street parking places within the zone. This is always the case for voucher parking zones and other CPZs where the type of parking is indicated on the entry sign. Signing within a type (a) CPZ will generally be in accordance with section 13 for waiting and loading prohibitions and for parking places
11. 14.1.6. All designated parking places and loading bays within a type (a) CPZ, other than parking meter bays, need to be signed in accordance with section 13. The times of operation, where not continuous, are always shown on the sign, even where they are the same as those shown on the zone entry sign
As there was no evidence from which the Adjudicator could find that the restriction relied on was correctly signed I find that it is in the interest s of justice that the decision be reviewed and I substitute a decision allowing the Appeal .
-
yes 2x live pcn
I've had 2x nto but theyre both the same. The car didn't move between receiving the first and second pcn.
Attached photo of the other one here
(https://i.imgur.com/sQDXvwW.jpeg)
-
OK so two live PCNs?
I see now the NTO you posted is for the second rejection you posted.
Only one NTO so far?
Reps must be made for each on the same basic point but points in the rejections can be picked up.
-
Yes
-
Was the warning notice for the bay where you got this PCN ?
-
I actually received 2 PCN's back to back for the same thing. I just noticed they mentioned the warning one on the appeal of the second letter. Attached here.
Does this change my appeal at all?
(https://i.imgur.com/cT1Uk0P.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/PGa4AQC.png)
Thanks!
-
It's not an appeal but formal representations to the NTO.
I expect you got a live PCN because you had a warning one but that's a red herring.
Draft something and we'll tweak it. Keep it short and reference their wrong understanding of CPZs.
-
Thanks both for your advice!
I've attached more photos of the bay in question that I took on the day as well as showing some cars receiving a blue warning notice (£0.00) and others receiving a yellow pcn (£160). Any advice on wording to put into my appeal?
Thanks!!
(https://i.imgur.com/eXrFMjl.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/3lB82lG.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/p4Lswv1.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/nYX97As.jpeg)
-
OK, so they're talking complete tosh (as usual !). The CPZ sign with times, controls only the single yellow lines in the zone. It does not control marked out parking bays; these need their own sign and as you can see on GSV for September 2024, the bay you parked in has a poles for a sign but the sign is missing. The next bay up (separated by a double-dashed mark at right-angles to the kerb has a sign, but it's vandalised.
However, if we go back on GSV to the previous view, (April 2022), the signs are there for both bays, the one you parked in being for SB permit holders only: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/QKn49H12p5CEAX2P6
and the next bay being open to all for parking, but restricted Mon-Sat to 2 hours between 08.00am to 6.30pm, no return in 4 hours : -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/yrRaoxnA8AL1SCq56
So with no sign they cannot wallop you for parking there at all. Not only that, they have failed in their duty under Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR) to maintain the signs. In addition, the duties of their CEOs demand that they report missing signs and not serve PCNs to any cars parked therein.
Once again, a typical London council greedy for money, but reluctant to spend the money on signs to advise motorists where they can park.
-
They are talking nonsense as a CPZ entry sign controls single yellow lines and not parking bays. It's not a permit parking area.
It seems the bay sign has been missing and there's no direct pic of a sign in the CEO's pics.
Of course they could reinstate the sign at any time.
Can you go take pictures of the bay. There is an adjoining bay. Looks like there may be a sign in the CEO pic below.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/cKWNwBfn4fAyK5U18
(https://i.ibb.co/8nNqxXfj/Screenshot-2025-08-04-at-10-20-01.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/BKQsbV8X/Screenshot-2025-08-04-at-10-19-51.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/fGNFQ9v8/Screenshot-2025-08-04-at-10-19-43.png)
---------
(https://i.ibb.co/mCL9tX8g/Screenshot-2025-08-04-at-10-25-27.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/PswZ7cG7/Screenshot-2025-08-04-at-10-25-20.png)
-
Apologies, I've updated the post
-
Sorry, but you haven't told us enough, so please read this and update your thread accordingly : -
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
-
Hi all
I have received 2x PCN from Waltham Forest council for parking in a permit holders only bay without a permit. Only problem is the bay in question does not have a sign on. Other bays on the same road do have a permit holder only sign on a lamppost or fence nearby.
I have previously received a blue warning notice for parking in this bay with the amount on the pcn being £0.00
I appealed the fine stating both of these reasons and have received the following response from the council, basically stating that because there is a general zone sign in the area that the bays do not need to have individual permit holder only signs on them.
My initial appeal:
I am writing to formally challenge the issuance of PCN issued on 14 June 2025 for my vehicle, registration WX17 XTA.
The PCN states that I was parked in a permit holders-only bay; however, there were no visible signs in the vicinity clearly indicating that this area is restricted to permit holders. The absence of appropriate signage meant I could not reasonably have known that parking was restricted at this location.
In addition, other vehicles parked in the same area at the same time received a blue PCN with a penalty of £0, whereas I received a yellow PCN with a fine of £160. This indicates inconsistent enforcement and raises serious concerns about fairness and clarity in the application of parking restrictions.
As per the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD), motorists must be clearly informed of any restrictions through adequate signage. In this case, the lack of clear signage fails to meet this requirement, making the restriction unenforceable.
I kindly request you review this matter and cancel the PCN on the grounds of:
* Inadequate or missing signage at the location
* Inconsistent enforcement across similarly parked vehicles
* Lack of fair notice, making the restriction unclear
Please find attached:
* Photographs of the area showing the absence of signage
* Photos of the blue PCNs issued to other vehicles
I look forward to your response and a fair review of my case.
Yours sincerely,
Attached the rejected appeal letter from them below
(https://i.imgur.com/DJle8vM.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/4OsJ4nJ.png)
I have now received a NTK which I am planning on appealing as I feel this is unfair. Any advice welcomed!
(https://i.imgur.com/YbIEcrc.jpeg)
Streetview link, arrow pointing to the bay in question: https://maps.app.goo.gl/jvd6Qh6FxKpLmXMTA
(https://i.imgur.com/2LrLSIH.jpeg)
Thanks