Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: gettingbetter on August 20, 2025, 11:45:11 pm
-
Goodmorning Stamfordman and H C Andersen,
I want to say a huge thank you for your time, advice and support in appealing my PCN. I do not take this for granted and your expertise has saved others and now me from greedy councils. I am pleased to update you that my PCN was cancelled.
For info, I used the text in the first wording in my post on 23rd September. I have today received an email from the council stating that they will cancel the PCN.
The response from the council is as follows:
Notice of Acceptance of Formal Representations
Dear xxx
We refer to the Formal Representations you have made against the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) JK16745018
We have examined the facts surrounding the issue of this PCN and taking into consideration the contents in your correspondence, I have decided to accept your representations and cancelled the Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice/PCN.
Please be advised that the cancellation of this Penalty Charge Notice does not set precedent to any other PCNs which may be issued in similar circumstances, as each case is dealt with on its own merit.
No further action will be taken in this matter.
Thanks again to you both. :D
-
Yes, I did have estate permit parking at the time I owned the car
-
Did you have an estate permit for this car?
I wouldn't worry too much as this is only round 2 of the challenge and they said nothing in the first rejection.
-
Hi H C Andersen and Stamfordman,
Thank you very much for a speedy response. I have reduced the long-winded appeal into a shorter one here:
To whom it may concern,
I make formal representations against PCN JK16745018, citing contravention 91: “Parked in a car park or area not designated for that class of vehicle.”
Southwark Council’s case is that the location was an off-street car park subject to restrictions. However, the Council has provided no evidence of any terms and conditions being displayed at the site.
The only marking visible is the wording “Club Parking” painted on the surface. This is meaningless in law and does not, on its own, convey any restriction. In an off-street car park, restrictions must be clearly set out on signage or a noticeboard, typically placed at the entrance, so that motorists are aware they are in a regulated car park and subject to statutory enforcement. No such signage exists at this location.
This exact point has been upheld before London Tribunals. In case 224053735A, the adjudicator observed:
“There is no evidence of signage such as a board, informing motorists that they are in fact in a car park subject to specific conditions and statutory controls.”
The situation here is identical. Southwark Council’s evidence does not demonstrate that the site was subject to enforceable restrictions, nor that those restrictions were adequately conveyed.
Accordingly, the alleged contravention did not occur, and the PCN must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
ALTERNATIVELY: I have consolidated both your responses from September 12th, which reads as follows:
To whom it may concern,
I make formal representations against PCN JK16745018, citing contravention 91: “Parked in a car park or area not designated for that class of vehicle.”
The authority is relying upon a PCN citing the contravention of 'Parked in a car park or area not designated for that class of vehicle'. The code descriptor '91' has also been used and therefore the authority's claim is that a penalty at the level mandated by the Mayor of London and London Councils is payable for parking at the location.
The authority's 6 photos show my car parked adjacent to the markings 'Club Parking' and this is not in dispute.
As the authority evidentially concedes that the location is not on a road, then even if the markings were prescribed under Regulations for on-road use only, they would have no effect in a car park. In this case 'Club Parking' is not a prescribed marking in any event(para. 1 of Part 5 to Schedule 7 to the Traffic Signs etc. Regulations refers).
It therefore follows that the authority is offering no evidence that parking at the location without permission would leave the 'owner' liable to the penalty being demanded.
Furthermore, the sign does not suggest that that the area subject to enforcement is in fact an off street car park. On a highway, all motorists must know the signs prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD).This does not apply to an off street car park. There is no evidence of signage such as a board, informing motorists that they are in fact in a car park subject to specific conditions and statutory controls.
It is clear from the authority's evidence and the Signs Regulations that their claim to a penalty is meritless and that the PCN must be cancelled.
Happy to go with which you think is best. Many thanks again.
-
Far too long and we said to forget about on-street stuff...
This is simple - the council have not displayed any terms for parking in this off-street car park and an unsigned space marked club parking is meaningless.
As the adjudicator remarked in case 224053735A:
There is no evidence of signage such as a board, informing motorists that they are in fact in a car park subject to specific conditions and statutory controls.
-
'This designation is clearly conveyed by prescribed signage.'
There is no prescribed signage for off-street car parks, so this is incorrect.
(for info, the enabling legislation here is the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 under which there are enabling powers given to the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing signage for use on and off-street. The SoS has only availed himself of the on-street power - in the form of the Traffic Signs etc. Regs- but not those applicable to off-street, which is therefore subject to councils conveying their terms of use using other means e.g. noticeboards etc.)
-
Good afternoon, Stamfordman/H C Andersen... Apologies for the late response. I have been away for a week due other commitments. Please see my response to the council below, albeit a little longwinded.
To whom it may concern,
I make formal representations against PCN no. JK16745018, citing contravention 91: “Parked in a car park or area not designated for that class of vehicle.”
Southwark Councils case is that a penalty charge is payable for parking at the location. I argue that the PCN is not valid because the alleged contravention did not occur, and because the council has failed to establish that the bay is lawfully designated for “Car Club” use. My appeal is as follows:
1. Location and Contravention:
The councils own photographs show my vehicle adjacent to the carriageway marking “Club Parking.” I do not dispute this. However:
* “Club Parking” is not a prescribed traffic legend under The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016).
* Paragraph 1 of Part 5 to Schedule 7 to the TSRGD confirms that only the prescribed markings may be used to indicate parking restrictions. In this case 'Club Parking' is not a prescribed marking in any event.
Therefore, even if this were an on-street bay, the road marking relied upon by the council carries no legal effect. It therefore follows that the council is offering no evidence that parking at the location without permission would leave the 'owner' liable to the penalty being demanded.
2. On-Street vs Off-Street:
The contravention cited, Code 91, applies to car parks and off-street areas. By issuing a PCN under this code, Southwark Council effectively concedes that the location is not part of the public highway but rather an off-street car park.
If so, then:
* The TSRGD markings cannot apply in law to off-street areas.
* An off-street car park requires a proper entrance sign or conditions board, making it clear to motorists that they are entering a regulated car park and subject to statutory enforcement. No such signage exists at this location.
Accordingly, there is no evidence before the adjudicator showing signage such as a board, informing motorists that they are in fact in a car park subject to specific conditions and statutory controls indicating that this location was designated or regulated as an off-street car park in which a contravention 91 could occur.
3. Lack of Designation:
For a contravention 91 to be enforceable, the council/authority must demonstrate that:
* The land is lawfully designated for car club use, and
* This designation is clearly conveyed by prescribed signage.
The authority has provided no evidence of any such designation, Traffic Order, or lawful signage. Instead, it relies solely on photographs of my vehicle next to the ambiguous wording “Club Parking,” which is meaningless in law.
4. Conclusion:
Southwark Council has not discharged its burden of proof. There is:
* No prescribed road marking,
* No upright sign,
* No evidence that the land is an off-street car park subject to enforceable conditions,
* No Traffic Order or other legal instrument establishing the bay as reserved for car club use.
Therefore, it is clear from the councils evidence and the Signs Regulations that their claim to a penalty is meritless and that the PCN is not payable and must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
-
Post a draft here first.
-
H C Andersen & Stamfordman,
Thank you both for taking the time to provide a response and the wording for my NTO. I will consolidate both your responses into my appeal and send this off.
Once I hear back (hopefully news that the PCN has been cancelled), then I will update this thread.
Thanks again and have a good weekend.
-
I think the point about there being no car park terms must be mentioned as per the decision:
Furthermore, the sign does not suggest that that the area subject to enforcement is in fact an off street car park. On a highway, all motorists must know the signs prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD).This does not apply to an off street car park. There is no evidence of signage such as a board, informing motorists that they are in fact in a car park subject to specific conditions and statutory controls.
-
IMO, don't get distracted by something upon which, in this case, the council is not relying i.e. a Permit Holders only sign.
IMO, review and then demolish their evidence.
The authority is relying upon a PCN citing the contravention of 'Parked in a car park or area not designated for that class of vehicle'. The code descriptor '91' has also been used and therefore the authority's claim is that a penalty at the level mandated by the Mayor of London and London Councils is payable for parking at the location.
The authority's 6 photos show my car parked adjacent to the markings 'Club Parking' and this is not in dispute.
As the authority evidentially concedes that the location is not on a road, then even if the markings were prescribed under Regulations for on-road use only, they would have no effect in a car park. In this case 'Club Parking' is not a prescribed marking in any event(para. 1 of Part 5 to Schedule 7 to the Traffic Signs etc. Regulations refers).
It therefore follows that the authority is offering no evidence that parking at the location without permission would leave the 'owner' liable to the penalty being demanded.
It is clear from the authority's evidence and the Signs Regulations that their claim to a penalty is meritless and that the PCN must be cancelled.
-
Hi Stamfordman,
Many thanks for your response. Yes, letter has my name and address which has been blurred. Image can be viewed here - https://imgur.com/a/G7fBZ9A
-
Post the first page of the NTO - is it in your name and address?
-
Good morning all,
I have received my NTO, and will be grateful for some direction on what information to include in my appeal. This is my first time taking a penalty this far so I will appreciate any insight.
Thank you.
Please let me know whether you will like to see a picture of the NTO.
-
Hi Stamfordman,
I'm happy to post the councils pics. I've never joined/posted in a forum before so still finding my feet. Apologies! I guess I'm also conscious that private/council parking offices scour these sites to strengthen their defence, but maybe I'm thinking too deeply into it haha.
Per your question, the vehicle was a multiyear leased car which I've now returned to the dealership. I was the registered owner, with a V5C and my address for the PCN is/was correct. You are correct in that Sheild Street has no designated parking bays.
I've attached the council images here. Also happy to DM if you have any issues accessing - https://imgur.com/a/t73jK5l
-
Please post the council's pics as we need to check we've not missed anything. If you can't do it PM me the details and I'll blank your VRM as you seem to be worried.
Are you the registered keeper and is the V5C logbook address correct.
If you look at the order I posted I can only conclude that Shield Street while subject to estate permit parking has no designated bays at all.
-
Hi StamfordMan,
Many thanks for reviewing my post and adding your comments. I am in total agreement. When I did my research before my initial appeal, I found information online confirming my thoughts that "Club Parking" is very ambiguous and the relevant upright signage should follow to give drivers clarity.
As such, I thought I had a good case for appeal, but Southwark are adamant on rejecting most appeals even for legitimate reasons.
To answer your question, the "Club Parking" bay was introduced in 2019 when the residential development was built/finished. The bay in question was not enforced until this year (to my knowledge), even after the North Peckham Estate residential parking was introduced in 2021. I have parked in this bay a number of times with no issues.
Thank you for including Ivans case. I will review further and take note of arguments I could use once I receive the NTO. I've never taken a penalty this far so I am in unfamiliar territory here, but I am so sure I have a good case for getting the PCN cancelled.
-
You need to post the council's pics.
Southwark has put up an on-street permit parking area sign at the entrance to an off-street car park.
But it has issued a code 91 off-street contravention but 'Parked in a car park or area not designated for that class of vehicle' makes no sense with a legend that just says club parking and there is no upright sign.
Could it be the Tufty Club? Fans of Only Fools and Horses?
When was this scheme in Shield Street introduced - if at the same time as the North Peckham Estate order there is no mention of any club bay but the map here shows no parking places in Shield Street:
https://services.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/51928/N-Peckham-Estate-Parking-Zone-notice-dated-5-Aug-2021-.pdf
Furthermore there is no terms board for this car park telling you what to do. Ivan won a case here on this basis (see below).
If it looks like nonsense it probably is.
You can see this 'club' bay here:
(https://i.imgur.com/vZ0TVDK.png)
Case reference 224053735A
Appellant xxxxx
Authority London Borough of Southwark
VRM V11 KDV
PCN Details
PCN JK11077172
Contravention date 09 Jan 2024
Contravention time 11:31:00
Contravention location North Peckham Estate
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked without a valid permit where required
Referral date -
Decision Date 08 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Martin Hoare
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons 1. Mr xxxxx was represented by Mr Murray- Smith in this appeal hearing. The Authority made a 6 January 2025 adjournment request so that it could consider the 27 December 2024 skeleton argument. No reason was offered for the lateness of the request or why it had not been possible to consider the skeleton argument prior to the scheduled hearing.
2. Given the above and that Tribunal resources and hearing time had already been allocated to this matter, it was not in the interests of justice that the matter was adjourned.
3. Mr Murray-Smith relied on his skeleton argument. The key point of which is that the signage was not adequate
4. The penalty charge notice alleged ‘Parked without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit where required’.
5. According to the Authority summary ‘There is a sign at the entrance to where the vehicle was parked, that explains that the place they had parked in is for people with an estates permit. the PCN was issued as the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) observed the vehicle parked without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid permit.’
6. The Authority plan, civil enforcement officer’s photographs and photographs establish that this car was parked without a permit in an off street car park.
7. The are close up images of a permit holders parking only beyond this point sign. The photographs do not show the position of the signage in the context of the location as a whole. This photograph does not establish that the signage was conspicuous. Signage must be conspicuously positioned if it is to form the basis for lawful enforcement.
8. Furthermore, the sign does not suggest that that the area subject to enforcement is in fact an off street car park. On a highway, all motorists must know the signs prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD).This does not apply to an off street car park. There is no evidence of signage such as a board, informing motorists that they are in fact in a car park subject to specific conditions and statutory controls.
9. The evidence on this occasion does not establish that the signage was conspicuous.
10. The appeal is allowed.
-
Hi, thank you for the responses and for directing me to the instructions on how to add images. I have reformatted the images and pasted them to the recommended site for viewing. please let me know if there are any issues viewing the images. I have posted the PCN, my appeal, the councils response, and the parking bay in question. I have also included an image of a similar parking bay in the area, though this bay is on the Main Street.
link: https://imgur.com/a/wug23oF
-
You appear to have an off-street PCN so your challenge was off-topic.
You've blanked the location on the pic but without details we can't help you.
-
Please have a read of the READ THIS FIRST - **BEFORE POSTING YOUR CASE!** (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/) sticky post at the top of this forum. It contains instructions on how to post images and documents.
Please post up the PCN with no redactions except your name & address, if present.
-
Hi all,
I received a PCN for parking my car in a "car club bay" (contravention 91). This "car club bay" is on a residential block and not the main street. The development is 6 years old, and the bay has only been enforced, from my understanding now, within the last 6 months. The bay is located in Southwark. From my research into the Traffic Sign Regulations, this bay does not correspond to the prescribed legend “Car Club Only” as required (under TSRGD 2016), neither does it have clear carriageway markings to match, like other bays of the same restriction. I understand an upright sign is optional and not always required.
Furthermore, according to Southwark Council’s own published guidance (as per https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking-streets-and-transport/parking/places-park/car-clubs), car club bays should be clearly marked both with appropriate road markings stating “Car Club Only.”
The bay in which I parked does not meet these requirements and does not adequately inform motorists of any restriction relating to car clubs. I sent in images of the bay in question, and another in the same area with the correct markings/optional signage in my appeal. I can find plenty more in the same borough if I had the time.
I initially appealed the parking ticket of these reasons, however the council did not address my points regarding the regulations and information on their own site. The response was lacklustre and assumed I had "difficulties finding somewhere to park".
I am waiting for the NTO to formally appeal as I believe I have a chance here, but do you think I am being realistic? Unfortunately, the 14 days discounted rate has passed to pay the PCN, but my main concern is that Southwark are not addressing the inconsistencies in the parking regulations and the bay in question. I'd appreciate your help.
ahh - I can't seem to attach any PDF's or images of the parking ticket, appeal and appeal response as they're all too large, even when compressed! As added description the bay displays the text "club parking". There are no road markings and no upright signage. No other parking spaces have road markings either, but are free for residents.