Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: gainz on August 21, 2025, 12:23:04 pm
-
Hello appeal rejected. Mispaced it and just found it so not many days left.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vRsx7iEWu93ifT8GRmbHSrXYWdGdVI3L/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G8Vh6nTuzCT7jesWerl_ycXIJqrijSSZ/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Em7dCRv81HIXNg_PHYL0cUrZqXp8jcnq/view?usp=sharing
I'm thinking to go to tribunal just wanted some advice. Thanks again
-
Contravention did not occur is there
-
I should choose one or more of the following;
Select all that apply, you have the opportunity to add additional information on the next screen.
Became owner of vehicle after contravention date
Ceased to be owner before date of contravention
CEO was not prevented from serving the PCN
Hire firm - the vehicle was under hire agreement
I was never the owner of the vehicle
Penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable
The alleged contravention did not occur
The penalty charge has already been paid
The Traffic Order is invalid
There has been a procedural impropriety
Vehicle taken without the owner`s consent
Where other grounds exist (eg such as mitigation)
Thank you
-
Perhaps...
I parked at the location as I have many times before. I passed the traffic sign(as seen in the council's photos) whilst manoeuvring into the space. The restrictions here are well known to me and end at 6.30pm. I parked at approx. 6.**. As I parked it was clear, as shown in the photos, that the traffic sign was uncovered and contained its regular restriction. Consequently, I had no reason to look any further into the other signs which were attached to the same post.
If the council wished to replace the provisions conveyed by the sign[with No waiting, loading or unloading], then it was incumbent on it to cover the sign. As this sign was left uncovered, no blame should attach to the driver and the contravention did not occur.
If the authority rejects these representations, then it must address the substantive issues:
Does the authority accept that at the time of the contravention the regular traffic sign was clearly displayed and its restrictions clear to drivers?
If so, why was this sign not covered as the whole length of the bay was within the scope of the TTRO?
Did the council make a conscious decision to leave the traffic sign uncovered because the TTRO restrictions were discontinuous?
Why does the PCN refer to different grounds from those stated in the Order, namely *********** instead of ****************. This is in itself misleading because if the driver was loading/collecting etc, then the CEO's error would encourage them to submit representations to this effect when in actuality the restriction in the Order precludes such a defence. This is grossly misleading.
The PCN must be cancelled.
-
Is there anything in it not being a code 02 as well.
-
You have to make reps no later than 9 Sept.
In the photos, it seems as if the traffic sign itself is uncovered. This is conflicting, it should be covered.
I think I know what's happened which is that the council couldn't be bothered to cover then uncover then cover (the TTRO restrictions were discontinuous).
For comment:
I parked at the location as I have many times before. I passed the traffic sign(as seen in the council's photos) whilst manoeuvring into the space. The restrictions here are well known to me and end at 6.30pm. I parked at approx. 6.**. As I parked it was clear, as shown in the photos, that the traffic sign was uncovered and contained its regular restriction. Consequently, I had no reason to look any further into the other signs which were attached to the same post.
If the council wished to replace the provisions conveyed by the sign, then it was incumbent on it to cover the sign. As this sign was left uncovered, no blame should attach to the driver and the contravention did not occur.
If the authority rejects these representations, then it must address the substantive issues:
Does the authority accept that at the time of the contravention the regular traffic sign was clearly displayed and its restrictions clear to drivers?
If so, why was this sign not covered as the whole length of the bay was within the scope of the TTRO?
Did the council make a conscious decision to leave the traffic sign uncovered because the TTRO restrictions were discontinuous?
-
Hello is there any follow up on this?
-
delete
-
Yes its a permit parking bay. The restrictions normally end at 18:30.
-
Looks like the wrong contravention as should be a code 2 as there is a no loading restriction.
I don't like these temp traffic orders - is this a permit parking bay?
The date was Friday 11 July and time 18:59. The PCN was served.
(https://i.ibb.co/Myh8Y9Yd/Screenshot-2025-08-21-at-16-32-19.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/LhC2HP1f/Screenshot-2025-08-21-at-16-32-09.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/b5nVtNFS/Screenshot-2025-08-21-at-16-32-41.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/0VQcfXW6/Screenshot-2025-08-21-at-16-32-34.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/gMCbM8xh/Screenshot-2025-08-21-at-16-32-28.png)
-
This is unreal. My mrs received a NTO today not remembering even parking here never mind getting a pcn. Checked her files but nothing. I do not remember any suspenions on this road as we go here often. I checked the pictures but really don't know what heppened here. At least I should appeal for the reduced rate is there anything further to add?
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1q0WvL2q7nkCKm9HMaBFEkjJJZdxKz0Cx?usp=sharing