Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: sammiefields2512 on September 07, 2025, 12:03:48 am
-
H C Andersen, thanks, I'll check that post out.
stamfordman, I don't know, only thing I can think of, is that my availability time of 10am to 2pm Monday to Saturday, was a bit restrictive, so maybe that's the soonest date they had available to match those times.
-
3 March is a long way off - any reason why so long?
-
Next stage is for the authority to provide the tribunal with a copy of the PCN and NOR and then nearer the date to provide you and the tribunal with a copy of their evidence. Nothing really for you to do until Feb. when you should come back here.
Read the OP's experience of a recent hearing here: https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-council-parking-ticket/
-
I got my tribunal hearing date:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JAS_LKNqWUlmd24CXiOc_60kCpNnny3g/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JAS_LKNqWUlmd24CXiOc_60kCpNnny3g/view?usp=sharing)
It's on the 3rd of March 2026, 12:15pm, on Microsoft Teams video conferencing platform.
I've never attended one of these before. Any tips/advice would be much appreciated.
If I don't hear from anybody, I'll just attend and do my best to support the written arguments I sent.
-
H C Andersen, thank you for your prompt input, much appreciated.
Here's the tribunal application I submitted:
https://imgpile.com/p/n4H8c9y#4GkQZJH (https://imgpile.com/p/n4H8c9y#4GkQZJH)
Since the following picture shows 2 plates, I didn't mention about a single plate, but none of the pics still show 3 plates.
https://imgpile.com/p/OCQcns6 (https://imgpile.com/p/OCQcns6)
Here's the text I entered:
I appeal on three grounds: (1) The contravention did not occur; (2) The penalty/other charge paid to have the vehicle released exceeded the amount applicable; (3) Procedural impropriety.
1) Contravention did not occur – inadequate / unclear signage at my position.
This was a long residents’ bay (≈30 m). On the removal date there was a single suspension sign at the far end of the bay, ≈27 m from my space; there was no sign near my vehicle and the permanent bay plate above the suspension plate remained visible. I did not see any indication that the space I used was suspended. The authority says its suspension signs are three-sided and DfT-authorised, but its photographs do not show a compliant three-sided unit with side arms. That raises serious doubt that a compliant sign was actually displayed, which would explain why no suspension was apparent from where I parked. In a long bay, with no three-sided unit with side arms and an uncovered permanent plate do not adequately convey that my specific position is suspended.
2) Penalty/other charge exceeded the amount applicable – removal/storage not applicable if relocation should have been used.
The Notice of Rejection (NoR) asserts the suspension sign was erected 04/08/2025 at 11:25 and that my VRM was not on the “already present” list. However, the authority has not produced the suspension-**** log, the vehicle-presence/VRM list, or **** photos. Its own Removal & Relocation Policy for contravention 21 requires that any vehicle recorded as present when the notices were erected must be relocated to the nearest lawful bay (not taken to the pound). If, on proper disclosure, the records show my vehicle was already present, the removal/storage charges were not applicable and must be refunded. If the authority cannot prove its assertion, the same conclusion follows: it has not discharged the burden to justify removal charges.
3) Procedural impropriety.
(a) Failure to consider: my formal reps raised the number/positioning of signs over a 30 m bay, the uncovered permanent plate, and the relocation-only policy. The NoR replies with bare assertions (including the 04/08/25 11:25 claim and “vehicle not on list”) but no supporting records and no engagement with the adequacy of signing at my position.
(b) Failure to disclose key documents reasonably requested and central to its case: the suspension **** log (with times/locations/photos and extent diagram), any VRM list, CEO photos and notes, the removal job sheet, the Traffic Order/TTRO/works authorisation, any DfT authorisation relied on, and the policy/decision record explaining why removal (not relocation) was used. The authority’s refusal/failure to provide these constitutes procedural unfairness.
Remedy sought.
Allow the appeal, cancel the PCN and direct a refund of £415 (PCN £80 + removal £280 + storage £55). In the alternative, please issue a direction requiring the authority to produce the items listed above; if it cannot produce them, draw an adverse inference and allow the appeal.
I will upload: PCN (front/back), pound receipt (£415), photo showing the single sign at the far end of the bay, my correspondence requesting disclosure, and the NoR. I reserve the right to file a fuller submission once the authority serves its evidence.
-
You've left matters very late, but provided you register your appeal - and this is all you do- then you can add further representations as and when evidence is provided by the authority or discovered by you.
IMO, I suggest you go with: (but wait for others)
Contravention did not occur;
Amount paid to secure the release ......exceeded the ....circumstances of the case;
Procedural impropriety.
I think this is the authorisation:
https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-3525.pdf
The sign must have 3 sides.
Check their photos, all 60+ of them. IMO, you won't see one which shows or even suggests the presence of the side arms. (even your neighbour's photo - about which I suggest you keep quiet because it's the council's evidence under scrutiny - only shows one arm, facing away from you.)
So, I suggest the following:
You are unclear as to when you parked. Now that the authority has provided the date on which the sign was erected it could have been that you parked after that time: all you know is that you saw an uncovered traffic sign, albeit 30m away, but did not see any indication of a suspension sign or anything else hanging on the post. On reviewing the authority's voluminous photographic evidence, you notice that none of these shows the suspension sign with clear side arms, there being only a single photo taken from head-on. This raises serious doubts in your mind that the sign authorised by the SoS was displayed as required which would explain why you did not see it: there was nothing to see.
Alternatively, if indeed you parked before the stated date and it's shown that the authority's records do not withstand scrutiny in this regard then the second grounds of appeal apply. You cannot be certain at this point of the validity of the authority's claim because at the date of writing their records have not been provided despite being central to their grounds for removing my vehicle to the pound i.e. their policy and clear statement in the NOR being that had my vehicle been in situ then it would simply have been moved to another location and not to the pound. From this it must follow that demanding the removal fee and storage charges was unlawful and therefore the amount paid.....charge exceed ...circumstances.
As regards procedural improprieties, the first follows from the fact that the photos which have been made available to me were also those reviewed by the authority and none of these shows compliance with the SoS's authorisation (which requires that the sign comprises three clear sides) despite their claim to the contrary. You submit that this means that when rejecting my representations on this point the authority did not give proper consideration to the facts. In addition, I would also submit that when evidence is available and particularly when production forms part of a reasonable request, their failure to produce any of the key documents upon which their rejection rests constitutes a procedural impropriety.
You can ensure continuity as regards the person in which the reps are submitted, my draft rather jumps around.
-
Sorry for the late response, I had some personal issues I had to deal with.
I know it's last minute, but I'd like to be able to put together an appeal.
Tower Hamlets sent me a hard copy of the same letter in the post:
https://imgpile.com/p/gDqwZpN#UabiD6v (https://imgpile.com/p/gDqwZpN#UabiD6v)
it looks like they've not responded to all the points and certainly haven't provided the sign log.
This is correct.
They say they put the sign up at 11:25 on 4 August. Have you got any idea of your car movements before or after this?
I said earlier, that from my bank expenses, my last expense on the car that indicates I would have moved it, was when I fuelled up on the 29th of July. Then I bought my new car on the 31st of July, and I don't have any recollection of having used the old car after that. It's unlikely that I would have used it after the 4th of August, but I can't verify this.
Presumably what you've posted was attached to an email, yes?.
Correct
I suggest you do not register yet but instead respond to the NoR and ask for a copy of the council's policy regarding removing vehicles, to which you referred in your representations and expected to be attached to any rejection. This is required to be provided in time for you to consider the grounds of any appeal to the adjudicator.
The email I received was from a "noreply" email address, would it be best to send a physical letter (via recorded delivery) to the address on the NoR letter? When I previously emailed tickets@towerhamlets.gov.uk, I got an auto reply that said, "This mailbox will only accept formal representations for vehicle removals."
Since it's close to the deadline, I'll send the Tower Hamlets letter/email and do the tribunal appeal at the same time.
For the tribunal appeal, it says in the NoR:
If you wish to appeal then you may do so online at https://londontribunals.org.uk. Your
verification code for the appeal is 81I592 and you will need to input this in order to appeal. If you are unable to appeal online then you can contact the Council's enquiries line on 020 7364
5000 to request a hard copy of the Appeal Form.
If I call that number and request a hard copy, might I get an extension for the appeal?
Here's what ChatGPT recommends I send to Tower Hamlets:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16rXMG1bq6dKpL-orPiekolar3zhxrjI5/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/16rXMG1bq6dKpL-orPiekolar3zhxrjI5/view?usp=sharing)
Here's what ChatGPT recommends I include in my tribunal appeal:
https://imgpile.com/p/gDqwZpN#I970fZB (https://imgpile.com/p/gDqwZpN#I970fZB)
Any input will be much appreciated.
-
It's a no brainer to register and appeal and you have until 20 October to do so.(I note that the NoR is dated 19th, which is today. Presumably what you've posted was attached to an email, yes? If so, the date of service is presumed to be 23 Sept. which gives 20 Oct. as day 28).
I suggest you do not register yet but instead respond to the NoR and ask for a copy of the council's policy regarding removing vehicles, to which you referred in your representations and expected to be attached to any rejection. This is required to be provided in time for you to consider the grounds of any appeal to the adjudicator.
-
It costs nothing but your time to appeal.
I've had a brief look at the rejection but it looks like they've not responded to all the points and certainly haven't provided the sign log.
They say they put the sign up at 11:25 on 4 August. Have you got any idea of your car movements before or after this?
-
Just got my Notice of Rejection today:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11WGNpFyDQVXrIG9n41JyuFHGDilXRA2p/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/11WGNpFyDQVXrIG9n41JyuFHGDilXRA2p/view?usp=drive_link)
Here's my original appeal:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hkMJsOgg4r4l6bHAYUzxdDevxd6omz2W/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hkMJsOgg4r4l6bHAYUzxdDevxd6omz2W/view?usp=sharing)
Apparently the car was not there when they put the signs up:
"Our suspension record shows your vehicle was not in the bay prior to the suspension sign was put in place on 04/08/25 at 11:25."
Should I ask for evidence for this?
Do you think it's worth appealing this to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators?
Thanks.
-
Thank you stamfordman.
I looked at a load of pictures and other posts on the forum, and I couldn't find any examples of the permanent sign being covered, even when the suspension applied to the whole bay. Also, it doesn't seem likely to me that the argument re the yellow sign not being seen because it was low and may have been covered by a car, would work, because they are fully within their rights to place it there during partial bay suspensions when they don't have to cover the permanent sign.
That I possibly parked before the suspension sign went up, and expecting relocation, is covered in point 1 below. Request for vehicle removal policy is mentioned at the end.
Point 2 I've left in the argument that the sign was far away. I'd like to leave this in incase Tower Hamlets logs show that my car wasn't parked there when the signs went up.
Updated email:
Dear Tower Hamlets Parking Services,
I make representations against the PCN and the removal and storage charges under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions regulations.
PCN: TT59832434
VRM: FT04 EDL
Contravention code: 21 (parked wholly or partly in a suspended bay or space)
Location: Blair Street (junction Abbott Road)
PCN time: 08:34 on 11/08/2025
Vehicle release: 13/08/2025
Sums paid: £80 PCN (discount), £280 removal, £55 storage (total £415) – pound receipt attached.
1. Procedural impropriety/improper use of removal powers: removal was disproportionate and relocation should have been considered.
I hold a valid resident's permit and therefore the council, acting fairly and proportionately, should have sought to relocate my car in the area and not remove to a pound which increased my financial liability by over £200 i.e. more than doubling the penalty charge. I acknowledge that the sign states that vehicles in contravention may be removed, but removal is not synonymous with taking to a pound, removing to another place on a road being equally applicable.
Additionally, your published Vehicle Removals & Relocations Policy for contravention 21 states that any vehicle recorded as being in the suspended area when the suspension notices were erected must only be relocated to the nearest lawful bay. If your records show my car was present when the signs were erected, removal to the pound was contrary to policy and disproportionate; relocation should have been used.
If the authority reject these grounds then they must state in detail on what basis the council chose (on this occasion) or has chosen (as a matter of public policy) to remove my car to a pound and not simply to another place on a road.
2. Contravention did not occur.
The bay is approximately 30 metres long. On the date of removal there was only one temporary suspension sign and it was placed at the opposite end of the bay, approximately 27 metres from where my vehicle was parked. There was no temporary sign in the vicinity of my space. In those circumstances the restriction was not adequately conveyed to a diligent motorist at my position and the contravention did not occur.
The Department for Transport’s Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) Ch.3 advises that where a bay is suspended a temporary sign to diagram 640.1 should be used to cover the parking place upright sign (Figure 13-88) so that the restriction is properly conveyed to motorists using the bay. It also says, "There should be sufficient signs to ensure that it is clear that parking is not permitted." Hence where a long length is affected, signage must be positioned so that adequate information is given to road users.
On that basis, the alleged contravention was not properly indicated at my position and did not occur.
Remedy sought
Please cancel the PCN and refund in full the removal and storage charges (£280 + £55) and the PCN sum I had to pay to recover the vehicle (£80), totalling £415.
Evidence enclosed
- PCN (front/back).
- Pound receipt showing £415 paid.
- Photo of the sole suspension sign at the far end of the bay.
- Neighbour’s photo showing my car parked at the opposite end of the bay on the morning of removal.
Disclosure requested
If you do not accept these representations, please supply with your Notice of Rejection:
- The suspension **** log for the Blair Street suspension covering my space, including date/time each sign was erected/checked/removed, installer details, photos, and the extent/diagram of the suspended length.
- Any vehicle-presence/VRM list made when the signs were erected (you may redact third-party VRMs). Please state explicitly whether VRM FT04 EDL appears and, if no list was produced, explain why given your relocation policy.
- All CEO photos showing the sign and my vehicle in context (not just close-ups), CEO notes, and the removal job sheet (PCN issue time, lift start/finish, pound arrival).
- The DfT authorisation for the precise suspension sign used (or confirmation it is the prescribed diagram 640.1 sign) and the Traffic Order/TTRO covering this suspension.
- The Council’s removal/relocation policy and assessment showing why relocation was not used.
- Assessment showing why the temporary suspension sign did not cover the permanent bay sign
Yours faithfully,
-
The parking sign would only be covered up on the day(s) of the suspension... and we've never seen this done.
I would just challenge that you were parked before the suspension sign went up and as a resident you'd expect to be relocated not impounded.
I would also request their vehicle removal policy.
-
Since I have no experience in these matters, I'm going to use H C Andersen's template and add in the part about possibly being parked there from before the signs were erected. I'll send it before midnight today.
The argument about the old sign not being covered seems to hold some weight. Though not compulsory, them having not covered it, adds some weight to my argument that the sign was far away and not visible. So if their records indicate that my car was NOT parked there at the time the suspension signage was erected, I could argue that their signage was inadequate (far away, too low, didn't cover original sign).
Here's what I'll be sending, stamfordman or anyone else, please let me know if I should change anything.
Dear Tower Hamlets Parking Services,
I make representations against the PCN and the removal and storage charges under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions regulations.
PCN: TT59832434
VRM: FT04 EDL
Contravention code: 21 (parked wholly or partly in a suspended bay or space)
Location: Blair Street (junction Abbott Road)
PCN time: 08:34 on 11/08/2025
Vehicle release: 13/08/2025
Sums paid: £80 PCN (discount), £280 removal, £55 storage (total £415) – pound receipt attached.
1.The penalty charge or other charge... circumstances of the case;
2.Contravention did not occur.
1. I hold a valid resident's permit and therefore the council, acting fairly and proportionately, should have sought to relocate my car in the area and not remove to a pound which increased my financial liability by over £200 i.e. more than doubling the penalty charge. I acknowledge that the sign states that vehicles in contravention may be removed, but removal is not synonymous with taking to a pound, removing to another place on a road being equally applicable.
Additionally, your published Vehicle Removals & Relocations Policy for contravention 21 states that any vehicle recorded as being in the suspended area when the suspension notices were erected must only be relocated to the nearest lawful bay. If your records show my car was present when the signs were erected, removal to the pound was contrary to policy and disproportionate; relocation should have been used.
If the authority reject these grounds then they must state in detail on what basis the council chose (on this occasion) or has chosen (as a matter of public policy) to remove my car to a pound and not simply to another place on a road.
2. As regards the contravention, I notice from the authority's photos that there is a single parking place approx. 30m in length, that there was a single suspension sign in the parking place, that this was attached to the same post as and well beneath the only traffic sign in the bay, this being at the end of the bay and therefore approx. 27m from my car, that the suspension applied to the complete bay; and that at all times during the period of suspension this traffic sign was left uncovered by the council.
This is wholly improper.
The Department for Transport’s Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) Ch.3 advises that where a bay is suspended a temporary sign to diagram 640.1 should be used to cover the parking place upright sign (Figure 13-88) so that the restriction is properly conveyed to motorists using the bay.
Whereas a motorist being parked at the end of the bay furthest from the sign, as I was, might not see the suspension sign because this could be obscured by the roofs of cars, they would be able to see the traffic sign, which is set at a prescribed height for this purpose. Any resident permit holder parking and seeing this sign would not have any reason to look further whereas, if it had been covered - as it should have been because it served no purpose during the suspension- then it would have been incumbent upon a motorist to discover why and thereby see the suspension sign.
If the authority reject these grounds they must explain why, as a matter of policy, this sign was not covered.
Remedy sought
Please cancel the PCN and refund in full the removal and storage charges (£280 + £55) and the PCN sum I had to pay to recover the vehicle (£80), totalling £415.
Evidence enclosed
- PCN (front/back).
- Pound receipt showing £415 paid.
- Photo of the sole suspension sign at the far end of the bay.
- Neighbour’s photo showing my car parked at the opposite end of the bay on the morning of removal.
Disclosure requested
If you do not accept these representations, please supply with your Notice of Rejection:
- The suspension **** log for the Blair Street suspension covering my space, including date/time each sign was erected/checked/removed, installer details, photos, and the extent/diagram of the suspended length.
- Any vehicle-presence/VRM list made when the signs were erected (you may redact third-party VRMs). Please state explicitly whether VRM FT04 EDL appears and, if no list was produced, explain why given your relocation policy.
- All CEO photos showing the sign and my vehicle in context (not just close-ups), CEO notes, and the removal job sheet (PCN issue time, lift start/finish, pound arrival).
- The DfT authorisation for the precise suspension sign used (or confirmation it is the prescribed diagram 640.1 sign) and the Traffic Order/TTRO covering this suspension.
- The Council’s removal/relocation policy and assessment showing why relocation was not used.
- Assessment showing why the temporary suspension sign did not cover the permanent bay sign
Yours faithfully,
-
If a suspension affects the whole of a bay then the traffic sign should be covered because the suspension sign supersedes the traffic sign which should therefore not be displayed as it does not, for the period of suspension, convey the extant restriction.
-
The parking bay is suspended but it does not become a parking bay until 8.30am the PCN is timed before this time so is not valid therefore the tow is outwith the regulations
Thank you for your input Pastmybest, but the PCN time says 08:34. I wish they had made that mistake. Please correct me if I'm missing anything here.
-
The parking bay is suspended but it does not become a parking bay until 8.30am the PCN is timed before this time so is not valid therefore the tow is outwith the regulations
-
The point about the sign only makes sense if you were checking the car otherwise it seems you just parked before the suspension sign went up and then didn't check.
And I'm not sure what Mr Andersen is on about as we've never seen the parking signs in suspended parking places under code 21 obscured on the day(s) of suspension.
I did a Google image search, and it seems a lot of yellow suspension signs are placed beneath the original permanent parking sign, without covering the original. I guess they place the suspension sign low so people can read the small print.
But why then does The Traffic Signs Manual (Ch.3) say, "Where a parking bay is suspended, a temporary sign to diagram 640.1 (S13‑6‑22, see Figure 13-88) should be used to cover the parking place upright sign."?
I asked ChatGPT about this:
By searching for suspended parking bay signs on Google Images, I can see that a lot of suspension signs don't cover the original permanent parking sign. Do they really have to cover the original sign with the suspension sign?
ChatGPT said:
Short answer: they don’t have to cover it, but they should.
The Department for Transport’s Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) Chapter 3 says that when a bay is suspended, a temporary sign to diagram 640.1 should be used to cover the parking place upright sign—the idea is to avoid two conflicting messages on the same post. “Should” here is guidance (not an absolute legal “must”), but councils are expected to have regard to it.
GOV.UK
Adjudicators look at adequacy and clarity overall. If both the permanent and temporary plates are visible, it isn’t automatically invalid—but it can support an argument that the restriction wasn’t clearly conveyed (especially coupled with distance/positioning issues). The Campbell v Camden key case is often cited on the need for a compliant, clear suspension sign.
Separately, most London boroughs (including Tower Hamlets) have DfT authorisations for their suspension signs. Those authorisations govern the design/wording; they don’t always dictate covering, which is why you’ll see many signs placed below the permanent plate in practice.
dft.gov.uk
How to use this in your appeal
Frame it as part of your “signage not adequately conveyed” ground, not as a technical knockout:
Point out the permanent plate remained visible above the temporary suspension plate, which is contrary to TSM guidance to cover the upright sign, creating mixed messaging at that location.
Combine this with your single distant sign over ~30 m argument to show that, taken together, the signage was insufficiently prominent and potentially confusing where you parked. Back it up by asking the council to disclose their **** photos and the extent diagram for the suspension.
Bottom line: covering the permanent sign is best practice (per TSM) but not a strict legal requirement. Your strongest position is to argue overall inadequacy/ambiguity—and the uncovered permanent sign is one of several points that support that.
When and how did you find out the car was impounded.
On the night of 12/08/2025, I went out looking for it and couldn't find it. I called the TRACE service, and they told me it was at Tower Hamlets Car Pound, so I went and collected it the next morning.
-
The point about the sign only makes sense if you were checking the car otherwise it seems you just parked before the suspension sign went up and then didn't check.
And I'm not sure what Mr Andersen is on about as we've never seen the parking signs in suspended parking places under code 21 obscured on the day(s) of suspension.
When and how did you find out the car was impounded.
Tower Hamlets has revised its enforcement policy recently but I can't find it.
-
You said this in your reps: -
"There was no sign adjacent to the vehicle and nothing covering the ordinary bay upright sign by my space."
However, GSV shows there to be only a single sign for the bay which is reasonable for its length, although it would be better if it were in the middle of the bay length, but not essential. The council therefore have correctly signed the suspension by placing it on the bay sign.
You're right there was no sign by my space, I meant to edit that out, I don't know why ChatGPT put it in. I'll be sure to remove it when I send the appeal.
I would also say that if you're in the habit of leaving your car for lengthy periods without checking every few days then you're asking for trouble in London, because suspension are very frequent with most road space available for parking full used on a 24x7 basis, so utilities need suspensions in order to carry out work.
I rarely do this. I mostly use my car to drop my wife off to work, and since she works in a school, my car gets very little use in the summer holidays. On top of that, I bought a new car on the 31st of July.
------
Can you recall when you parked there and what you then did - were you at home?
From my bank expenses, my last expense on the car that indicates I would have moved it, was when I fuelled up on the 29th of July. Then I bought my new car on the 31st of July, and I don't have any recollection of having used the old car after that. So most likely I parked it there on the 29th of July.
I'll check TH's removal policy but consideration of relocation probably depends on how long in advance they signed the suspension.
I did a search for their removal & relocation policy online, and found this:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/removing_vehicles_parked_illegal/response/1174892/attach/2/Policy%20Vehicle%20Removals%20Relocations%20v4.3.pdf.pdf (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/removing_vehicles_parked_illegal/response/1174892/attach/2/Policy%20Vehicle%20Removals%20Relocations%20v4.3.pdf.pdf)
Paragraph 21 says, “Any vehicle recorded as having been in the suspended area when the suspension notices were erected must only be relocated to the nearest available legal parking place.”
I guess it's all riding on what their suspension log says.
stamfordman, thanks for posting those pics. I couldn't access any pics with my PCN details at towerhamlets.gov.uk/parking, all I could see was a message saying "PCN is complete", since I've paid it.
------
If you collected your car on 13th and received the 'appeals' info at this time then the 28-day period ends on 9th Sept.
Thanks, I'll send it by end of day Monday the 8th, just to be sure.
2. As regards the contravention, I notice from the authority's photos that there is a single parking place approx. 30m in length, that there was a single suspension sign in the parking place, that this was attached to the same post as and well beneath the only traffic sign in the bay, this being at the end of the bay and therefore approx. 27m from my car, that the suspension applied to the complete bay; and that at all times during the period of suspension this traffic sign was left uncovered by the council.
Well spotted! I looked it up, and according to The Traffic Signs Manual (Ch.3), "Where a parking bay is suspended, a temporary sign to diagram 640.1 (S13‑6‑22, see Figure 13-88) should be used to cover the parking place upright sign."
------
The key point missing from your take is also parking in good faith before the suspension was signed.
Yes, I think this is important, I will add it in alongside what H C Andersen posted.
-
This isn't a temp traffic order and authorities don't cover up suspended signs that aren't suspended in advance.
I didn't mention in advance.
The photos are on the day, and it's uncovered. The OP's references are all to the day in question.
-
Whereas a motorist being parked at the end of the bay furthest from the sign, as I was, might not see the suspension sign because this could be obscured by the roofs of cars, they would be able to see the traffic sign, which is set at a prescribed height for this purpose. Any resident permit holder parking and seeing this sign would not have any reason to look further whereas, if it had been covered - as it should have been because it served no purpose during the suspension- then it would have been incumbent upon a motorist to discover why and thereby see the suspension sign.
This isn't a temp traffic order and authorities don't cover up suspended signs that aren't suspended in advance.
The key point missing from your take is also parking in good faith before the suspension was signed.
-
If you collected your car on 13th and received the 'appeals' info at this time then the 28-day period ends on 9th Sept.
I suggest the following grounds for discussion:
IMO your reps are waffle. OK, AI generated but still waffle.
IMO, your primary grounds should be:
1.The penalty charge or other charge........circumstances of the case;
2.Contravention did not occur.
1. I hold a valid resident's permit and therefore the council, acting fairly and proportionately, should have sought to relocate my car in the area and not remove to a pound which increased my financial liability by over £200 i.e. more than doubling the penalty charge. I acknowledge that the sign states that vehicles in contravention may be removed, but removal is not synonymous with taking to a pound, removing to another place on a road being equally applicable.
If the authority reject these grounds then they must state in detail on what basis the council chose(on this occasion) or has chosen(as a matter of public policy) to remove my car to a pound and not simply to another place on a road.
2. As regards the contravention, I notice from the authority's photos that there is a single parking place approx. 30m in length, that there was a single suspension sign in the parking place, that this was attached to the same post as and well beneath the only traffic sign in the bay, this being at the end of the bay and therefore approx. 27m from my car, that the suspension applied to the complete bay; and that at all times during the period of suspension this traffic sign was left uncovered by the council.
This is wholly improper.
Whereas a motorist being parked at the end of the bay furthest from the sign, as I was, might not see the suspension sign because this could be obscured by the roofs of cars, they would be able to see the traffic sign, which is set at a prescribed height for this purpose. Any resident permit holder parking and seeing this sign would not have any reason to look further whereas, if it had been covered - as it should have been because it served no purpose during the suspension- then it would have been incumbent upon a motorist to discover why and thereby see the suspension sign.
If the authority reject these grounds they must explain why, as a matter of policy, this sign was not covered.
-
The council should have a log of the vehicles in the bay when they put up the suspension sign.
Can you recall when you parked there and what you then did - were you at home?
I'll check TH's removal policy but consideration of relocation probably depends on how long in advance they signed the suspension.
(https://i.ibb.co/99R1wMYj/Screenshot-2025-09-07-at-13-35-29.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/JF5YVLjv/Screenshot-2025-09-07-at-13-34-35.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/HDYj80W2/Screenshot-2025-09-07-at-13-33-55.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/7JTMPpYC/Screenshot-2025-09-07-at-13-33-36.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/JRmchJC6/Screenshot-2025-09-07-at-13-33-15.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/gLqVGgh6/Screenshot-2025-09-07-at-13-32-50.png)
-
You said this in your reps: -
"There was no sign adjacent to the vehicle and nothing covering the ordinary bay upright sign by my space."
However, GSV shows there to be only a single sign for the bay which is reasonable for its length, although it would be better if it were in the middle of the bay length, but not essential. The council therefore have correctly signed the suspension by placing it on the bay sign.
The good news, (if there is any), is that you have paid all there is to pay, so when they inevitably reject your reps, you can register an appeal at London Tribunals at no extra cost to yourself.
I would also say that if you're in the habit of leaving your car for lengthy periods without checking every few days then you're asking for trouble in London, because suspension are very frequent with most road space available for parking full used on a 24x7 basis, so utilities need suspensions in order to carry out work.
-
Tow date: 13/8/2025
Deadline to appeal: 10/9/2025 (apologies for posting so near the deadline, I didn't think I had a chance to win this until recently when I asked on ChatGPT).
Google Street location:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/81cK3CANsWffC9RTA (https://maps.app.goo.gl/81cK3CANsWffC9RTA)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Gy5wsJu7XdsAdamz8 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Gy5wsJu7XdsAdamz8)
(Check it out, my car's on Google Street! And in exactly the same spot from which it was later towed)
On 11/8/2025, my car was towed and taken to Tower Hamlets Car Pound for being parked in a suspended bay.
I collected my car on the morning of 13/8/2025, and incurred a total cost of £415, comprising of the following:
- £80 PCN (reduced fee for paying within 14 days)
- £280 car pound release fee
- £55 car pound 1 day storage fee
My car was parked in that bay for a long time, it may have been there from before the suspension signage was erected, but I'm not sure.
The two main arguments I can think of are as follows:
1. My car was parked in the bay before the signage was erected.
My car WAS parked there for a long time, but I don't know if it was parked there from before the suspension signs were erected. Could I make that statement and put it to THEM to prove that the signs were erected first? Should I perhaps word it as, "Please provide evidence that the car was parked after the signage was erected"?
2. The signage is inadequate.
There was only one suspension sign, and it was placed at one end of the parking bay, which is around 30 metres long. My car was parked on the other end of the parking bay, around 27 metres away from the signage. A neighbour took an image of cars parked on the morning my car was towed, and so I have photographic evidence that my car was parked on the other end, some 27 metres away from the signage.
(https://i.imgur.com/abQwjW8.jpeg)
The above image was taken by a neighbour on the morning my car was towed. My car is the red Honda civic after the white van. The yellow suspension sign on the left is the only one there is.
Here are some more images of the signage that I took on the day I collected my car from the pound:
(https://i.imgur.com/CrqBBgP.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/4355SgC.jpeg)
3. Since I have a resident parking permit, they could have moved my car to another bay rather than taken it to the car pound.
I don't know if this is a valid argument, but wonder if it might be worth putting forward.
Here are the images of the PCN and other paperwork from the car pound:
PCN front:
(https://i.imgur.com/IZ5g0Qv.jpeg)
PCN back:
(https://i.imgur.com/nyf842S.jpeg)
Car pound receipt:
(https://i.imgur.com/2whOH5F.jpeg)
Representation letter page 1 of 2:
(https://i.imgur.com/EcVAd72.jpeg)
Representation letter page 2 of 2:
(https://i.imgur.com/1chz9r8.jpeg)
I put the details to ChatGPT and it recommended the following:
Subject: Formal representations – removal following PCN TT59832434 – VRM FT04 EDL – contravention 11/08/2025 – release 13/08/2025
Dear Tower Hamlets Parking Services,
I make formal representations against the PCN and the removal and storage charges under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Civil Enforcement Regulations.
PCN: TT59832434
VRM: FT04 EDL
Contravention code: 21 (parked wholly or partly in a suspended bay or space)
Location: Blair Street (junction Abbott Road)
PCN time: 08:34 on 11/08/2025
Vehicle release: 13/08/2025
Sums paid: £80 PCN (discount), £280 removal, £55 storage (total £415) – pound receipt attached.
Ground 1 – The contravention did not occur: I was already parked before the suspension signs went up and the signage was not adequate.
- My car was parked in that bay before any suspension signage was erected.
- Only one suspension notice was placed at the far end of a long 30-metre bay; my car was ~27 metres away at the other end. There was no sign adjacent to the vehicle and nothing covering the ordinary bay upright sign by my space.
The Department for Transport’s Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) Ch.3 advises that where a bay is suspended a temporary sign to diagram 640.1 should be used to cover the parking place upright sign (Figure 13-88) so that the restriction is properly conveyed to motorists using the bay. Where a long length is affected, signage must be positioned so that adequate information is given to road users.
London Tribunals key cases confirm that suspended bay restrictions are only enforceable if clearly and lawfully signed. In Campbell v Camden the adjudicator emphasised the requirement for a compliant suspension sign to properly indicate the restriction.
Further, in Burrows v Wandsworth (and companion cases Reale v Tower Hamlets/Grieves v Tower Hamlets), the tribunal allowed appeals where motorists had parked before temporary restrictions were imposed and/or where the council failed to give adequate and prominent notice. The decision stresses authorities must give reasonable advance notice and display signs prominently; otherwise enforcement is unlawful.
The Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance also says authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect, missing or not in accordance with the order, and authorities must have regard to this guidance.
On that basis, the alleged contravention was not properly indicated at my position and did not occur.
Ground 2 – Procedural impropriety / improper use of removal powers: removal was disproportionate and relocation should have been considered.
This was a residents’ bay suspension for water works, not a safety hazard. The Secretary of State’s guidance requires enforcement to be fair, proportionate, and for councils to have regard to the guidance when deciding whether to remove a vehicle. Where removal is not necessary, relocation (moving the car to the nearest lawful bay) is the proportionate step commonly endorsed in London policies. Using removal (plus storage) where signage was doubtful is disproportionate and amounts to procedural impropriety.
Remedy sought
Please cancel the PCN and refund in full the removal and storage charges (£280 + £55) and the PCN sum I had to pay to recover the vehicle (£80), totalling £415.
Evidence enclosed
- PCN (front/back) and the pound receipt.
- Council “Representations Against Removal of Vehicle” form.
- Photo of the sole suspension sign at the far end of the bay (IMG_0320_2.jpg).
- Neighbour’s photo showing my car parked at the opposite end of the bay on the morning of removal.
- My statement confirming I parked before signs were erected and that no sign was near the vehicle.
Disclosure requested
If you do not accept these representations, please supply with your Notice of Rejection:
- The suspension log, including the date/time each sign was erected, checked and removed.
- All CEO photos showing the sign and my vehicle in context (not just close-ups), CEO notes, and the removal job sheet (PCN issue time, lift start/finish, pound arrival).
- The DfT authorisation for the precise suspension sign used (or confirmation it is the prescribed diagram 640.1 sign) and the Traffic Order/TTRO covering this suspension.
- The Council’s removal/relocation policy and assessment showing why relocation was not used.
Yours faithfully,
Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.