Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: ILoveCats123 on October 01, 2025, 01:44:24 am
-
(https://i.ibb.co/FbcMzWn1/Screenshot-2026-06-05-173438.png) (https://ibb.co/6RGxFZNS)
(https://i.ibb.co/QjnQbYvd/Screenshot-2026-06-05-173457.png) (https://ibb.co/TqR2vPML)
I missed these items from Category B the case summary.
As for highlighting any order provisions that I have allegedly breached, I'm not sure.
-
Where are the Schedule, specifically that part related to this estate, and have the authority highlighted in the Order the provision(s) which you're alleged to have breached?
-
Traffic Management Order
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N-Io5E7m_xhmHGE8ouZmEFDbZqhnodpg/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eGXpmyqRnuptpaz5rxoKuKt7dcUM1nD6/view?usp=sharing
-
(https://i.ibb.co/qYYwxvyD/Screenshot-2026-06-05-163312.png) (https://ibb.co/s99rtZmg)
(https://i.ibb.co/0pGbbP9p/Screenshot-2026-06-05-164003-2.png) (https://ibb.co/Y4Lssvd4)
(https://i.ibb.co/4RwPPZ44/Screenshot-2026-06-05-164116.png) (https://ibb.co/k2VQQgqq)
(https://i.ibb.co/yFW9D6XJ/Screenshot-2026-06-05-164326.png) (https://ibb.co/7t2fHnXF)
(https://i.ibb.co/nsgf9pwf/Screenshot-2026-06-05-164351.png) (https://ibb.co/MD2prdgp)
(https://i.ibb.co/Sw0ycNq4/Screenshot-2026-06-05-164409.png) (https://ibb.co/XxpLDXmr)
-
Pl post J, their Case Summary and the traffic order which would be in their evidence. We should see exactly what the adjudicator will see.
-
This looks like a load of nonsense.
What is the signage/evidence they include in section J.
Tincombe will hopefully address the procedural issues.
What is the signage/evidence they include in section J.
It's literally just a picture of the garage area where my vehicle was parked showing the on-street permit holders only sign, along with pictures for "evidence" of the marked bays.
Tincombe will hopefully address the procedural issues.
I'm not sure what there is to address TBH because Southwark have just outlined what a "procedural impropriety" is, whether they were correct or not, IDK, but then proceed to say "therefore, Southwark contends that there has been no procedural impropriety" as if somehow stating what a procedural impropriety is an argument that one was not committed.
-
This looks like a load of nonsense.
What is the signage/evidence they include in section J.
Tincombe will hopefully address the procedural issues.
-
Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant has appealed on the grounds that “There has been a procedural
impropriety on behalf of the authority and that the contravention did not occur.”
The appellant further states that the alleged contravention did not occur because the
only sign is an entry sign for an on-street permit parking area, as well as there are no
terms conditions posted to establish the area as an off-street car park. Further
referring to the Notice of Rejection (NoR).
The appellant further states that the NoR does not have mandatory items in the
Appeals regulation as does it not describe the form and the manner in which an
appeal to an adjudicator must be made or does not include that an appeal can be
made within such longer period as the adjudicator may allow and hence, is of the
opinion that there has been a procedural impropriety .
Alleged Contravention
On 27 September 2025 at 12:19, A PCN was issued and affixed to the vehicle as the
Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) observed the vehicle parked in ST SAVIOUR
ESTATE parked causing an obstruction, in the context, upon an entrance into the
estate itself as well as in front of garages, which is not permissible. The photographic
evidence is self-explanatory to prove the contravention.
Where there is a car park area within the estate car park, drivers are required to park
within the designated area. Vehicles are only allowed to park in a marked parking
space in the car park.
Our Reasons for Rejecting the Appellant’s Appeal
Southwark Council rejected the appellant’s appeal because parking in such a manner
is not permitted in an estate and it is imperative that drivers park within marked
designated parking bays. Furthermore, the appellant being resident of the relevant
estate should be aware that parking must be within the white demarcated bays.
In response to the claim made by the appellant in regards to a procedural impropriety,
Southwark Council can confirm that a procedural impropriety is a failure by the
enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed upon it by the Traffic
Management Act 2004, the Civil Enforcement of Parking contraventions (England)
Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 and the Civil Enforcement of Parking
Contravention (England) General Regulations 2007 in relation to the imposition or
recovery of a penalty charge or other sum. Southwark Council therefore, contend that
there has been no procedural impropriety.
In response to the appellant’s comments that the only sign is an entry sign for an on-
street permit parking area, we can confirm that this is not the case, the vehicle entered
and was parked within the confines of an estate and the photographic evidence clearly
demonstrate that said location whereby the vehicle would have past the signage. For
your ready reference, we have added additional evidence (type J) to substantiate the
signage relates to an estate and bears no relevance to an entry sign for on-street
parking.
Please be advised that the appellant was given the opportunity to pay the reduced
amount of £80.00 via our informal rejection notice as well as the formal rejection notice
(evidence type C). However, the appellant chose to appeal the decision in our Notice
of Rejection, therefore, the full cost of the PCN is enforced.
The enclosed photographic evidence substantiates the PCN affixed to the vehicle at
the time of the contravention (evidence type C).
Therefore, we conclude that as the vehicle was observed as it was, in contravention,
it cannot be said the PCN was issued anything other than lawfully.
It is thus our submission that in respect of this PCN issued for this contravention on
this specific date, the photographic evidence supplied is of itself good and legally
sufficient primary evidence of the contravention.
Conclusion
Southwark Council, therefore, continues to contend that a contravention occurred and
the PCN was validly issued in accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004.
The penalty charge outstanding is £160.00
A copy of the Adjudicator’s pack has been sent to the Appellant via email this date 3 June 2026
-
Post their summary section where they make their case. Section B I think.
-
Hi.
Southwark has sent me their evidence pack.
Must you see all correspondence from it?
-
I've uploaded this to the evidence pack
-
I would word it in more simple language.
-----------
I draw attention to two grounds.
1. Contravention did not occur
The alleged contravention is off-street but there are no terms conditions posted there that establish the area as an off-street car park.
The only sign is an entry sign for an on-street permit parking area, and Southwark in its notice of rejection says parking rules that apply to the road apply to the off-road area and that it was a contravention of the Highway Code.
This cannot possibly be the case for the alleged off-street contravention, which has not been established by any signage and terms.
2. Procedural impropriety.
Southwark's notice of rejection does not have these mandatory items in the Appeals regulation:
It does not describe the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made
It does not include that an appeal can be made within such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
-
IMO, adjudicators appreciate appellants who get to the point(s) at issue as succinctly as possible.
Sir/Madam,
As can be seen from my representations and the council's rejections*, it is a matter of record that the council relies wholly upon the display of a traffic sign, as defined, as a means of conveying the 'parking rules'(as referred to in the NOR) which they wish to apply to the location. They do not argue the contrary, but instead state that 'the parking rules that apply to the road also apply to the off-road area'. Consequently they do not display further terms and conditions of use.
I respectfully submit that their interpretation is incorrect, that the sign has no legal effect in the absence of further terms and conditions clearly displayed which reference the sign and its purpose and consequences of breaches and that consequently penalties may not be demanded for failure to comply with conditions which are unknown to a motorist and therefore the PCN should be cancelled.
*- you can direct the adjudicator to where these are in the council's evidence pack later once received.
-
Also, is there any of way of knowing/seeing any evidence the council has or has not submitted?
Stamfordman has replied, but why are you concerned? IMO, the signage does NOT create the conditions whereby this PCN may be issued, and the signage is not at issue. They cannot whistle-up pictures of signs which are not there or backtrack on their ludicrous statement about 'parking rules'.
Your formal reps are already in evidence.
I'm not concerned that they will bring substantial evidence, just curious with regard to the process.
So you don't think I need to submit any additional evidence?
-
Also, is there any of way of knowing/seeing any evidence the council has or has not submitted?
Stamfordman has replied, but why are you concerned? IMO, the signage does NOT create the conditions whereby this PCN may be issued, and the signage is not at issue. They cannot whistle-up pictures of signs which are not there or backtrack on their ludicrous statement about 'parking rules'.
Your formal reps are already in evidence.
-
You must get a timely evidence pack from Southwark:
The Chief Adjudicator has directed that authorities must serve their evidence no later
than five days before the first scheduled date of hearing of the appeal.
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Practice%20Direction%2002-2025%20on%20behalf%20of%20ETA%2019%20August%202025%20-%20Service%20of%20evidence%20by%20Enforcement%20Authorities.pdf
-
Also, is there any of way of knowing/seeing any evidence the council has or has not submitted?
-
If I could get a bit of guidance on how to put together the argument.
I am assuming I will start with the facts from when I parked my vehicle, to receiving the PCN, to informally challenging it, receiving the rejection, then formally challenging it, and receiving the rejection, so on so forth.
Please let me know if this is a standard format to follow?
-
Thanks.
IMO, the NOR is the council's letter, not the attachments. It therefore follows that this mandatory provision in the Appeals Regs has been omitted from the NOR:
(6) If the enforcement authority does not accept the representations, its decision notice—
(a)must—
(i)state that a charge certificate may be served on the recipient unless within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice—
(aa)the penalty charge is paid, or
(bb)the recipient appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty charge,
(ii)indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award costs, and
(iii)describe the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made
Appeal to an adjudicator against a decision to reject a recipient’s representations
7.—(1) A recipient may appeal to an adjudicator against an enforcement authority’s decision not to accept their representations.
(2) An appeal under this regulation must be made within—
(a)the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice under regulation 6(4)(b) which states that the enforcement authority does not accept the recipient’s representations, or
(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
The only reference to making an appeal is to the 28-day period and not 'such longer period...etc.'.
This is a secondary ground of appeal IMO (it comes under the heading of Procedural Impropriety) because your substantive case is strong.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/Xr3HMHSW/Screenshot-2026-05-24-152601.png) (https://ibb.co/RkB8d8zg)
(https://i.ibb.co/5hKDcRkg/Screenshot-2026-05-24-152808.png) (https://ibb.co/fdDR0x9z)
(https://i.ibb.co/21Kwvq5H/Screenshot-2026-05-24-152856.png) (https://ibb.co/LXpMxSvH)
(https://i.ibb.co/3mzQnPTQ/Screenshot-2026-05-24-152915.png) (https://ibb.co/0ytvxznv)
(https://i.ibb.co/rGp0QXM9/Screenshot-2026-05-24-152938.png) (https://ibb.co/hRd9gTH0)
(https://i.ibb.co/vxLKpgkm/Screenshot-2026-05-24-153006.png) (https://ibb.co/4Z45z9pM)
-
Would you please post the missing pages of the NOR, you've only posted 2 but there are crucial procedural issues to be checked which cannot be done without seeing all pages.
IMO, excluding any procedural points which might arise your appeal should be as per your formal reps save that you would draw the adjudicator's attention to the NOR as regards this statement from the council which would seem to encapsulate their completely erroneous approach to off-street parking enforcement on housing estates and why the mandatory off-road signage is not in place, apparently because this is a council policy:
'As a resident with a [housing estate] permit, you still have to obey the parking rules..
The parking rules that apply to the road also apply to the off-road area'
-
I think this is the point now where I need to start putting together my appeal.
I've heard of cases where the council don't even turn up, or present anything. What are the chances of that happening out of curiosity? I know some are worse for it than others.
-
@H C Andersen
Would love to get your thoughts on the council's response to the formal representation that you had put together.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/PZYPfDRD/IMG-9732.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8DBfSYJY)
test?
-
How do you embed images?
On the ibb page with the image, scroll down past the image to section headed 'Embed Codes'
Beneath that you will find several links. Under 'Full Image (linked)' hover over the over the link for BBCode and click on the 'COPY' button which appears. That will copy the link to the clipboard which you van then paste in your post.
-
How do you embed images?
-
For convenience:
(https://i.ibb.co/PZYPfDRD/IMG-9732.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8DBfSYJY)
You have a link in the letter for guidance as to next steps:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/environment-and-traffic-adjudicators-your-microsoft-teams-appeal
-
Well, the letter arrived quicker than expected, although the tribunal date is 7 months away, which is expected.
https://ibb.co/8DBfSYJY
-
You can add new points as long as you do it in time i.e. having considered their evidence and 14 days before the hearing. The scheduling letter will say 7 days but the Chief Adjudicator's Practice Direction says 14 days for a skeleton argument. However, I firmly believe that the onus is upon the council to file their evidence in good time and then respond to that.
Said PD IMO is inherently unfair -- and I have made my position absolutely clear on this. Example situation: council like Redbridge or Greenwich do not file any evidence at all so you automatically win. BUT, if you file a skeleton argument, this then wakes them up. This is highly prejudicial.
-
Okay, cheers.
-
I did everything online.
I selected video hearing.
I have answered the question about dates.
I didn’t leave it blank, rather I wrote, “appealing but updating”.
Then just wait patiently for the letter. With Christmas approaching, give it a month to appear and post it here when it does.
If nothing after a month, come back here
-
I did everything online.
I selected video hearing.
I have answered the question about dates.
I didn’t leave it blank, rather I wrote, “appealing but updating”.
-
OK fine.
. . .
I can just upload docs with more writing and it won’t matter that the initial appeal doc has no information?
You can e-mail or post supplementary material.
You have sent the form to LT?
You have selected personal (=video/telephone) hearing?
You have answered the question about dates?
You left the box for your actual appeal blank?
-
OK fine.
I tend to overthink a lot so I do apologise, but it doesn’t matter that the initial appeal that you submit in writing is now fixed to a PDF?
I can just upload docs with more writing and it won’t matter that the initial appeal doc has no information?
-
You can submit additional material at any time up to about a week before the hearing date.
IIRC, when you get the letter advisng you of the date and time of the hearing, it will also state by when you submit this.
-
Okay...
I registered the appeal, in the section where you can write your appeal, I just put a marker so as to update it later, but it seems to accept that as the final word. I was under the assumption I can edit this later as per your message, but it seems like I can't, unless I am missing something...
-
When I was registering the appeal last night, I got to the stage where it confirms the details and then you can accept and send, so at this point I assume you mean once you’ve sent it you can still edit your appeal, correct?
Just wanted to make sure as I didn’t want to send it with nothing and then realise I can’t edit it.
-
As I said you don't have to construct an appeal now - you can just register the appeal, and the date could be months away.
I think one of the grounds is procedural impropriety - they are trying to enforce an off-street contravention where no terms are posted while referencing on-street obstruction, and the only sign is an on-street permit sign.
-
Okay, I’ll try my best to draft an appeal using everything we have so far and hopefully can be amended.
-
post your intended appeal before you send it.
-
No, I have not.
But,
After doing some research I have found that I have misunderstood what "The traffic order allegedly contravened is invalid" means, therefore I will register the appeal on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.
-
Have you seen the Traffic Order?
-
I have just noticed that you are able to select more than one reason for your appeal.
Should I then select both in this instance?
Please advise accordingly.
-
What will be a more suitable grounds to appeal on?
The contravention did not occur.
Or
The traffic order allegedly contravened is invalid.
While the informal and formal reps argued that no contravention had occured, if I understand correctly, then the latter can be argued for as well as the contravention was for an off-street restriction yet I was parked in an on-street permit zone, therefore rendering it invalid.
Unless I am conflating 'traffic orders' with 'contraventions' that the council can use as the grounds for issuing a PCN.
-
If you want to take it to the tribunal all you have to do is register the appeal. You can upload an update to your reps later. You should opt for an online or phone hearing.
It will mean it's all or nothing.
-
Just bumping this if anyone else has anything to add
-
My thoughts exactly.
-
They are in a muddle.
They note the point about terms but then say you should know what they are without anything telling you what they are.
They note the area is wide but it's still obstruction...
They say it's off road but parking rules that apply to a road apply here as per the Highway Code - this is bonkers.
See what others say but I think I'd take it to the tribunal.
(https://i.ibb.co/8DxPqVrR/image.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/pjHkXH53/image.png)
-
Hi all,
The council has responded to my formal representation.
https://ibb.co/WWCy8m2X
https://ibb.co/CdYD98F
They have also stated they have reinstated the discounted price of £80 as a "Gesture of goodwill".
-
Absolutely, which is why the TMA excluded on-street obstruction because the exercise of subjective opinion requires training and is best left with the police. But they did introduce the '50 cm' contravention to help councils deal with this form of parking(double parking), particularly near sports grounds.
Fine, but that's the whole point, surely ? The car is not parked in a car park but on-street.
-
Absolutely, which is why the TMA excluded on-street obstruction because the exercise of subjective opinion requires training and is best left with the police. But they did introduce the '50 cm' contravention to help councils deal with this form of parking(double parking), particularly near sports grounds.
-
OK, but the offence is subjective. It's not like yellow lines, or over time, or outside bay markings.
-
It's not relevant at present, you received a NTO and have made representations against this in time.
They must consider.
@Incandescent, for better or worse, 'Parked causing an obstruction' is an approved contravention description which may be applied to a PCN as the grounds for demanding a penalty.
-
I submitted the appeal but when I search the PCN it now says they received my representation in Oct.
https://ibb.co/tpP4Gbzt
Can anyone clarify please? This must be an admin error on their end surely?
-
Surely if the car was parked on-street, only the police can enforce obstruction with a Fixed Penalty Notice, as the Traffic Management Act does not include 'obstruction' as a decriminalised offence ? Therefore the PCN is void.
-
I’ve submitted the appeal.
Here is EXACTLY what I’ve sent:
“The contravention did not occur.
The basic facts of where my vehicle was parked are not in dispute and therefore I hope the authority would not belabour this aspect in their response.
This is a matter of law and how it applies to the council's demand for a penalty.
In order for the council to treat this area as an off-street car park and to demand penalties for failure to comply with its terms and condition of use, those conditions MUST be conveyed clearly to users. Accepted practice is to erect a board setting out those terms and what may happen if a motorist fails to comply. In addition, if the car park is marked then it is the council's duty to convey to a motorist that, as you glibly wrote in your letter dated 5 November, 'in a car park with marked spaces or areas you [ the motorist] need to park so that your entire vehicle is inside these lines.'
Such a requirement, assuming one exists as a provision in a traffic order, MUST be conveyed in writing on site: it does not exist simply because the markings are present or because untrained officers in the enforcement authority say so. There is no basis on which a motorist is presumed to have this knowledge because the Traffic Signs etc. Regs and the Highway Code apply to 'roads' as defined and not car parks.
As further proof of the council's confusion regarding the status of this piece of land, it has erected a sign stating 'Permit holders only past this point' which is displayed prominently at the entrance to the area.
But this has effect ONLY when placed on a road and not an off-road car park, unless brought into effect by Terms and Conditions which explicitly refer to this sign and its meaning. So yet again, the authority's signage fails to meet regulatory requirements which deficiencies cannot be ignored simply by stating that 'everything is in accordance with regulatory requirements'.
Given that the authority failed to have regard to my previous representations, I do not hold out an expectation that this might change with formal representations. But I have not totally abandoned hope that the authority will not insist on taking this matter to adjudication at which my appeal would be allowed and favourable consideration given to making a costs award.
The contravention (as defined under para. 2(1)(c) of Part 1 of Schedule 7 to the Traffic Management Act 2004) did not occur because 'any provision made by or under an order relating to the parking place' must be conveyed adequately.“
-
I would suggest this amendment:
Such a requirement, assuming one exists as a provision in a traffic order, MUST be conveyed in writing on site: it does not exist simply because the markings are present or because untrained officers in the enforcement authority say so. There is no basis on which a motorist is presumed to have this knowledge because the Traffic Signs etc. Regs and the Highway Code apply to 'roads' as defined and not car parks. As further proof of the council's confusion regarding the status of this piece of land, it has erected a sign stating 'Permit holders only past this point' which is displayed prominently at the entrance to the area.
But this has effect ONLY when placed on a road and not an off-road car park, unless brought into effect by Terms and Conditions which explicitly refer to this sign and its meaning. So yet again, the authority's signage fails to meet regulatory requirements which deficiencies cannot be ignored simply by stating that 'everything is in accordance with regulatory requirements'.
-
I’m just going to send what you sent, I won’t alter it.
Yes that sign is still in place.
Also is the formal representation the same portal as the informal representation? As it’s giving me the option to make a representation there, but it seems the same as the informal representation. Just want to make sure.
Thanks
-
Post a draft here first pl and keep a copy of what you send.
Just re-read the thread. Is the ridiculous 'Permit holders only beyond this point' sign still in place?
-
Yes that is the reason stated on the PCN for being issued.
I just thought it’s important to understand what I’m sending, hence I asked.
I understand everyone is giving up their own time to help me out here and it’s truly appreciated.
I will submit the formal appeal via Notice to Owner and send an update in any case.
-
You said in post #1: I received a PCN this time for being “parked causing an obstruction”,
Can I also ask what you meant by “costs award”. Surely there’s no costs award with these types of matters, or have I misunderstood?
Lots of questions peripheral to the main issue.
Costs
13.—(1) An adjudicator must not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses.
(2) But, subject to sub-paragraph (3), an adjudicator may make an order awarding costs and expenses—
(a)against a party (including an appellant who has withdrawn an appeal or an enforcement authority which has consented to an appeal being allowed), if the adjudicator considers that—
(i)the party has acted frivolously or vexatiously, or
(ii)the party’s conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable;
(b)against an enforcement authority, where the adjudicator considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable.
(3) An order must not be made against a party unless that party has been given an opportunity to make representations against the making of the order.
(4) An order must require the party against whom it is made to pay to the other party a specified sum in respect of the costs and expenses incurred by that other party in connection with the proceedings.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348231564
They're very limited and the threshold is high, but IMO the authority are just being ignorant and obdurate here.
2024/2025 Stats for Parking at London Tribunals:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ETA%20Annual%20Parking%20Stats%202024-25%20final%20%28PWS%20version%29.xlsx
-
Nevermind what I said, they did actually say in the rejection to the informal appeal, “you were issued a PCN for causing an obstruction”
-
In the response to the informal challenge, they didn’t necessarily say that I was causing an obstruction. They just outlined the “terms” for the “car park” in which it said if there are no lines for the bays then you must park without causing obstruction to pedestrian’s emergency vehicles etc blah blah, they didn’t explicitly say that I was in contravention of that and that’s the reason they upheld the PCN, so I can see why it doesn’t need to be brought up.
This is just what I’ve gathered
-
Each to their own, however I prefer to stick with objective argument in this case. But if the OP feels compelled to raise the issue that in their opinion they were not causing a (in law undefined) contravention of 'obstruction', then include in their reps.
-
Should this point not be argued also.
IMO, no. Obstruction is subjective, so how could you argue your opinion with any hope of success and why give them the chance to waffle on about 'obstruction'.
by the same token what makes you think the Authority can argue obstruction??when there appears to be photographic evidence that the OP wasn't causing an obstruction.
-
Okay that’s fair enough.
Can I also ask what you meant by “costs award”. Surely there’s no costs award with these types of matters, or have I misunderstood?
-
Should this point not be argued also.
IMO, no. Obstruction is subjective, so how could you argue your opinion with any hope of success and why give them the chance to waffle on about 'obstruction'.
-
Thanks a lot both.
But what about when they said if there are no marked spaces then I must park as such that I am not blocking free access to pedestrians, other vehicles, and emergency vehicles.
It’s blatantly obvious that my car wouldn’t have even blocked a fire engine.
Should this point not be argued also.
Also regarding your question Stamfordman, no, there are no explicit instructions given when the permit is issued, it just permits you to park within the permit controlled zone.
-
I agree with Mr Andersen.
My earlier query was actually when you were issued with the permit did it come with instructions on use.
-
My suggestion:
The contravention did not occur.
The basic facts of where my vehicle was parked are not in dispute and therefore I hope the authority would not belabour this aspect in their response.
This is a matter of law and how it applies to the council's demand for a penalty.
In order for the council to treat this area as an off-street car park and to demand penalties for failure to comply with its terms and condition of use, those conditions MUST be conveyed clearly to users. Accepted practice is to erect a board setting out those terms and what may happen if a motorist fails to comply. In addition, if the car park is marked then it is the council's duty to convey to a motorist that, as you glibly wrote in your letter dated 5 November, 'in a car park with marked spaces or areas you [ the motorist] need to park so that your entire vehicle is inside these lines.'
Such a requirement, assuming one exists as a provision in a traffic order, MUST be conveyed in writing on site: it does not exist simply because the markings are present or because untrained officers in the enforcement authority say so. There is no basis on which a motorist is presumed to have this knowledge because the Traffic Signs etc. Regs and the Highway Code apply to 'roads' as defined and not car parks.
Given that the authority failed to have regard to my previous representations, I do not hold out an expectation that this might change with formal representations. But I have not totally abandoned hope that the authority will not insist on taking this matter to adjudication at which my appeal would be allowed and favourable consideration given to making a costs award.
The contravention (as defined under para. 2(1)(c) of Part 1 of Schedule 7 to the Traffic Management Act 2004) did not occur because 'any provision made by or under an order relating to the parking place' must be conveyed adequately.
-
Hi All,
Sorry once again not sure how to @ people.
Any help with the above would be greatly appreciated
-
Hi All,
The Notice to Owner has arrived.
I’ve not actually dealt with one of these much before, am I to literally use the paper they sent to write a handwritten appeal?
https://ibb.co/wF7hxSjK
https://ibb.co/VcMSWbZn
Thanks
-
Yes, I am the registered keeper.
-
wait for the notice to owner. This will go to the registered keeper of the vehicle. Is this You? if not you would need their permission to continue to make representations
-
Sorry didn’t see that you asked me a question in your response.
No they did not mention the permit at all.
Does anyone else have anything to add? I’m keen to fight this.
-
So they say what you need to do but where is the terms board that tells you this? Where is any information that tells you this is a car park managed by Southwark?
I would go on with this but the stakes are high with the extra £80 so see what others say.
Choices 2 and 3 on the rejection are also nonsense as they refer to dates already gone.
The other factor is the sign that says permit holders parking beyond this point, which you complied with and in fact signifies an on-street permit parking area not an off-street car park.
Did they send you any instructions about using the permit?
-
The council has responded.
https://postimg.cc/bGW9s5JF - Link to full response
“ We have carefully considered your comments, but we have decided not to cancel your PCN.You were issued a PCN for causing an obstruction. In a car park with marked spaces or areas, you need to park so that your entire vehicle is inside these lines. If there are no marked spaces or areas, you need to park so that other cars, pedestrians and emergency vehicles will be able to move freely.”
-
Thank you, that is much appreciated.
I will send an update in any case.
-
I would send the below.
---------
The contravention did not occur.
The council alleges I was in contravention of an off-street restriction but there is no terms board establishing that the garage area is an off-street car park, and which would lawfully set out terms and conditions for parking.
In any case there was no obstruction of access to the garages.
I look forward to early confirmation of cancellation of this PCN.
-
Hi Everyone,
Not sure how to tag users so I hope this reaches you all.
I appreciate there are multiple on going cases but just want to know if I have all the necessary information here to go ahead and draft an appeal.
Thanks,
-
The parent order says the contravention is made out where there are no parking bays, if there is indeed obstruction of free movement which there does not appear to be.
But the key is that there is nothing to tell you you are in a car park subject to conditions.
b Where parking bays are marked, all vehicles must be parked within the limits of a marked parking bay;
c Where no parking bays are marked, vehicles may park in any area other than an area indicated as being ‘no waiting at any time’ or a ‘restricted area’, provided that no vehicle may to be parked so as to obstruct the free movement of vehicles and pedestrians or access to any part of a housing estate road or housing estate car park or parking bay or entrance to premises in or adjacent to that housing estate road or housing estate car park;
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-60554-1852862
Can I expect to receive assistance in writing a draft appeal, or will I have to do this myself? I want to be able to present an articulate argument citing all the correct legislation so as to leave no gaps for the council to reject my appeal.
-
The parent order says the contravention is made out where there are no parking bays, if there is indeed obstruction of free movement which there does not appear to be.
But the key is that there is nothing to tell you you are in a car park subject to conditions.
b Where parking bays are marked, all vehicles must be parked within the limits of a marked parking bay;
c Where no parking bays are marked, vehicles may park in any area other than an area indicated as being ‘no waiting at any time’ or a ‘restricted area’, provided that no vehicle may to be parked so as to obstruct the free movement of vehicles and pedestrians or access to any part of a housing estate road or housing estate car park or parking bay or entrance to premises in or adjacent to that housing estate road or housing estate car park;
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-60554-1852862
-
I'm not sure they can enforce "obstruction" under the TMA 2004, but somebody on here will know, I'm sure.
"92 - Parked causing an obstruction" is a contravention for off-street car-parks.
So this location has to be an off-street car park or the PCN is void.
I imagine that there would need to be an off-street parking places order to enforce?
However the sign suggests that this is a permit parking area. But there doesn't seem to any permit identifier on the sign.
The permit identifier is “E-SS” if that is what you’re talking about. It’s just not visible in the CEO’s pictures
-
There is a permit identifier, it is just not visible in the pictures the CEO took. The permit identifier is “E-SS”
-
I'm not sure they can enforce "obstruction" under the TMA 2004, but somebody on here will know, I'm sure.
"92 - Parked causing an obstruction" is a contravention for off-street car-parks.
So this location has to be an off-street car park or the PCN is void.
I imagine that there would need to be an off-street parking places order to enforce?
However the sign suggests that this is a permit parking area. But there doesn't seem to any permit identifier on the sign.
-
The contravention is off-street and there are no terms displayed for the car park
Southwark fails to sign most of its estate car parks properly as per this tribunal case from yesterday.
I'll see if I can find the order. Obstruction of the entrance though could be serious if it prevented emergency services from entering.
-------
Case reference 2250449408
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Southwark
VRM LG70RAX
PCN Details
PCN JK16480718
Contravention date 29 May 2025
Contravention time 13:12:00
Contravention location Kinglake Estate
Penalty amount GBP 110.00
Contravention Parked beyond the bay markings
Referral date -
Decision Date 30 Sep 2025
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons Mr xxxxx has attended the hearing today by video link.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of not being parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space on Kinglake Estate.
Mr xxxx appeals because he says that he is a resident on the Estate and holds a valid resident’s permit for parking. He says that he returned home from work to find that there were no bay spaces. He says that he parked next to the tree where the car was causing no obstruction. This is confirmed by the CEO’s photographs.
Whilst the evidence shows that the car was outside of bay markings, I am allowing this appeal because the Council has provided no evidence of any signage warning residents that they must park only in the marked bays and that parking outside of a bay may result in the issue of a PCN.
-
Does this count as off-street parking?
-
I'm not sure they can enforce "obstruction" under the TMA 2004, but somebody on here will know, I'm sure.
"92 - Parked causing an obstruction" is a contravention for off-street car-parks.
So this location has to be an off-street car park or the PCN is void.
-
I'm not sure they can enforce "obstruction" under the TMA 2004, but somebody on here will know, I'm sure.
"92 - Parked causing an obstruction" is a contravention for off-street car-parks.
-
Yes it is the estate you mention.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5JPKVaBZuXkeyy6D6
-
This is St Saviour Estate - where is this location on Google Maps?
I doubt Southwark has signed this off-street car park with any terms and we can see it has used an on-street permit holder sign at the entrance as we've seen with other estates.
(https://i.ibb.co/CprXcgg9/s3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/rRLJWMB5/s2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/SbH0JP9/s1.jpg)
-
I'm not sure they can enforce "obstruction" under the TMA 2004, but somebody on here will know, I'm sure.
-
https://ibb.co/jkTnB34h
-
Please post up the PCN.
And please don't redact anything other than your name & address from documents where present, including the PCN. Leave everything else visible.
Don't use IMGUR. It doesn't work in the UK at the moment. Try https://imgbb.com/ instead. You can create a free of charge account.
-
I live on an estate and have a valid parking permit for the estate.
There is an area for council garages where people park when there is no space in the main area that has marked bays. There is a sign stating permit holders only parking past this point which implies you can park in this area.
I have parked here for months without any issues, and so have other people, but I received a PCN this time for being “parked causing an obstruction”, and the location on the PCN being stated “Outside garages”
Link to pictures of how my car was parked: https://postimg.cc/gallery/NTY5HCh
Note that there was a van to the left of me originally but it had moved, I didn’t park there when the space to the left of me was empty.
I was told by others I was clearly blocking the entrance, but for 1) the area is very quiet and only cars go in and out so I am not blocking access for any vehicles. 2) The PCN does not state anything about being issued on the grounds of me blocking the entrance. 3) There is no definition as to where you can and cannot park in this area
I would really appreciate some help as to the way I can challenge this informally at first.