Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: taffer87 on October 01, 2025, 11:20:17 am
-
Hi all - I have one week left to reply, any further help appreciated on the actual wording of reps.
@stamfordman
-
Thank you, really appreciate this.
-
Mr Andersen seems to be taking a break. I'll try and look at this later.
-
@H C Andersen
-
@H C Andersen any further insights help appreciated please
-
Any more views and help from experienced members?
-
Thanks for the reply. Understood. Any other views and advice welcome. I will start drafting something based on this but quite a novice at this
-
Don't do anything in a rush, you've got 28 days from the 18th December to respond, so take the time to get all your ducks in a row, and wait for more experienced forum members to chip in before doing anything.
Having said that, I think your list of likely winning arguments is pretty lengthy, and I would be surprised if they don't drop the PCN before an adjudicator gets to see how much of a mess they made.
1) There's no evidence of any actual suspension signs, just an advanced warning notice. The order says it's only valid at "such times then appropriate traffic signs are displayed in accordance with TSRGD 2016(c)", and that "Parking restrictions will apply when the appropriate signs are displayed", so you will put the council to strict proof that such signs were in displayed.
2) The suspension sign says the restriction lasts "until Monday 29th September 8am-4pm". As the observation time was after 8:07-8:19am, the signposted restriction had already ended.
3) The suspension sign contains incomprehensible gibberish.
4) PCN is for the wrong contravention (see page 1 of this thread)
5) Failure to consider (as their claim that the right signs were in place is complete rubbish)
6) You will put the council to strict proof that "Tree works - Green Space, Cleansing and Gristwood and Toms" occurred after 08:07 on that day. They will have difficulty proving this as it's hopelessly garbled.
As you say, the full £160 is in play, and that's the upper limit if you carry on to the tribunal, so it's a no brainer to fight on.
-
Just bumping this again for experienced members to help please
-
Well now I have to pay the full amount anyway so it makes sense to submit formal reps and go all the way to tribunal. Hoping someone here will be kind enlightened to guide a bit more in detail - appreciate it’s the holiday and Xmas season so a lot may not be that active
I am exactly in a similar situation as you. I genuinely didn't see the board which was up (not sure how long it was up). Here is the link.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-help-didn-t-see-this/
-
Well now I have to pay the full amount anyway so it makes sense to submit formal reps and go all the way to tribunal. Hoping someone here will be kind enlightened to guide a bit more in detail - appreciate it’s the holiday and Xmas season so a lot may not be that active
-
Bump - will really appreciate advice from any experienced members here.
I am in a very similar situation like you. After spending months here on this PCN, what do you think ? What is your thought process ?
-
Bump - will really appreciate advice from any experienced members here.
-
Have now received the NTO too. Can someone please help me here with formal reps to the council
(https://i.ibb.co/4RrKtJ00/IMG-0307.jpg) (https://ibb.co/whmBgY22)
(https://i.ibb.co/HZKCFBX/IMG-0308.jpg) (https://ibb.co/q6DCy7x)
(https://i.ibb.co/4wKN32Mb/IMG-0309.jpg) (https://ibb.co/twQCFzc0)
(https://i.ibb.co/qYrfSFcQ/IMG-0310.jpg) (https://ibb.co/4RVGqgXr)
-
@H C Andersen and other senior members
here is the TTO i received from FOI request. Please if you can advise what you think
I still have not received a NTO from Newham
(https://i.ibb.co/TD1N81dD/Green-Space-Various-roads-No-20-order-29-09-2025-ORD.png) (https://ibb.co/twz1szFw)
-
I submitted this as informal challenge again. Most likely they will reject and say I have to wait for NTO now.
"I submitted an informal challenge which was rejected. However as part of the challenge I had requested a copy of the traffic order cited in the PCN contravention grounds. This was not supplied with the rejection and was ignored in the response. Could you please supply this traffic order whose alleged breach has led to the contravention cited in the PCN.
Regards"
Newham replied saying I should submit a FOI request if I want this.. I just did this however now it will take me over the period of the discounted window
-
I submitted this as informal challenge again. Most likely they will reject and say I have to wait for NTO now.
"I submitted an informal challenge which was rejected. However as part of the challenge I had requested a copy of the traffic order cited in the PCN contravention grounds. This was not supplied with the rejection and was ignored in the response. Could you please supply this traffic order whose alleged breach has led to the contravention cited in the PCN.
Regards"
-
From what is in evidence, there is no case against you.
Plastering non-compliant signs on poles does not create a prohibition.
Write back and get a copy of the order. This action is in your hands.
As often as not, the contravention has not been signed as required under the regs even if there is a provision in an order.
-
@H C Andersen and other senior members
Please let me know if you think there is a reasonable chance of success at tribunal or should I just pay the discount now
Appreciate next step is either pay discounted or wait for NTO and then send formal reps which will be rejected again surely so its just about tribunal
-
Thanks so do you think there is a good chance of tribunal win when it comes to it?
Yes I am the registered keeper and dvla details are good
-
You have been re-offered the discount. This might be repeated even if they reject formal reps.
A NTO would be served on the registered keeper, is this and are your DVLA details current?
Until a NTO is served there's nothing to do except to write back and request a copy of the order.
-
Thank you. Any advice on what to write in the formal representations now to council.
-
Where's the TTO suspending parking? All I can see is one which refers to prohibited entry and Tarling isn't among the listed roads anyway.
Tarling is listed on the second page, but I agree that the wording says the effect is to close the road, not to suspend the bays.
The main thing I take issue with is the signage. That's not a suspension sign, it's an advance warning sign. Point 4 on the sign says the restriction only applies when the appropriate traffic signs are in place, in my book that means actual suspension signs.
Secondly, the sign is so riddled with grammatical errors as to be incomprehensible. What the hell does "Monday 29th September until Monday 29th September 8am to 4pm" mean? Arguably the restriction starts as soon as Monday starts and lasts until 8am, then restarts at 4pm - in which case the PCN was issued 7 minutes after the restriction ended. The notice gives a completely different time window, ending on the 3rd October at 6pm!
Thirdly the notice says restriction ends when the work ends, and that the work is "Tree works - Green Space, Cleansing and Gristwood and Toms" another crime against grammar. I would say you're entitled to put the council to strict proof that "Tree works - Green Space, Cleansing and Gristwood and Toms" occurred after 08:07 on that day. If it didn't then they can't issue the PCN, because the notice says the restriction ends when the work ends.
-
Where's the TTO suspending parking? All I can see is one which refers to prohibited entry and Tarling isn't among the listed roads anyway.
-
Bump - any help appreciated
-
council rejected the challenge today - please can you help me with representations?
Experienced members and @H C Andersen
(https://i.ibb.co/5gS85gLZ/B6437330-Redacted-Page1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fzypCzHJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/G4rntJwC/B6437330-Redacted-Page2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/NdGtm3hW)
(https://i.ibb.co/3mwvJ3VG/B6437330-Redacted-Page3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9HJhMDBz)
-
Thanks I do have the permit and have sent the informal challenge now.
For completenes, these are my own photos of the page that was displayed in the board. So this is a public notice and not the order as it has wording like "this order"?
(https://i.ibb.co/4ZdHZCzj/bd6a9fa0-2864-4e29-a6be-b7b718af600d.jpg) (https://ibb.co/N6SM6f5L)
(https://i.ibb.co/VpwkThPR/0e9e7cff-2324-4fe2-bc41-7d1ee4159514.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Hph9qMk6)
I can see it appears different (much shorter) from TTOs from Newham in other similar situations on this forum
-
Dear Sir,
PCN *********
I refer to the above in which the following contravention is alleged:
*******(temporary traffic order)
As a permit holder*, I am familiar with parking places being suspended and the signage used e.g. parking suspended etc. However, in this case the parking place had not been suspended in this manner but instead the council had apparently passed (or whatever the term is) a 'temporary traffic order' which meant that parking was not permitted. Why this distinction, I don't know. But what I do know is that nowhere in the photographic evidence is there a copy of this order nor the restrictions it imposes despite what appears to be the order situated on the board but unreadable. To be honest, this omission does set alarm bells ringing as regards the validity of the authority's claim that a contravention occurred. I can see what's written and displayed on the sheet of paper, but this is not an 'order', it's simply something produced by a printer.
In any event, as a permit holder and as I believe that no operational inconvenience was suffered I would ask the authority to exercise discretion and cancel the PCN. If not then before I hand over my hard-earned cash, I want to be certain that this order exists and that it created the restriction which is alleged at the time and place at which I was parked and therefore should these representations be rejected I require a copy of the order cited in the contravention grounds.
Some thoughts.
*- if you're not then this needs to be changed.
-
Thank you. Yes appreciate the risk is there which is fine.
But I am a bit confused on what I should say in my representation now. If any help can be provided that would be gravely received.
-
Fighting PCNs is a bit of a tightrope walk sometimes. Experts often walk the tightrope not knowing where they will end up, 89% of the time I get across safely, 11% of the time I fall off. To achieve your objective you have to walk the walk. We get better at walking each time we do it.
-
You are specifically asking for it at this stage. IMO, given that you were otherwise legally parked(I assume), then as the temporary signs need authority, as much as anything else because the regular traffic signs were still in place and uncovered, AND as the order was on display but not in focus they should provide if they reject, which they probably would.
Was parked here and missed the parking suspension signs (as I think they removed the old ones and put new ones at same time - they have a habit of not removing old ones for weeks). Is there anything that could help me get out of the fine because of any irregularity by the council on signage or the PCN itself? Appreciate it's totally my fault.
You are looking for technical arguments which at this stage don't often carry much weight with authorities.
-
As long as the signs are present and two of them 'book-end' the suspended area(pl note that the standard is 'on or near') then frankly IMO they could put them on every tree, post or whatever in the street. Their duty is to convey the restriction. If you were parked within the area specified and if there was such a sign ahead of you and behind(behind is more fundamental because you are deemed to have passed this whereas what lies ahead hasn't been seen) then IMO you are within the area specified on the written parts of the signs. You seem to acknowledge that there were signs ahead of and behind you, is this correct?
But what did the order itself provide as regards the restriction and how this was to be signed. The RTRA makes provision for regs to be made dealing with TTOs, and here they are:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/1215/schedule/made
Part III of the Schedule deals with 'traffic signs'. I think that what's been used would satisfy an adjudicator.
Thanks my point was more that the council should be required to show signage in the post that is relevant to me (not a post further ahead which would be considered a completely different parking area as there was a disabled bay in the middle).
Re: your eaelier post what if the council then produces the "order" that is not in evidence? Will they only be required to produce this in Tribunal stage when I will have the full penalty to pay if they do produce it. Sorry its all very technical so I am not understanding it fully.
Thank you and everyone for the continued help
-
As long as the signs are present and two of them 'book-end' the suspended area(pl note that the standard is 'on or near') then frankly IMO they could put them on every tree, post or whatever in the street. Their duty is to convey the restriction. If you were parked within the area specified and if there was such a sign ahead of you and behind(behind is more fundamental because you are deemed to have passed this whereas what lies ahead hasn't been seen) then IMO you are within the area specified on the written parts of the signs. You seem to acknowledge that there were signs ahead of and behind you, is this correct?
But what did the order itself provide as regards the restriction and how this was to be signed. The RTRA makes provision for regs to be made dealing with TTOs, and here they are:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/1215/schedule/made
Part III of the Schedule deals with 'traffic signs'. I think that what's been used would satisfy an adjudicator.
-
OP, only just seen this.
With respect, IMO the argument re wrong contravention is itself wrong..but see below.
As far as can be seen, the restriction was imposed under a Temp Traffic Order, s14 RTRA refers.
7)An order or notice made or issued under this section may—
(a)suspend any statutory provision to which this subsection applies; or
(b)for either of the reasons or for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above suspend any such provision without imposing any such restriction or prohibition as is mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) above.
(8)Subsection (7) above applies to—
(a)any statutory provision of a description which could have been contained in an order or notice under this section;
(b)an order under section 32(1)(b), 35, 45, 46 or 49 of this Act or any such order as is mentioned in paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 10 to this Act
A TTO may suspend the application of any s45 TMO which designated the parking place and substitute a different restriction, in this case no waiting. The council could have chosen to simply suspend the parking place but chose to go the TTO route, for reasons which are probably explained within the order which tantalisingly is not in any of the photos albeit that it is key. At present there's no order in evidence, so IMO you could argue that the order did not apply to where you were parked i.e. it is the order which creates the restriction, not the words on a sign, and without that order being in evidence you challenge that the restriction applied and therefore that the contravention took place. If the authority reject these representations then they must produce a copy of the order relied upon with any response.
Thanks is it also then important to mention that the signpost council include in evidence is after a disabled pay so not relevant for where the car was parked (whihc was close to another lamp post - whose photos are not in evidence)
-
OP, only just seen this.
With respect, IMO the argument re wrong contravention is itself wrong..but see below.
As far as can be seen, the restriction was imposed under a Temp Traffic Order, s14 RTRA refers.
7)An order or notice made or issued under this section may—
(a)suspend any statutory provision to which this subsection applies; or
(b)for either of the reasons or for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above suspend any such provision without imposing any such restriction or prohibition as is mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) above.
(8)Subsection (7) above applies to—
(a)any statutory provision of a description which could have been contained in an order or notice under this section;
(b)an order under section 32(1)(b), 35, 45, 46 or 49 of this Act or any such order as is mentioned in paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 10 to this Act
A TTO may suspend the application of any s45 TMO which designated the parking place and substitute a different restriction, in this case no waiting. The council could have chosen to simply suspend the parking place but chose to go the TTO route, for reasons which are probably explained within the order which tantalisingly is not in any of the photos albeit that it is key. At present there's no order in evidence, so IMO you could argue that the order did not apply to where you were parked i.e. it is the order which creates the restriction, not the words on a sign, and without that order being in evidence you challenge that the restriction applied and therefore that the contravention took place. If the authority reject these representations then they must produce a copy of the order relied upon with any response.
-
Any trees works took place? this case from yesterday...
-------
Case reference 2250219259
Appellant xxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM BG66OGB
PCN Details
PCN PN22154287
Contravention date 31 Mar 2025
Contravention time 09:25:00
Contravention location Lincoln Road
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Parked restricted street during prescribed hours
Referral date -
Decision Date 02 Oct 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund forthwith the penalty charge and the release fees paid.
Reasons
I adjourned this case for the following reason:-
“In view of the Appellant’s evidence the Council is asked to provide evidence that the works in question were actually in progress.
The Appellant is asked to clarify on what basis his father believed he was entitled to park in the bay without apparently checking the sign (in which case he could not have failed to see the yellow suspension sign)”
The Appellant has responded but no further evidence has been received from the Council.
The Appellant states in his appeal that “It’s worth noting that in our area, suspension signs are often placed with claims of scheduled tree works, yet on many occasions-including this one-no work actually occurs.”. There is no sign of any works being carried out in the CEO’s photographs, and the Council has been unable to provide any evidence ( which one would have thought to be easily obtainable) as to when if at all any such works took place.
Direction 6 Part 2 Traffic Signs General Directions 2016 provides as follows:-
“6.-(1) Paragraph (2) applies to a sign placed for conveying to traffic a warning, information, requirement, restriction or prohibition of a temporary nature.
(2) The sign must not remain in place for longer than it is needed.”
The sign in question in this case is clearly indicates a prohibition of a temporary nature,. and it seems to me on the evidence that the balance of probabilities is that it was in breach of this prohibition. In the circumstances it is unnecessary to consider issues of clarity and the Appeal must be allowed
unfortunately yes some tree works took place later in day
-
Any trees works took place? this case from yesterday...
-------
Case reference 2250219259
Appellant xxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM BG66OGB
PCN Details
PCN PN22154287
Contravention date 31 Mar 2025
Contravention time 09:25:00
Contravention location Lincoln Road
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Parked restricted street during prescribed hours
Referral date -
Decision Date 02 Oct 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund forthwith the penalty charge and the release fees paid.
Reasons
I adjourned this case for the following reason:-
“In view of the Appellant’s evidence the Council is asked to provide evidence that the works in question were actually in progress.
The Appellant is asked to clarify on what basis his father believed he was entitled to park in the bay without apparently checking the sign (in which case he could not have failed to see the yellow suspension sign)”
The Appellant has responded but no further evidence has been received from the Council.
The Appellant states in his appeal that “It’s worth noting that in our area, suspension signs are often placed with claims of scheduled tree works, yet on many occasions-including this one-no work actually occurs.”. There is no sign of any works being carried out in the CEO’s photographs, and the Council has been unable to provide any evidence ( which one would have thought to be easily obtainable) as to when if at all any such works took place.
Direction 6 Part 2 Traffic Signs General Directions 2016 provides as follows:-
“6.-(1) Paragraph (2) applies to a sign placed for conveying to traffic a warning, information, requirement, restriction or prohibition of a temporary nature.
(2) The sign must not remain in place for longer than it is needed.”
The sign in question in this case is clearly indicates a prohibition of a temporary nature,. and it seems to me on the evidence that the balance of probabilities is that it was in breach of this prohibition. In the circumstances it is unnecessary to consider issues of clarity and the Appeal must be allowed
-
Hi all if possible would like to submit today so any comments appreciated. Thank you
-
Thanks so amended below for comments please
"Dear Sir/Madam
The PCN contravention code of 01 is incorrect and as such the PCN should be cancelled and is a nullity.
Code 21 should have been used as the bay in question was allegedly suspended.
However, if the council insist on using the restricted street contravention (which is not the case as only some bays were apparently suspended), then code 02 should have been used as per the images in the council website Loading was also restricted.
Please can you confirm cancellation of the PCN
Regards"
-
No, the point is they should have used a code 21 bay suspension for this routine one day job.
And if they insist on 01, it should be 02.
-
Thanks so will submit this if you agree.
"Dear Sir/Madam
The PCN contravention code of 01 is incorrect and as such the PCN should be cancelled and is a nullity.
Code 02 should have been used as per the imgages in the council website Loading was also restricted.
Please can you confirm cancellation of the PCN
Regards"
-
I wouldn't complicate things
-
So should I write a very simple challenge saying that?
Do I need to mention the council photo is not of the sign post in the bays I was parked in as I was parked on the other side of the disabled bay so that signage is not relevant too?
-
It is the wrong contravention, it should be for parking in a suspended bay. We can deny the penalty on that simple basis. Loading is also banned so if you were in a restricted street it should have been a code 02 pcn in any event.
-
one point to flag is the council image is of the post ahead of where my car was parked.. just after the disabled bay
there is another post very close behind to where my car was parked (which they didn't take a photo of) in case it makes a difference (although this one had the same sign too)
Not sure if this makes any diference as I would have thought they should have taken a photo of the post behind my car since the disabled bay creates a break
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5107315,0.0142462,3a,75y,127.82h,62.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3FuVsexc9eTCdAyIWIJEfg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D27.654862995268488%26panoid%3D3FuVsexc9eTCdAyIWIJEfg%26yaw%3D127.8162581140721!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDkyOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
-
Was parked here and missed the parking suspension signs (as I think they removed the old ones and put new ones at same time - they have a habit of not removing old ones for weeks). Is there anything that could help me get out of the fine because of any irregularity by the council on signage or the PCN itself? Appreciate it's totally my fault.
I am the registered keeper.
(https://i.ibb.co/0py0zHT7/image-from-far.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ds4NH8FT)
(https://i.ibb.co/xS6WdGvn/pcn-back.jpg) (https://ibb.co/tMDgFcf0)
(https://i.ibb.co/nqbfVrHK/pcn-front.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Q7fnq92x)
(https://i.ibb.co/BHHP2tYs/6a.jpg) (https://ibb.co/JWWdjKSk)
(https://i.ibb.co/3mxfVjwh/5a.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qYH0hcz1)
(https://i.ibb.co/BHHP2tYs/6a.jpg) (https://ibb.co/JWWdjKSk)
(https://i.ibb.co/3mxfVjwh/5a.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qYH0hcz1)
(https://i.ibb.co/Mxk5cWvB/2a.jpg) (https://ibb.co/pBjrfG7h)
(https://i.ibb.co/SwWTmSSJ/1a.jpg) (https://ibb.co/CKNd9LLW)