Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: AmikoFrizz on October 26, 2025, 07:23:40 pm
-
Thank you, hope for good at appeal stage, that would save a lot of time for all. I'll surely update the post with the outcome of this step, either positive or negative.
-
I think that will do although it's rather long. I don't think it matters too much as I think you have a very good chance of winning this at the tribunal should they reject but the reps set out the ground you would cover with an adjudicator.
-
Thank you stamfordman
She was not aware that the line was only subject to a short morning time, she parked in an area of the road with no timeplates in sight (timeplate missing at pole no. 43).
Revised draft
---
The alleged contravention relates to a simple waiting restriction.
The PCN states 'Observed from 9.27 to 9.27'. The PCN also gives the time of contravention as 9.27. This confirms that no observation period whatsoever was carried out.
A Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) is required to form a reasoned belief that a contravention has occurred and obliged to consider whether any statutory exemptions might apply. The law provides exemptions from the waiting restriction, namely loading (including being away from the vehicle) and alighting/boarding (including being assisted). At least 2 reasonable minutes of observation are required. This would have taken the CEO to 9.29 which, in accordance with London Councils' procedures, would mean that a PCN should not be issued.
I submit that the CEO could not have held a reasoned belief that a contravention had occurred at 9.27, because they had not observed the vehicle for a length of time sufficient to have examined and eliminated the possibility that an exemption applied and therefore the vehicle was permitted to be parked at the location.
While the period necessary to establish an exemption is not prescribed, the council, and therefore the CEO, are obliged to act fairly and in accordance with Council policies.
In short, the CEO, instead of deciding that any reasonable observation period would take them to 9.29 and that after printing and service would take them to 9.30, at which time they would photograph the vehicle to prove service and therefore fall within London Councils' guidance preventing PCNs being issued so close to when the restriction ended, in this case at 9.30, they acted prematurely.
As this took place just before the 2 minute window recommended by London Councils it falls well within triviality and reasonable time to consult a timeplate as this is not a controlled parking zone with entry signs.
It is necessary to emphasise that the driver was not aware that the line was only subject to a short morning time and parked in an area of the road with no timeplates in sight, as the timeplate is missing on pole no. 43. Therefore, the driver needed to walk down the road to look for a sign (approximately 50 mt / 55 steps), found it on pole no. 42, examined it, checked the actual time and went back up (50 mt / 55 steps) with the intention to move the car. In the same time, the CEO quickly completed the PCN with no observation time, and went up the road (50 mt / 55 steps in the opposite direction) photographing as evidence a totally different car (Mercedes) under a different timeplate (on pole 44).
The penalty in this case clearly exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
---
What do you think?
-
It would obviously help if there was something going on that could have been observed.
I'm of the view of including that your wife parked between midway two timeplates that are some xx metres apart and had gone to the opposite one to where the CEO was to check time and by the time they came back to move the car if needs be the PCN had been issued.
As this took place just before the 2 minute window recommended by London Councils it falls well within triviality and reasonable time to consult a timeplate as this is not a controlled parking zone with entry signs.
Was she aware that the line was only subject to a short morning time?
-
Hi Mr Andersen (or anyone can help),
I need to send the formal appeal today or tomorrow at least (from Thursday I'll offline for a business trip).
A final advice on the above would be highly beneficial, thank you so much in advance.
Look forward to hearing from you.
-
My fear is that you'll want to go into minutiae which in return would allow the authority to do likewise and ignore/overlook the procedural issues.
IMO, stay detached. Act ONLY upon what you as the RK can see in the photos and PCN and, sorry to say, ignore your wife's recollections which IMO carry limited evidential weight.
Thank you very much H C Andersen, spot on, I normally tend to go into minutiae, so here I will have to do my best to be direct and concise. Please review this draft and let me know what you think. I'll amend it if necessary and submit it.
I assume nothing from my informal challenge (Link --> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hh7QINy2PDErJR-HwoD9aYPE21eMhEvFbqDzj2770Qw/edit?usp=sharing) is worth being saved and reused (please advise if otherwise), and I will stick to your points only.
I'm quite new to this game, so I appreciate your patience in correcting; wording and general tone might not be the right one.
---
The alleged contravention relates to a simple waiting restriction.
The PCN states 'Observed from 9.27 to 9.27'. The PCN also gives the time of contravention as 9.27. This confirms that no observation period whatsoever was carried out.
A Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) is required to form a reasoned belief that a contravention has occurred and obliged to consider whether any statutory exemptions might apply. The law provides exemptions from the waiting restriction, namely loading (including being away from the vehicle) and alighting/boarding (including being assisted). At least 2 reasonable minutes of observation are required. This would have taken the CEO to 9.29 which, in accordance with London Councils' procedures, would mean that a PCN should not be issued.
I submit that the CEO could not have held a reasoned belief that a contravention had occurred at 9.27, because they had not observed the vehicle for a length of time sufficient to have examined and eliminated the possibility that an exemption applied and therefore the vehicle was permitted to be parked at the location.
While the period necessary to establish an exemption is not prescribed, the council, and therefore the CEO, are obliged to act fairly and in accordance with Council policies.
In short, the CEO, instead of deciding that any reasonable observation period would take them to 9.29 and that after printing and service would take them to 9.30, at which time they would photograph the vehicle to prove service and therefore fall within London Councils' guidance preventing PCNs being issued so close to when the restriction ended, in this case at 9.30, they acted prematurely.
The penalty in this case clearly exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
---
What do you think?
-
I would stick with these objective details:
The alleged contravention relates to a simple waiting restriction.
The PCN states 'Observed from 9.27 to 9.27'.
The PCN also gives the time of contravention as 9.27.
The law provides exemptions from the waiting restriction, namely loading(including being away from the vehicle) and alighting/boarding(including being assisted).
I submit that the CEO could not have held a reasoned belief that a contravention had occurred at 9.27 because they had not observed the vehicle for a length of time sufficient to have examined and eliminated the possibility that an exemption applied and therefore the vehicle was permitted to be parked at the location. While the period necessary to establish an exemption is not prescribed, the council, and therefore the CEO, are obliged to act fairly and in accordance with council policies. I doubt that the authority could or would be prepared to present a policy to the adjudicator which states that an observation period is not required in the case of a simple waiting restriction.
In short, the CEO was, I'm sorry to say, trigger happy and that instead of deciding that any reasonable observation period would take them to 9.29 and that after printing and service would take them to 9.30 at which time they would photograph the vehicle to prove service and therefore fall within London Councils' guidance preventing PCNs being issued so close to when the restriction ended, in this case at 9.30, they acted prematurely.
The penalty in this case clearly exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.
Is my take.
My fear is that you'll want to go into minutiae which in return would allow the authority to do likewise and ignore/overlook the procedural issues.
IMO, stay detached. Act ONLY upon what you as the RK can see in the photos and PCN and, sorry to say, ignore your wife's recollections which IMO carry limited evidential weight.
-
If all the uncorroborated elements are stripped out then all that remains is the CEO's photos and the PCN.
[...]
Personally, I'd approach this without reference to uncorroborated references.
Authority confirmed that contravention is instantaneous. B******s. The CEO is obliged to consider whether any exemptions might apply, namely 'loading' and 'boarding'. If you ask for the council's policy, I'm certain you'll find that at least 2 minutes' obs is required. This would have taken the CEO to 9.29 which, in accordance with London Councils' procedures, would mean that a PCN should not be issued. Put this to the council in formal reps and see what response you get.
The time you have available is more than enough IMO to draft reps for review here, amend if necessary and submit.
Thank you so much. I'll start to draft reps and post for review here, amend if necessary and submit before the 28 days (19 Dec).
Is it worth mentioning again as a point in the appeal the set of photo evidence by the CEO? Photos of: 1) my car not at all next to any timeplate visible in the surroundings, 2) a zoomed photo of a timeplate without my car in the vicinity, 3) enlarged photo of the timeplate and surroundings, with a totally different car (Mercedes) underneath the timeplate and again no presence at all of my car (Nissan) in the whole background.
More in general, there's anything I can save from my informal challenges (rejected twice) and maybe reuse for the formal representations? This is the 2nd letter I sent to the Council to informally challenge the PCN. Posting it for review and feedback.
Link --> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hh7QINy2PDErJR-HwoD9aYPE21eMhEvFbqDzj2770Qw/edit?usp=sharing
-
I agree with Mr Andersen.
Someone's trousers could go missing.
-
On the 31st of August 2025, the driver parked my Grey Nissan at 9:26am
How could you or they be so precise? Who, without reason, notes with such accuracy when they park?
There are 2 signs. The CEO took a photo of one having presumably gone there straight from issuing the PCN. Your wife meanwhile went to a sign and seeing the times 'returned to the car to move it'.
So, this must have been the other sign because she didn't see the CEO.
You would be asking an adjudicator to accept that:
You wife parked at 9.26am, got out of the car and walked in the direction of sign no. 1, found it, read the times and 'then walked back to the car to move it but found a PCN already left on the windscreen', a PCN issued at 9.27am. While she was away from the car the CEO arrived, presumably from the opposite direction, observed the car, entered details in their HHC, produced a PCN, placed it in an envelope which was then put under the windscreen and photographed at 9.28. They then went to sign no.2 while your wife was returning to the car. There's an element of Brian Rix to these events.
Anyway, the key for me is that whereas all the CEO's photos and movements are timed objectively, your wife's are not, unless she has photos of the PCN at 9.29 when she returned to the car?
If all the uncorroborated elements are stripped out then all that remains is the CEO's photos and the PCN.
I would find it more plausible if she parked, did not note the time, went to sign no.1, saw the times, looked at her watch which showed 9.29, decided that it would be pointless returning to her car, left and returned later to find a PCN.
But your account is your account.
Personally, I'd approach this without reference to uncorroborated references.
Authority confirmed that contravention is instantaneous. B******s. The CEO is obliged to consider whether any exemptions might apply, namely 'loading' and 'boarding'. If you ask for the council's policy, I'm certain you'll find that at least 2 minutes' obs is required. This would have taken the CEO to 9.29 which, in accordance with London Councils' procedures, would mean that a PCN should not be issued. Put this to the council in formal reps and see what response you get.
You're not compiling War and Peace or a submission to the Supreme Court. The time you have available is more than enough IMO to draft reps for review here, amend if necessary and submit.
Frankly, I'd leave your wife out of this(or adopt the alternative narrative I posited above) because I don't think her detail helps much.
But it's your PCN and your account.
-
Hi, today, 27/11, I received the NTO by post. On the NTO, there's 21/11 as "Date of this notice". The letter mentions a period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the NTO was served. With this, have I already lost 6 of my 28 available days?
In the next 3 weeks, I have 2 business trips abroad already booked, which will take away more crucial days. Is there something I can do to have more time, my whole 28 days, to prepare the formal representations?
This is the NTO:
Page 1 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vEdCaLCokqrJqS09D-tEMt65ffA_mD_0/view?usp=sharing
Page 2 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MA9wZMxZs2OGc17usebzfmbaVQoooS14/view?usp=sharing
Page 3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PolG9JmYiiJrH2js9udVf2rfYW_zQ6a8/view?usp=sharing
Page 4 https://drive.google.com/file/d/19pwtSFHr5rj00fnU-pNGg0-ZxS_olzHu/view?usp=sharing
Previous timeline: 31/08 ticket issued on windscreen, 12/09 date of rejection of my informal representations, 22/10 2nd letter of rejection to my further correspondence.
All the other details are in the earlier posts.
I'm preparing the formal representations. Normally, I pay tickets when I get it and I have to, but here I still have many doubts.
The CEO took many photos of my car with no signs at all in sight. Then he went up to the road to look for a sign to photograph and, as obviously my car was not there, he took a photo of a totally different car near the signage and added it as "evidence". This is well shown by the photos he took.
The driver is my wife. In the same time, she went down the road to look for a sign (55 steps going + 55 coming back, plus the time of examination of the sign, checking the actual time etc etc), found it, checked the road markings, and yes, indeed when she was back she found the ticket slammed on the windscreen.
Basically my car was parked near pole 43 (no timeplate), CEO operated near pole 44 and wife went down to pole 42. All this comedy because of a missing sign where the car was parked. In first instance, in the presence of a time plate, my wife would have never parked there. The whole Winnington Road, over 1,1 miles long, have timeplates on every single pole to the left side, except the pole 43!
I never paid a ticket where another car was posted as evidence. Your support in reviewing the NTO and the whole situation would be highly appreciated.
Thank you!
-
Wait for the NTO and update this thread when it arrives.
-
Who is the driver?
So they went to the other sign rather than the one the CEO went to?
That's fine but you need to be clear about the event.
It's no good worrying about the CEO - in large areas they often use motorbikes and cars to patrol and here this is presumably just a commuter restriction at start of morning.
The driver is my wife. She went down the road to look for a sign (55 steps going + 55 coming back, plus the time of examination, checking the actual time etc etc), and yes, the CEO went up the road to look for a sign to photo and also take a photo of a different car near it to add as "evidence". This is well shown by the photos he took.
Basically my car was parked near pole 43 (no timeplate), CEO operated near pole 44 and wife went down to pole 42. All this comedy because of a missing sign. The whole Winnington Road, over 1,1 miles long, have timeplates on every single pole to the left side, except the pole 43!
-
Who is the driver?
So they went to the other sign rather than the one the CEO went to?
That's fine but you need to be clear about the event.
It's no good worrying about the CEO - in large areas they often use motorbikes and cars to patrol and here this is presumably just a commuter restriction at start of morning.
-
There isn't a missing sign, which would have been a good point.
Which way did the driver walk to check the sign.
The obvious hole in the argument is there were two people there - driver and CEO yet driver didn't see them?
One possibility is that the CEO was driving that Mercedes...
The driver went down the road to look for the sign (55+55 steps, plus the time of examination, checking the actual time etc etc), while the CEO went up the road to look for a sign to photo and also take a photo of a different car near it to add as "evidence".
It's possible they didn't meet, or if they did she easily could be distracted from her phone or have not recognised the person as the CEO, plus that person probably well knew what he was doing and made sure to slap the ticket on the windscreen just when she was not looking.
I'm seriously thinking too that the CEO was sitting in the Mercedes... I thought that since the beginning. If is true, to take the liberty to act like that they must be on a high bonus scheme and know to be well covered from any possible trouble...
-
There isn't a missing sign, which would have been a good point.
Which way did the driver walk to check the sign.
The obvious hole in the argument is there were two people there - driver and CEO yet driver didn't see them?
One possibility is that the CEO was driving that Mercedes...
-
Thank you very much all for your help, your work on this forum is very useful and highly appreciated.
The driver did the due diligence in walking down the road searching out the sign. I went there yesterday and measured with steps, the nearest signs are 55 steps down and 53 steps up. Being not a tall person, one step of mine is obviously not 1 mt, so definitely there's a length of well over 100 mt without signs, and a pole with a missing sign in the middle, just where driver parked. She parked midway between two timeplates that are quite far apart, near a pole with a missing sign and did all what was possible to find information about prescribed hours and comply.
Both CEO and Authorised Officer are obviously wrong when stating my car was parked by a timeplate. It wasn't. Timeplate was missing. They sent a photo of timeplate taken from a different pole and one with a different car underneath.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cbtphtKgIBanpcBWO8xPxVjFqoemWrxb/view
Do we members of the public really must cough-up the money and shut up, even when both CEO and Authorised Officer are insisting in presenting as evidence a photo with a timeplate far apart and even a different car near it?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cbtphtKgIBanpcBWO8xPxVjFqoemWrxb/view
Considering the above, I find really hard to conclude that the CEO did anything wrong and was not mendacious, but the Officer who hasn't read my representation and/or not looked at the pics properly, and is insisting on presenting a different car as evidence, did not commit procedural impropriety?
All in all, I find this unfair. We normally follow the rules, honestly comply and pay if we have to, but shell out on a photo of a different car makes us feeling duped as if we are being laughed at.
Thank you.
-
Just to confirm there are two sign plates shown on GSV fairly near the car: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/tN3MLDAqSbmG51zL9
This is about 37 metres from your car. It is also the one the CEO took a photo of. Compare his photo with this GSV view
https://maps.app.goo.gl/EXA74BJyLkTT9L5dA
Note the low brick wall with stone cappings.
and the sign in the other direction: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/WeUAp34jmYPP1q596
This is about 47 metres from your car
So having now seen the CEO photos, it would seem the CEO has not been as mendacious as you might think, and certainly I withdraw my remarks on that aspect.
I suggest you have a serious rethink on how substantive your case is.
-
Just wait for the NTO. The driver - who is this - did due diligence in searching out the sign. It looks like she parked midway between two timeplates that are quite far apart.
They are obviously wrong about being parked by a timeplate.
There is no observation on the PCN and it was issued just three minutes before the end of the restriction. London Councils guidance is not to issue within 2 mins so this could be said to be 1 second away...
Did the driver see the CEO? If not I find that odd.
I don't think the CEO did anything wrong but the official hasn't looked at the pics properly.
-
PCN found on windscreen
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mrcqKlhfBKIbILCTyXCslvfUycEWETrZ/view?usp=sharing
1st rejection letter / informal representations
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ix_anluarPlWbth1IMV0heaaL9FwS2AU/view?usp=drive_link page 1
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1okUAPUX5sF48kKpk4e4qilTEN_BxyUp8/view?usp=sharing page 2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cbtphtKgIBanpcBWO8xPxVjFqoemWrxb/view?usp=sharing page 3 - Again they show not my car there
- Insufficient evidence (wrong car in the only complete photo provided)?
- Procedural impropriety in responses to informal representations (ignored every point raised, included wrong car in photo)?
2nd rejection letter / informal representations
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15QV837pWAYGLIRp2ykybn5VZzPuoSA1S/view?usp=sharing
Photos from CEO 1-8
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rhE0Y7kIlYzP4G-GoIuD8Zm9v-vymec7/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JmJbriE1JnEqIHJuX_4zw0rGl3ADP8vE/view?usp=sharing
- Faded yellow line?
- Missing signage? No signage at all in sight
Photo from CEO 9-10
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qcSPCCp1rWQeHqlts8yBtNgAWSiePKDE/view?usp=sharing
- Zoom of the parking sign taken somewhere from a different pole
- The only complete photo with yellow line, sign and car stopping - but not my car, different make/model and registration
Google Maps link for location
https://maps.app.goo.gl/uAeneTetPxDRVyUo9
- Notice the missing signage on the pole
-
Thank you so much. I will post everything shortly.
-
Please read this and update your thread accordingly.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
It's no good fulminating about the council not dealing with your informal reps properly; councils game the system ruthlessly to encourage payment of the PCN. By rejecting your reps, and saying "wait for the NtO" they are forcing you to either forego the discount, or cough-up the discounted amount. Most people then do cough-up, like >90%.
The bottom line is that if you want to fight them you have to go through the process. Even if you win at London Tribunals, the mendacious actions of the CEO will get ignored. For that you would have to raise a complaint with the council and also tell your local councillors what is going on. If you win at LT, the council don't get the PCN money, but also have the fag of preparing an evidence pack for the adjudication, and must pay the adjudication fee.
-
I can post everything, definitely. Please, tell me what would you like to see, just the photos?
V5C is up to date, I received already their rejection of informal representation and the 2nd letter where they basically said shut up and wait for the NTO.
No NTO received so far.
This is the timeline
31st Aug - PCN found on windscreen
3rd Sep - Sent informal representations
12st Sep - Received their rejection
4th Oct - Sent further letter to reiterate
22th Oct - Received their response rejecting again and telling me to wait the NTO
-
You haven't posted any of the materials but you can't force them to keep considering informal challenges.
The NTO is your opportunity to make formal representations and then you have the tribunal.
Is the V5C logbook up to date with correct name and address?
-
Hi, I'm having an issue with Barnet Council on this PCN and would like to hear your point of view and possibly some help with the appeal + probably the Parking Adjudicator.
In brief...
On the 31st of August 2025, the driver parked my Grey Nissan at 9:26am, noticing a single yellow line. She couldn't find any signage on the nearest pole, so she walked up the road looking for a sign to understand what the prescribed hours were. After a brief walk, the driver saw a parking sign and soon found out the signage was reporting 8-9:30 am as prescribed hours, then walked back to the car to move it but found a PCN already left on the windscreen. Observation time, 1 min.
In the photo evidence later consulted online (I'm the owner/keeper), I saw 8 photos of the car on a single yellow line taken in a way to well hide the absence of the sign on the nearest pole. 8 photos taken from every possible angle with no parking signage at all, but in a way that hides the section of the pole where the signage was missing.
Now comes the interesting part, as photo no. 9 this CEO added finally a photo of the sign, but obviously taken in another location, a different pole not at all in the vicinity of my car. Just a zoom of a sign, with nothing else, i.e. my car or general contest.
At the end, as photo no. 10 and please see the cheekiness here, a complete photo with everything: signage, a yellow line and a car parked there, but that's not mine! It's a random grey Mercedes with a different registration.
I sent them informal representations explaining everything, with further photo evidence, they obviously rejected.
Then I sent another letter reiterating the presence of a different car as "evidence" and the missed sign that put the driver in a position to not immediately understand the prescribed hours. And once again, they quite rudely wrote back very dry, telling me I must wait for the NTO to make a formal appeal.
In my opinion, this PCN shouldn't reach the NTO level, and this CEO should be retrained or disciplined. I'm also not happy about how the informal representation was managed, as they didn't answer any questions or even acknowledge the obvious missing signage and a random car used as "evidence".
Thanks for your attention, look forward to hearing from you!