Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: duldi on October 30, 2025, 10:45:24 am
-
the argument was not won on a technicality. it was won because although the adjudicator found as a fact that the car was parked on a SYL he could not find that the authority had complied with their duty to sign it adequately What no evidence of signs
-
I'd also add that the adjudicator (not a judge) does not have discretion in these matters, he only facts presented to him.
-
This was won on a technicality, not the merits of your argument or you parking on a SYL and mistakenly believing that a No Stopping sign had any relevance.
Your error was trumped by theirs in presenting inadequate evidence. There is no suggestion in the decision that the absence of a stand-alone No Waiting sign at the location had any bearing on matters.
I have just had a look at yesterday's tribunal decisions and I was overwhelmed by the proportion of Refusals.
Taking a case to adjudication on arguments based in emotion/frustration/annoyance etc... is a gamble which, with current penalty levels, could prove to be expensive.
-
I see someone was awake before me, but yes good news!
I am of the same opinion that if you take it to tribunals you should be applauded, puts some pressure on them to take the first 2 stages of appeal seriously
-
IMO we should tick the applaud button not only every time a person wins but also even when they first post!
-
Case reference 2250339192
Appellant xxxxx
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM EA09 PXJ
PCN Details
PCN PN21760441
Contravention date 08 Feb 2025
Contravention time 08:36:00
Contravention location Stafford Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked restricted street during prescribed hours
Referral date -
Decision Date 31 Oct 2025
Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant appeared in person via MS Teams.
The Enforcement Authority did not attend and was not represented, either in vision, by telephone, or in person.
A contravention can occur if a vehicle is parked in a restricted street during controlled hours.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was parked at this location, or that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued to it, as shown in the photographs/digital images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Appellant’s case is that the only sign that the saw was that for the school entrance restriction, which did not apply at that time.
The images produced by the Enforcement Authority show that there is a single yellow line as well as the ziz-zag markings, but do not show any signs.
The Enforcement Authority refer to the location being within a Controlled Parking Zone but although they have produced some site images these show neither a Controlled Parking Zone entry sign nor any local timeplates.
The part of the Traffic Management Order produced, which is not map based, suggests that there are discreet restrictions in Stafford Road.
It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully on each occasion before leaving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they park only as permitted and that this will remain the position for as long as the vehicle will be there. This includes making sure that they comply with all restrictions and prohibitions indicated by the signs. However, it is also the responsibility of the Enforcement Authority to ensure that restrictions and prohibitions are clearly signed.
The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence actually produced by the parties and applying relevant law.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
-
IMO, NO.
You start with what you have just posted, IMO it's a winning hand.
On ** I received a Charge Certificate dated *** despite having made formal representations in time but not having received any response from the authority. I contacted the authority by phone and over a period of several months was engaged in verbal and email pong-pong with them. Finally on *** they sent me a copy of the NOR dated 12 May at which point I became aware of the adjudicator's details.
I contacted the tribunal who, to their credit, agreed to register my appeal, albeit very late and well after the 28-day statutory limit.
This appeal arises from this decision and because of the authority's actions I would add procedural impropriety to my grounds of appeal and lead with this argument. Nowhere in the NOR does the authority refer to your, the adjudicator's, power to register appeals made late and it is only my good fortune in taking this initiative and the tribunal's decision to register this that has brought me here.
Even if I had received the NOR in the normal course of affairs, I would have been none the wiser about this essential option to which the authority is under a duty to include within a NOR.
I therefore ask the adjudicator to allow my appeal on these grounds.
...frankly, I'd wait for a response to this before launching into your total lack of understanding of traffic signs!
-
I have a speech prepared, I'll post it along with the verdict tomorrow.
-
I received a CC but pushed back to Newham Council that they did not issue me the NOR letter in response to my appeal. After some emails back and forth they sent me the correspondence via email.
When I got the NOR letter by email and the web code for Tribunals, Tribunals said I was out of the date and could not appeal. I explained to them my council did not send me the NOR with the web code in an appropriate time, and considering the circumstances they allowed me to open an appeal.
So I was the one who referred this to an adjudicator, by explaining the I never received my NOR and could not have been expected to appeal or even pay.
So the large gap in date is that I since I didn't hear from them and received no NOR I thought I was clear, till I got the CC and the above transpired.
The evidence they posted for the CPZ: https://ibb.co/b5HD8w8N
-
OP, I cannot follow your account.
If you received a CC then it follows that the 28-day period during which you could have registered an appeal HAD EXPIRED. Therefore, how did you register your appeal?
The formal process is NOT that you brow beat the authority over the phone and then they cancel the CC and send you a copy of the NOR. It is that they issue an Order for Recovery which you then 'challenge' with the Traffic Enforcement Centre who notify you and the council that the OfR and CC are cancelled. It is then the authority's duty to refer the matter to the adjudicator for his directiond.
The NOR in evidence is dated 12 May!
Their letter to you confirming that they would be contesting your appeal is dated 17 October.
Fill in the gaps. They are important.
Where's their evidence of CPZ signs at the entrance of the route you took to the location?
-
This is exactly what I needed. Thank you so much!
Do you know how I can reference this in court tomorrow?
-
The school zig zags create a no stopping contravention the yellow line no waiting, there is a difference loadinf or boarding/alighting for example so tour argument re the redundancy of the zig zags is flawed
stick with the inadequacies of the signs given the dual restrictions See this case
Case Details
Case reference 2160502623
Appellant Muhammed Amran Ahmed
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM GK53WXA
PCN Details
PCN PN1418832A
Contravention date 01 Oct 2016
Contravention time 10:14:00
Contravention location Napier Road E6 : OPP HSE 62
Penalty amount GBP 65.00
Contravention Parked restricted street during prescribed hours
Referral date -
Decision Date 12 Jan 2017
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund forthwith the penalty charge and the release fees paid.
Reasons
Mr Ahmed has attended in person.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours. The alleged contravention occurred in Napier Road at 10.14am on Saturday 1 October 2016.
The CEO's photographs show that Mr Ahmed's car was parked on school entrance markings in Napier Road. Mr Ahmed submits an image of a sign next to the markings which alerts motorists to a no stopping restriction between 8am and 5pm Mondays to Fridays. Mr Ahmed appeals because he says that the car was parked on a Saturday outside of the controlled hours.
The Council says in its case summary that Napier Road is part of a CPZ for which the restricted hours are from 9am to 6.30pm Mondays to Saturdays. The Council says that there is a single yellow line running through the entrance markings and that this alerts motorists to the further CPZ no stopping restriction.
There is no evidence of any other signage in Napier Road for a no stopping restriction. A motorist seeing the entrance markings and the sign next to those markings will inevitably conclude that the restrictions apply only from Mondays to Fridays. There is nothing to alert the motorist to an additional restriction. The yellow line and yellow zig-zags create the appearance of a single restriction governed by the signage next to them. I find that the markings are not adequate to alert motorists to a no stopping restriction on a Saturday.
Even if the single yellow line was distinct, this would only alert the motorist to look for CPZ restrictions in the absence of other signage. In this location, there is a sign in place for a no stopping restriction.
I am not in any event satisfied that any CPZ signage was adequate.
The CEO's photographs show no signs alerting motorists to CPZ parking restrictions. The legal requirement is for restrictions to be signed at all of the entry points to the CPZ, thus ensuring that motorists will see the restrictions upon entering the CPZ. The Council submits no site map showing the CPZ boundaries and entry points. The Council also submits no images of any signs in place at the CPZ entry points.
-
What dates are the NTO and charge certificate - you stepped out of process as not getting the notice of rejection is an authotaic way of cancelling debt enforcement.
Traffic signs manual recommends timeplates in a CPZ for this but it's not mandatory. An adjudicator may well agree that a timeplate should be there but it's not a sure fire winner.
You seem confused - the no stopping sign and markings have nothing to do with the single yellow line - it's just that their combination can cause confusion.
(https://i.ibb.co/jkzyGQVY/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-11-43-23.png)
Hello,
Charge Certificate : 03/07/2025
NTO : 23/04/2025
They did not send me the response to my formal appeal, so I had to get in touch with their enquiry line to get that after I was issued the charge certificate.
I understand that I'm going to rely so far on the discretion of the judge, to your point I am aiming to show them the confusion caused by such a sign within a cpz that governs an area with both zig zags and single yellow.
-
What dates are the NTO and charge certificate - you stepped out of process as not getting the notice of rejection is an automatic way of cancelling debt enforcement.
Traffic signs manual recommends timeplates in a CPZ for this but it's not mandatory. An adjudicator may well agree that a timeplate should be there but it's not a sure fire winner.
You seem confused - the no stopping sign and markings have nothing to do with the single yellow line - it's just that their combination can cause confusion.
(https://i.ibb.co/jkzyGQVY/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-11-43-23.png)
-
I have a prepared speech - given it is via video call I will read off it.
The core of it is:
Newham Council states they had sent me a notice of rejection of my formal appeal. I never received this letter, and was issued a charge notice with the threat of debt collection, I explained the situation and it took a great deal of effort and a greater number of emails still to get the notice of rejection from them so I could lodge this complaint.
I would like to start my case by first explaining how the decision to park in front of the school formed, including the reasoning and logic I applied in the moment, as would any motorist. Following it up with a rebuttal of some of the councils points they have outlined as part of their appeal. Lastly I would like to close with a an anecdote of similar case that shows a pattern of neglectful signage on the councils behalf but a willingness to prosecute their residents nonetheless.
I would like to start my case by first explaining how the decision to park in front of the school formed, including the reasoning and logic I applied in the moment, as would any motorist. Following it up with a rebuttal of some of the councils points they have outlined as part of their appeal. Lastly I would like to close with a an anecdote of similar case that shows a pattern of neglectful signage on the councils behalf but a willingness to prosecute their residents nonetheless.
The alleged contravention occurred when I parked the vehicle in question on a Friday night. Understanding that I am parked outside of a school and that a yellow line means some restrictions; as the council has kindly pointed out in their appeal “The very purpose of a single yellow line is to draw the attention of the driver to the existence of a parking restriction.”
So, to follow the rules, I looked for a sign and observed that the nearest signage, less than a meter from where I was parked, right above the yellow line, indicated the restrictions apply from Monday-Friday, meaning parking was within the rules on a Saturday. So, based on the sign, I believed I was parking legally on Saturday and that is why I’m contesting this ticket.
The council states that the Controlled Parking Zone would be in effect even on a Saturday. But here’s where their logic doesn’t add up and the council has created real confusion - and it is their responsibility to correct that.
The CPZ is in effect Monday - Saturday 8am - 6:30pm. This time already contains the times of the school signage Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm. Monday - Saturday 8am - 6:30pm would cover the times Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm. The school sign would be redundant and moreover pointless, and therefore the Newham councils responsibility to remove it if the CPZ also enforces the area outside of the school.
But because it exists on my road within the CPZ, a motorist will and has operated under logical decision that “the CPZ is for the resident bays and this restrictions for this yellow line are governed by this school signpost”.
The key point I’m making is: if the CPZ applies to this yellow line, the school sign is misleading and should be updated- its presence creates a reasonable expectation that its times govern this part of the road.
-
Appeals at London Tribunals have been won on this signage aspect in such circumstances. Guidance on signing is that where there are two restrictions at a location, that both should be signed to avoid confusion. You can argue that the test of "adequacy" has not been met under Regulation 18 of the The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18
Of course, you will have to risk the full PCN penalty if you take them to London Tribunals, but there are no additional costs, and if you win, you pay nothing. The council, however, have to prepare an evidence pack and also pay the adjudication fee.
Oh yes I know, I'm just tired of Newham Council and the way they dismiss motorists. I'm sure if more people challenged it all the way they would have to take the earlier stages more seriously. So I am just doing my part. I have uploaded links if you are interested.
-
Appeals at London Tribunals have been won on this signage aspect in such circumstances. Guidance on signing is that where there are two restrictions at a location, that both should be signed to avoid confusion. You can argue that the test of "adequacy" has not been met under Regulation 18 of the The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18
Of course, you will have to risk the full PCN penalty if you take them to London Tribunals, but there are no additional costs, and if you win, you pay nothing. The council, however, have to prepare an evidence pack and also pay the adjudication fee.
-
Council: Newham
Contravention: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours.
Location: Stafford Road E7
Situation:
I parked on a Friday night outside a school. There is a single yellow line and school zigzags sharing the same road space (the single yellow trails a bit longer at one end), with one sign directly above them that states Mon–Fri school restriction hours.
Since it was Saturday, I reasonably believed parking was allowed. No separate yellow-line timeplate existed at the location. Newham claim the CPZ hours overrule the visible sign, but they placed a school sign directly over the same markings, creating confusion. The time for the sign is also covered already by the CPZ, so it feels redundant and a point of genuine confusion for me as a motorist.
I'm hoping to fight it on the basis that:
- The school sign and yellow line occupy the same space
- The only visible sign stated Mon–Fri, and that the hours on the sign are already within the cpz sign.
- The CPZ sign was not adjacent to that location
- The council’s reasoning forces drivers to ignore the sign in front of them, which is not realistic or lawful
As this is going to tribunals I have also got the pack from Newham Council that they will use as arguments which I will upload as a link.
I'm also hoping that the tribunals will side with me as I previously won another Newham appeal where unclear Loading Bay markings were repainted only after the tribunal decision. There is a pattern of the borough enforcing before fixing signage rather than ensuring clarity from the start.
Links:
Complete Correspondence: https://ibb.co/fYjbZ99H
Council's Evidence and Ticket: https://ibb.co/yn4jvjMH
Councils Case: https://ibb.co/6cpXFFGT
School Sign: https://ibb.co/tPm0ztJb
School Sign with ZigZag: https://ibb.co/RkwX7xT6
Evidence of Standard of Signage: https://ibb.co/NHbTtgC