Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: John Doe Man on October 31, 2025, 12:55:41 pm

Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on January 21, 2026, 11:06:38 pm
I'm so sorry if I have confused things. I submitted the appeal on grounds of the kerb stripes not being visible and it was rejected on grounds [they say] A no waiting enforcement being in place there. The actual sign however says 'No Loading or Unloading' which makes me think - The PCN was contravention 02.but 'no waiting' comes under code 01. I looked on ukparking.info which states:

01: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours

Higher. Possibly the least obvious from the wording, this is for “No waiting” restrictions, usually single yellow lines or double yellow lines, but also some RPZs, where the restriction is posted on signs as you enter an area. These are most often used in pedestrianised areas or historic town centres, where yellow lines would have too much of an impact on the appearance of the area.

Loading or unloading, blue badge holders, picking up or setting down passengers, and vehicles used in execution of a statutory duty are usually exempt.
02: Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force.

Higher. Used where there is a no loading restriction; usually marked by yellow lines off the edge of the kerb, but like code 01, may be used in a RPZ, where the restriction is posted on signs as you enter the area. These are most often used in pedestrianised areas or historic town centres, where yellow lines would have too much of an impact on the appearance of the area.

Loading or unloading and blue badge holders are not exempt, picking up or setting down passengers, and vehicles used in execution of a statutory duty are usually exempt.

[Interesting how it's mentioned Yellow Lines aren't used in historic town centres yet you couldn't get more historic than Romford].

I can post the rejection letter if it helps.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: stamfordman on January 21, 2026, 09:18:55 pm
I'm losing track of this. Did you get a rejection of your informal challenge? What is it?

You now have an NTO?

Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on January 21, 2026, 03:53:40 pm
Thank you for your post.Just a few things before I write my appeal. The sign says No Loading at any time whereas in the informal challenge reply the council states:

Your vehicle was observed in High Street at 15:41:14 hours during a period when the relevant
order prohibits waiting.


Does the difference between the two give me a defence as I have just found that Blue Badge parking is permitted on DY lines but not where there is a ban on loading or unloading

Also how do I find out when the sign [order] was put in place ?

Thank you for your help
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: stamfordman on January 19, 2026, 01:46:20 pm
The lack of clear kerb blips is the way to go as you had a blue badge exemption to yellow lines.

Havering doesn't reoffer discount so if they reject you have no incentive not to take it to the tribunal.

There is no stopping prohibition - single/double yellow lines concern only waiting restrictions - but yes you can wait briefly to board/alight passengers where there is also a loading restriction. But as that's not what you were doing it's not relevant.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on January 19, 2026, 01:11:30 pm
I have thought about this further as the reply to to the informal appeal states I have given careful consideration to all the matters raised in your correspondence. I consider,
nevertheless that the Penalty Charge should apply and have rejected your challenge for
cancellation for the following reasons.
Your vehicle was observed in High Street at 15:41:14 hours during a period when the relevant
order prohibits waiting.
.

If I remember correctly no waiting prohibits stopping but allows dropping off a passenger whereas the sign prohibits loading [whereas code 02 prohibits both]. [he sign being maybe a relic of the building the sign is in front of which used to be Romford Brewery many years ago and the windows now in place were previously doors].The said image in the NTO is blank but what would have the council put there, a pic of the vehicle parked wih no kerb stripes visible or the no loading sign or an attempt to photograph both in one frame which would be almost impossible ?
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on January 18, 2026, 09:08:55 pm
No 2. is my preferred option.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: Incandescent on January 18, 2026, 07:54:57 pm
OK, so you have some good points to present, but you'd have to present them to an adjudicator, because Havering will not give way, nor re-offer the discount so you have a choice, (1) cough-up the discount without submitting reps, or (2) stand your ground, submit reps, and when they're rejected, register an appeal at London Tribunals.

I think the chance of success is not slam-dunk, but pretty good as the kerb-blips are so worn. These must be there so you know when parking that there is a loading restriction without having to trek all over the place to find a possible sign.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on January 18, 2026, 06:13:39 pm
images of the kerb

https://i.postimg.cc/T1nfM7B0/h1.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/tTxHWvRG/h2.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/MKx8fYCw/h3.jpg

Anyone can see the kerb stripes ?

Below are images of the sign and it's placement

https://i.postimg.cc/ZnLYvsHD/s1.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/gj4d2XkJ/s2.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/MKPqkQFY/s3.jpg
 
As can be seen the sign is in a place where no-one would notice it [I certainly didn't know it existed] and as was pointed out out to me years ago by my driving instructor that if you drive a car using one had on the steering wheel [using a steering ball/mushroom]you should not turn your head to one side as your shoulder and arm and thus the wheel diverts causing the car to move dangerously. Large signs are quite visible so any disabled driver can be at a disadvantage.   
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on January 18, 2026, 12:47:30 pm
I did some images of exactly where the sign is which I will post as long as some images of the lack of visible kerb stripes.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: Incandescent on January 18, 2026, 12:42:33 pm
Unfortunately, GSV has no street view here. Looking at the satellite view, the kerb blips seem rather too spaced out. One wonders if the yellow paint was in short supply the day they were painted ! However, the sign seems fairly close to your car, as it is outside the brick building with the arched windows. So not a hugely robust case on signage, I would say. Only way you'll find out is to take them to London Tribunals and as this is Havering, if you submit reps to them, which you have to do before you can take them to LT,  they won't reoffer the discount anyway. So it's cough-up the discount, or stand your ground and take them all the way.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on January 18, 2026, 12:24:28 pm
Images Below:

https://i.postimg.cc/50Tj6MR8/car1.png

https://i.postimg.cc/kMRBLB2Y/car2.png

https://i.postimg.cc/KvXRbxLv/car3.png

https://i.postimg.cc/L6zh6wBt/car5.png

https://i.postimg.cc/MpqHc5dr/car7.png
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: stamfordman on January 17, 2026, 05:06:22 pm
Let's see the pics.
Title: Havering Council Informal Appeal Process Possible Loophole
Post by: John Doe Man on January 17, 2026, 01:29:42 pm
I have been looking at Havering Councils almost definite informal appeal rejection and increase from 80 to £160 and believe there may be a problem with it. If you log onto the Parking [view evidence of your penalty charge notice with a webcode] https://www.havering.gov.uk/parking-2/parking-tickets-traffic-fines/3 It states:

View evidence of your Penalty Charge Notice with a web code

You are entitled to view video (if available) or a photo showing when your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued.

You will need the notice number, your vehicle registration and the web code from the PCN that was sent to your home address to continue.

You will also be able to see your how much the charge is.
How the web codes work

Please note this service is for PCNs sent by post as you can only view evidence by using the web code provided on the PCN sent to your address.

Tickets left on your vehicle don't have a code.

Web codes are for the formal representation stage of the process and are in the letter we send if the PCN is issued in that way (eg for a bus lane fine) or you have moved from an informal challenge (PCN on your car window) to formal challenge as part of the appeals process.


When I was issued a PCN I immediately logged on to the website and as may be remembered there were no images to be seen. I emailed the department requesting them and they sent them after issue of the NTO apologising for sending them late !! [The NTO has a blank image of the alleged contravention.]

As can be seen from the web page if you are sent a PCN through the post you can view the video/images immediately and take advantage then of paying at the lower £80 rate. However as you are not given the evidence held by Havering Council on a vehicle attached PCN you are held in a state of unfairness [possible procedural impropriety] and the council are raking it in.

Thoughts ?
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on January 14, 2026, 02:09:29 pm
I submitted an informal appeal which Havering rejected although still no pics on website. On 08/01/2026 received an NTO stating ‘to the right is a photo of your vehicle committing he alleged contravention’ but no photo. On the 13th I got an email stating ‘Good morning
Sorry for the delay in replying to your enquiry.
Please find attached the photos taken at the time of issue’ Am I correct in believing there is a procedural impropriety in that images should be supplied within a reasonable time as in:  The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 paragraph 3 (a) and 4 and not doing so has created an an unfairness.

I can supply images if requested.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on November 20, 2025, 04:20:20 pm
That sounds like a fair route to take especially as I didn't even notice any no stopping kerb markings when parking and when I looked again they are so faded and faint I don't think anyone would've seen them- thank you.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: stamfordman on November 20, 2025, 02:42:09 pm
You may as well try a challenge saying you don't think the contravention occurred but you were waiting for the council's evidence to check before challenging and you feel they have acted unfairly.

They have a duty to act fairly.

This will prolong matters.

Then if they reject at full penalty as they say they will you just continue to the tribunal via the NTO.

If the contravention is solid the tribunal can make a recommendation to pay the discounted penalty but it's not binding.

Separately you can complain through other channels about the picture/no discount offered issue.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: H C Andersen on November 20, 2025, 02:15:01 pm
You're free to assume what you like, that's up to you and you're free to make reps accordingly.

Go ahead, they might even provide photos with any rejection and then you'd be able to take the matter to adjudication at no additional cost above the applicable rejection rate and argue in front of an adjudicator with no extra risk.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on November 20, 2025, 01:40:19 pm
The error as I see it [and I may be wrong here]is that I sent the email requesting images on 05.11.2025 and received a reply the same day stating There is no need to contact us again regarding this matter during this time.which any reasonable person would assume to mean they were processing the request.The last day to pay the 50% discount was 07.11.2025 but the penalty remained at 50% [£80]up until about 16/17.11.2025 leading me to believe it was frozen until they produced the images [at least].

I believe by doing this they have deprived me of, If I choose on seeing the images the opportunity of paying the PCN at the lower rate.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: H C Andersen on November 20, 2025, 10:18:00 am
What error?

The penalty is £160 but a lesser amount may be paid within the period of 14 days beginning on the date of contravention. You cannot extend this unilaterally simply by making requests of the council e.g. photos etc.

Photos are not required but are usual practice.

I have until Friday to submit a rep

Why? You may submit reps at any time before a NTO is served. All the 28-day period does is to set the earliest date on which a NTO may be served, the latest date being 6 months after the PCN.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on November 19, 2025, 10:59:11 pm
Yes you are correct they do not which was what puzzled me but I took [a reasonable] assumption the penalty was on hold until they either produced the images or reported there were none as the penalty remained at £80 then suddenly shot up randomly. I know they are short staffed and nearly bankrupt but last year the parking dept made about £6 million pounds !!

I have until Friday to submit a rep - should I submit a rep referring to their error here ?
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: Incandescent on November 19, 2025, 07:35:17 pm
Havering do not re-offer the discount when rejecting reps. Of course this means that anybody rejected can take them to London Tribunals at no additional cost as the penalty remains the same, but Havering have to pay the adjudication fee and prepare an evidence pack. So maybe they've made a rod for their own back. The sheer bovinne stupidity of some London councils beggars belief.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on November 19, 2025, 03:41:09 pm
Just a quick query, I requested images from the Borough Council for the PCN 2 days before [05.11.25] the penalty increased by 50% [07.11.25] and just received a stock reply and ref. no and the amount seemed to be fixed at 50% on Sunday [17.11.25] so I logged on today and it increased to £160. Have Havering Borough Council legal grounds to do so or are they out of line ?

Their reply to my email:

Thank you for contacting us. Your reference number is **********.

We are currently experiencing a high volume of enquiries and are responding in the order they are received. We will reply to your enquiry as soon as possible. 

There is no need to contact us again regarding this matter during this time.

We appreciate your patience and understanding.

Kind Regards, 
Traffic & Parking Control


Thank you for helping.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on November 14, 2025, 10:22:23 am
Thank you for posting the relevant regs that if read carefully and a few times to a layman make a degree of sense but could've been written better, however the version on the Havering PCN makes no sense at all to the layman [well to me as a layman] There is no reference to the regs and I thought the text on a PCN/NTO had to be easily readable to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: H C Andersen on November 13, 2025, 05:31:06 pm
The Regs:

3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the following information—

(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;

(b)that if, before a notice to owner is served, representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified in the notice for the purpose those representations will be considered by the enforcement authority;

(c)that if a notice to owner is served despite the representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on November 13, 2025, 02:48:52 pm
Please ignore the previous post as I was misreading the context of the wording.Forgive me if I have misunderstood a paragraph of the text of the rear of the PCN indicated below that does not seem to make grammatical sense. I wonder if someone with more experience could please read it and tell me if it is correct as surely the NTO cannot specify how PCN representations are made if it is sent following the PCN.

Thank you

https://i.postimg.cc/rs2WhsJt/pcn-rear-3.png
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on November 11, 2025, 02:06:17 pm
I've been looking at this PCN again and I'm wondering if there is an even simpler procedural impropriety I missed earlier. On the front the payment period is given as "within" 28 days and the rear "on or before" 28 days which to me conflict.

Any thoughts please ?

https://i.postimg.cc/dtmWwMBF/pcn-front2.png

https://i.postimg.cc/Wbn7xG2x/pcn-rear-2.png
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on November 08, 2025, 01:42:21 am
Quote
author=stamfordman link=topic=8600.msg97262#msg97262 date=1762530357]
£10 is the current debt registration fee.

According to the Havering Council Parking Policy it's £7 [among other errors that need correction]

Quote
If you challenge the PCN and they reject you are in for the full penalty as Havering has decided to ignore guidance.


Been there once before, it hurts.

Quote
We can't double check for pics as you've not posted details.


There are no pics - I looked up the link earlier and none there still and due to limits down that road Google can't drive down there. If I still have any from my dashcam I could post them, I will check

Quote
But it isn't acceptable for them to withhold pics that they then produce to enforce the full penalty and not give you a chance to review at discount - this could amount to at least a recommendation to cancel at the tribunal.


That sounds right to me - They have held pics back before I remember once them putting a very vague pic on a PCN when they had clearer ones

Quote
You were in a zone banned to motorised vehicles (bar taxis) so don't go in there again.

Strangely the policy rule G36 does allow for illegal parking in special circumstances:

MC36 - Where the motorist claims there was no legal place to park.
MAY ACCEPT REPRESENTATIONS
 Only in the most exceptional of circumstances and where those circumstances.
can be clearly and unequivocally evidenced by the motorist and proof positive
provided
 

Im not sure if it will apply though.


[/quote]
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: stamfordman on November 07, 2025, 03:45:57 pm
£10 is the current debt registration fee.

If you challenge the PCN and they reject you are in for the full penalty as Havering has decided to ignore guidance.

We can't double check for pics as you've not posted details.

But it isn't acceptable for them to withhold pics that they then produce to enforce the full penalty and not give you a chance to review at discount - this could amount to at least a recommendation to cancel at the tribunal.

You were in a zone banned to motorised vehicles (bar taxis) so don't go in there again.

Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on November 07, 2025, 01:32:25 pm
The only response I had from Havering Council was:

Thank you for contacting us. Your reference number is **********.

We are currently experiencing a high volume of enquiries and are responding in the order they are received. We will reply to your enquiry as soon as possible. 

There is no need to contact us again regarding this matter during this time.

We appreciate your patience and understanding.

Kind Regards, 
Traffic & Parking Control


I feel I may be better challenging on the grounds the parking policy on th e grounds of procedural impropriety as you noted because also the policy states the point I made earlier plus under the Traffic and Parking Control
Installment Procedure
There are several errors including the court debt registration fee of £7 whereas it is £10 as stated on the council web page. Should this be significant ?
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on November 05, 2025, 12:03:23 am
So sorry, I thought I had mentioned that I emailed the council parking dept on the address I have used before and it bounced back. It just seems the council are making it harder to get photos from a non - postal issued PCN. IF I remember correct they issue a webcode for those to view video/photo evidence. If you try to view pics through that this is what you get:

https://i.postimg.cc/cL1BP89X/view-3.png

BTW IS this : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions

all statutory guidance ? [I was looking at the section Challenges - also known as informal representations - If a challenge is received within the discount period and subsequently rejected, the Secretary of State recommends that the enforcement authority should consider re-offering the discount for a further 14 days to incentivise payment. [If irrelevant here please delete, I will repost elsewhere]. Has this ever been raised and challenged with LBH ?
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: H C Andersen on November 04, 2025, 10:13:29 pm
Let's wait for their photos.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on November 04, 2025, 08:38:21 pm
I'm  not sure I fully understand your procedural impropriety angle but don't doubt it. I'm not great at reading through and remembering text as I read it.

I'm not sure but I think that if the council still publishes a policy despite it's original date they still count it as so [I seem to remember something about that in the document]. With reference to Appendix A have they used the case as a reference to the equality act and how the council should treat drivers with the relevant disabilities ?  [I hope that makes sense]
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: H C Andersen on November 04, 2025, 06:19:20 pm
If you want to look at this angle, then you need to understand more detail.

Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions
Updated 20 October 2022


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions

Is the current SoS Stat Guidance.

You've posted a LB Havering doc from 2016, which is therefore out of date.

If the council doesn't have a current published policy then it's in breach of its legal duty under s87 TMA and this is, IMO, a procedural impropriety and grounds of representation and ultimately appeal.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/87


(2) A “procedural impropriety” means a failure by an enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by—

(a)the TMA 2004,

(b)the 2022 General Regulations, or

(c)these Regulations,

in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348231564


As regards Appendix A, this was a report to the Environment and Transport Committee of London Councils (a pan-London representative body) in March 2013 and is therefore a tad out of date. In any event, that committee has no executive authority over Havering in this respect.

Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on November 04, 2025, 04:21:33 pm
First, thank you for the time the experts here spend guiding me on this. Something has come to my mind that may 'indirectly' give grounds for a challenge and i would be grateful for some thoughts.

On the rear of a LBH parking ticket is a statement in bold lettering informing that We Cannot accept verbal challenges in person or on the telephone being quite insistent a disabled person cannot make an oral representation.

 https://i.postimg.cc/4Ng8gR68/pfnr.png

However, in The LBH Discretion Policy for the Enforcement and Cancellation
Penalty Charge Notice [Appendix A]

https://www.havering.gov.uk/downloads/file/96/policy_for_enforcing_or_cancelling_a_pcn (https://www.havering.gov.uk/downloads/file/96/policy_for_enforcing_or_cancelling_a_pcn)

It is stated that any disabled person with inability to provide written evidence may make an oral representation.

So which is true - The Bold, insistent type on the PCN or the section in small fainter type on the link you have to log onto and study until the end to read ? Is there here a conflict that creates a challenge ?
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on November 03, 2025, 12:37:12 pm
I got a snapshot from my dashcam turning round when I left

 (https://i.postimg.cc/N571Tm6N/leaving.png) (https://postimg.cc/N571Tm6N)

Apparently the sign on the taxi rank side says "No Stopping except for taxis" which would make sense for the side the taxi rank is on.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: H C Andersen on November 02, 2025, 03:59:55 pm
It wasn't a No Stopping prohibition, it was No Waiting and No Loading.

In both cases these are standard signs with which any BB holder should be familiar.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on November 02, 2025, 03:12:07 pm
This is where it gets confusing [for me, others may understand it better]


"As you know, a driver's obligation is to observe markings and signs, in this case you can park, look and, if restricted, move off without being in contravention: it's not done in real time from the driver's seat."

Surely To read the signs and verify if it would be an offence to stop / park If I were to park or stop to read them I would have already breached a no stopping / parking sign already so kind of catch 22 ?

Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: H C Andersen on November 02, 2025, 01:58:52 pm
Your VRM is available 24/7 when your car is on the highway, therefore there's no purpose in withholding it here.

As for the PCN number, this doesn't identify you.

We need both to check their website.

As regards parking legislation, the issue boils down to whether you were parked within the scope of waiting and no loading prohibitions. We need photos. If the website cannot assist, then you'll have to arrange to take some yourself I'm afraid.

As regards: I wasn't aware of the loading restriction but looking on my dashcam footage there seems to be some tiny 'No Loading' Signs that as a disabled driver it would be dangerous for me to avert my eyes to see.

As you know, a driver's obligation is to observe markings and signs, in this case you can park, look and, if restricted, move off without being in contravention: it's not done in real time from the driver's seat.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on November 02, 2025, 02:24:13 am
I requested images as none are available on their website.

I parked on the right side in a section of the road where there used to be a pub. A delivery gate is blocked off now but as can be seen in the Google image I posted the DY lines dip in a bit so I used that part to park to avoid obstructing traffic using my Blue Badge. Due to the way Havering arrange parking it often seems more consideration is given to none disabled drivers as although bays can be found at the back of the shops I have to put my personal safety first and will only park somewhere I am clearly visible to the public. 
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: stamfordman on November 01, 2025, 03:32:07 pm
They may put the pics up or ask for them.

This view suggests you were on double yellow on the right?

(https://i.ibb.co/RpYrrtLF/Screenshot-2025-11-01-at-15-26-44.png)
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on October 31, 2025, 09:59:27 pm
Strangely on the boroughs parking section of the website

https://www.havering.gov.uk/parking-2/parking-tickets-traffic-fines/2

There is only an ability to view a PCN if there is a web code which from my memory is only on PCN's send through the post [cctv ones ?]. I find it strange that this higher tariff one offers no visual evidence.

Is there any requirement for it ?

Almost 7 days and no visual evidence.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: stamfordman on October 31, 2025, 02:30:23 pm
I think you were in a taxi only part of the High Street...

Havering may put the pics up now you've tried to access them but if they don't ask for them.

Without looking at what they have we can't do much other than advise paying the discount to avoid the full penalty.
Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on October 31, 2025, 01:47:02 pm
I wasn't aware of the loading restriction but looking on my dashcam footage there seems to be some tiny 'No Loading' Signs that as a disabled driver it would be dangerous for me to avert my eyes to see.I blocked the details as I I have personal security issues and wish not to take any risks. The council haven't put any pics or PCN details on their "view your PCN details" section just a a section to pay.

The GSV view is really hard to get as I imagine google couldn't get a car down the road.

Title: Re: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: stamfordman on October 31, 2025, 01:25:43 pm
The PCN puts you on a loading restriction - as you know you can't use your blue badge there.

But post a street level Maps link not an overhead.

You've blanked the PCN details so we can't check the council's evidence if they've got any showing.

Havering does not reoffer the discount on rejection.

Title: High St Romford parked by necessity
Post by: John Doe Man on October 31, 2025, 12:55:41 pm
I have, when I need to park in Romford used a large, accessible Car Park as it's convenient but on the date of the PCN I couldn't as the system wouldn't accept my card and the staff couldn't unlock the system. After searching all the places I could use - no luck and needed to eat. I parked outside the cafe I know using my Blue Badge. So as not to cause obstruction I parked in the place shown on the link by the orange rectangle and I know at that time of day traffic is very little.

Can I get out of this or do I have to pay it.

https://i.postimg.cc/fyLgTFXV/pcn-f.png

https://i.postimg.cc/D0QvcSmF/pfnr.png

https://i.postimg.cc/nzjgxNth/Screensho.png

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.578067,0.1797747,43m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTAyNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D