Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: dahliafield_d11 on November 13, 2025, 01:58:52 pm
-
Thank you all for your kind help and invaluable advice!!
-
The authority's evidence is a first-hand account by a CEO as to what they observed, namely the vehicle parked in a disabled bay and when the driver was challenged they drove away.
Your written appeal would be second-hand evidence as to what another person did and observed.
In a personal hearing by phone the authority is unlikely to attend but even if it did it would not be the CEO. At a personal hearing you would have the opportunity to present evidence and context verbally both to bolster your written reps and to respond to the adjudicator's questions.
IMO, your(the driver's) account and the authority's(the CEO's) are at such variance that you would be putting the adjudicator in the position of Solomon who at least had the opportunity to speak to the protagonists.
If you go for a hearing on the papers then IMO you would not succeed.
Credibility is at the heart of this IMO because if the adjudicator disregards your account as a fabrication dreamt up by a remorseful driver who was caught by a CEO in the course of their duties then none of your story would be examined in detail and claims regarding an alighting exemption or traffic would be dismissed because the CEO does not record anything about this and you'd not be in a position to explain.
Hearings are not inquisitorial.
On a point of procedure, as I understand it if you intended to allow your wife to 'attend' on the phone then you would need to clear this in advance with the tribunal.
-
The full PCN penalty is always in play at the adjudicators, but nothing more. If you lose you pay it, or pay nothing if you win.
-
Good evening, I found below from the adjudication website;
"In the majority of cases, an online decision can be made on your appeal, based on the evidence uploaded by you and the authority."
Can I ask if I could make a written appeal in stead of having a telephone hearing? I searched on 2004 TMA. Although no photo evidence is specified, but clearly CEO is using photos to prove contravention in practice. The argument seems to me is whether their photos are conclusive to prove contravention.
Even we fail the adjudication, the charge on the PCN should remain unchanged, right?
-
The driver was not me. I am the keeper. There was no interaction with the driver. No talk ever took place between the CEO and the driver. The driver never left the car or opened the window. In addition, the driver's one ear is deaf, so there is no possibility of having a talk with a CEO standing far away whilst staying in a car.
Brighton and Hove council does not share their CEO handbook and based on google research, variations are possible by local authority. That's why I did not mention this alighting in the appeal letter. However, based on the rejection, it seems to emphasise that alighting would be regarded as parking.
I will go though the link on adjudication. Not familiar with this at all. Both the driver and myself are under a lot of work pressure. We may not have the energy and strenghth to go through a legal proceeding, to be honest.
-
They say there was interaction with the driver about dropping off - this doesn't seem to be the case?
I guess the appeal is now not parked as such but if the council insist then daughter did exit while waiting so alighting then in play (but no words with CEO?).
-
dropping off being an exemption is at the heart of the case
-
It's not court, it's adjudication.
https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/faq/
Have a read before you make a decision.
And who was driving? If not you, then they can be a witness to the facts at your telephone hearing. Credibility and whose account is believed would seem to be at the heart of this case.
-
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ykiIW7R_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/1snKGt8_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/YjkqPhk_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/1avgny6_xl.jpeg)
Please see the above rejection letter.
The CEO never talked to the driver at all, but we have no evidence to prove this...We probably won't be able to cope with the stress to go to court either...Not mentally strong enough to cope with stress to be honest...
-
Below is the appeal I made;
"Formal Representation Against PCN [BH89007150] for Vehicle [BC18 UVS]
I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice [BH89007150] issued on 22/10/2025 for an alleged contravention of Code 40 - Parked in a designated disabled bay without displaying a valid Blue Badge.
The basis for my challenge is that the evidence provided by the council does not prove the contravention occurred at the time stated on the PCN.
The PCN states the contravention took place at 08:53am. However, the photographic evidence supplied with the PCN and which would be relied upon in any proceedings by the authority shows the following::
1. Image 1, 2(Timestamp 08:52:): Shows my vehicle at the location.
2. Image 3 (Timestamp 08:53): Shows the disabled bay is vacant. My vehicle is not present.
This evidence clearly demonstrates that my vehicle was not parked in the disabled bay at 08:53am, the precise time cited for the contravention.
For a Penalty Charge Notice to be upheld, the council must provide conclusive evidence that proves the contravention on the balance of probabilities. The timestamps on your own photographs create a direct contradiction with the details on the PCN. The image from 08:53am, in particular, proves my vehicle was not committing the contravention at that time.
I would like to add that the driver was not parked in bay but waiting briefly for traffic to clear and the council's pictures also show the car had moved forward.
Therefore, as the core allegation on the PCN is not supported by the evidence, I request that you cancel the PCN.
I have attached a copy of the PCN and have annotated the provided photographs for clarity. I look forward to your confirmation that this penalty charge has been cancelled."
-
Please show us a copy of the pdf you sent and also a copy (not a transcript) of Brighton's reply.
I can see that there is part of the rejection missing from the transcript.
-
Did you include the dropping off in your reps
-
Photos aren't required under the Act but if taken as a matter of council policy then the adjudicator might ask questions on this point and draw inferences.
Every interaction had with a CEO is recorded on the PCN case 'vehicle parked in disabled
bay. asked driver to move and they said they were dropping off. started to issue a PCN and
told them the PCN would come in the post. driver drove off so PCN is a reg 10 with 4 pics
taken.'
You say: The CEO never had any interaction with the driver. No conversation ever took place.
So take this to tribunal, have a personal hearing and convince the adjudicator that your version is correct. If accepted, then IMO you would succeed because it's the fundamental part of their reasoning.
-
My appeal has been rejected. Below is the letter received on 21/*11/2025.
"We have considered your representations about the penalty
charge issued on the 21/10/2025 at 08:53 and have taken
into account everything you said. However, there are not
sufficient reasons to cancel the penalty charge, which is now
payable.
This letter explains the details of the penalty issued, our
reasons for rejecting your representations and your options.
Take a moment to carefully read through ALL the
sections in this letter (listed below) before you decide
what to do next:
1. Our reasons for rejecting your representations.
2. The details of the PCN / Notice to Owner.
3. How to pay.
4. How to appeal your decision.
5. What happens if you do nothing.
Appealing
this decision
If you disagree with the
council’s decision you
can appeal to the
independent adjudicator
at the
Traffic Penalty
Tribunal.
See Section 4 of this
letter for further details.
Please consider
ALL information
in this letter
before appealing.
Yours sincerely,
S Thompson
Parking Services Officer
1. Our reasons for rejecting your representations:
The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay without displaying a
valid disabled persons badge during the restricted hours.
Please see the photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer at the time the PCN was
issued:
You stated in your formal representation that as the core allegation on the PCN is not
supported by the evidence, you request that we cancel the PCN. As you believe the
photographs does prove that your vehicle was parked there. You would like to add that the
driver was not parked in bay but waiting briefly for traffic to clear and the council's pictures
also show the car had moved forward.
Every interaction had with a CEO is recorded on the PCN case 'vehicle parked in disabled
bay. asked driver to move and they said they were dropping off. started to issue a PCN and
told them the PCN would come in the post. driver drove off so PCN is a reg 10 with 4 pics
taken.'
Your representations have been rejected because drivers are not allowed to park in disabled
bay unless their vehicle is displaying a valid disabled badge. The PCN was issued correctly
and can be instantly issued.
There is no requirement under the 2004 Traffic Management Act (TMA) for a Civil
Enforcement Officer (CEO) to take photographs in support of a PCN.
Photographs are useful for both the motorist and the council in cases like this but they are
not a legal requirement for two main reasons:
A camera could malfunction. This does not mean that the parking contravention did not
occur – merely that for technical reasons it could not be recorded photographically.
A motorist could return to their vehicle as a CEO was about to take photographs and
threaten them with physical violence. Again, this does not mean that the contravention did
not occur.
When driving the motorist is obliged on each and every occasion to consult the signage and/
or road markings to ensure compliance with the restrictions in place irrespective of familiarity
or otherwise with restrictions normally or previously in operation at the location.
The information provided has been considered, but the Council finds that there are not
sufficient grounds to cancel the PCN.
The penalty charge of £70.00 is now payable. This must be paid before the end of 28 days
beginning with the date of service of this Notice.
You must now decide whether to PAY the penalty charge or whether to APPEAL."
The CEO never had any interaction with the driver. No conversation ever took place.
"There is no requirement under the 2004 Traffic Management Act (TMA) for a Civil
Enforcement Officer (CEO) to take photographs in support of a PCN." Is this true??
Do they have a valid legal point on this??
-
Try putting everything into one pdf which you can then form your one attachment.
Great idea!! Thank you.
-
Try putting everything into one pdf which you can then form your one attachment.
-
I am having a funny experience here with Brighton and Hove PCN appeal!! Not sure if the site is experiencing problems or they simply do not allow appellant to write any notes more than 1000 characters and only one document can be uploaded as supporting evidence. If I keep trying deleting words and submit then the one uploaded evidence will disappear as a result!! Is there any other permitted way to make the appeal? Even after I deleted a lot of words in my notes, it still says :"You have 787 characters too many"! Are they never getting tired in creating more hurdles?! >:( >:(
-
Many thanks for the handbook link!!
-
https://maps.app.goo.gl/iQyaHMJazx1ddXFB8
If this GSV is correct then giving way to traffic is not that strong given the position of the vehicle. Alighting is a sure fired exemption planned or otherwise so it would be stupid not to use it.
Adjudicators seem to be getting a bit fed up with appellants effectively ambushing councils by bringing up points not made at reps stage There is no reason not to use any and every point you have in this case
-
Hi Pastmybest,
Thank you so much!! May I ask where this paragraph was found? I searched on google and the answer I found is contradicting:
"Parking contravention code 40 means a vehicle was parked in a designated disabled person's parking bay without a valid Blue Badge being clearly displayed. This code is issued to any vehicle found in these spaces if a valid disabled person's parking badge is not visible. Exceptions are not typically made, though some bays might have time restrictions, which would be indicated by signage.
Contravention code 40 specifically refers to parking in a disabled bay without a valid Blue Badge.
Blue Badge holders are exempt from this contravention, provided the badge is clearly displayed.
No observation period is applied for this contravention, meaning the penalty can be issued immediately.
Loading and unloading is not permitted in these bays, and vehicles are still liable for a PCN even if loading/unloading if the badge is not displayed.
Exceptions may apply if there are specific, clearly signed times during which the bay is active, but the rule applies during all other times. "
Could you or anyone kindly help and explain this contradicting point? I am totally confused and the deadline of the appeal is fast approaching.
Many thanks in advance!!
I quoted from the civil enforcement officers handbook
file:///C:/Users/andre/Downloads/CivilEnforcementHandbookV2%20(1).pdf
-
Thank you all for our support and help! Your suggestions are invaluable to me!!
-
Yes you need to get reps in now. I would send what you've done later today - see if Mr Andersen pops up with anything else.
I think you could add that driver was not parked in bay but waiting briefly for traffic to clear and the council's pics also show the car had moved forward.
Good point! I was planning to do this before, but thought the time recorded on PCN may carry more weight in this appeal. I will now add this in.
-
Issued 22nd, deemed served 24th which is day 1.
28-day period ends on 20 Nov.
I would amend the following as shown in red:
However, the photographic evidence supplied with the PCN and which would be relied upon in any proceedings by the authority shows the following:
Great!!! This is so much better and solid. Thank you so much!
-
Hi Pastmybest,
Thank you so much!! May I ask where this paragraph was found? I searched on google and the answer I found is contradicting:
"Parking contravention code 40 means a vehicle was parked in a designated disabled person's parking bay without a valid Blue Badge being clearly displayed. This code is issued to any vehicle found in these spaces if a valid disabled person's parking badge is not visible. Exceptions are not typically made, though some bays might have time restrictions, which would be indicated by signage.
Contravention code 40 specifically refers to parking in a disabled bay without a valid Blue Badge.
Blue Badge holders are exempt from this contravention, provided the badge is clearly displayed.
No observation period is applied for this contravention, meaning the penalty can be issued immediately.
Loading and unloading is not permitted in these bays, and vehicles are still liable for a PCN even if loading/unloading if the badge is not displayed.
Exceptions may apply if there are specific, clearly signed times during which the bay is active, but the rule applies during all other times. "
Could you or anyone kindly help and explain this contradicting point? I am totally confused and the deadline of the appeal is fast approaching.
Many thanks in advance!!
-
I wouldn't mention alighting. If they bring it up in the rejection it can be dealt with then.
-
I was referring to the OP's narrative about moving into and being prevented from moving out of the bay by factors beyond their control i.e. traffic.
IMO, they cannot have this both ways and must be careful not to slip up on this point.
-
IMO, be careful with alighting which I take to mean parked for the purpose of and not something done opportunistically. If you mention alighting, then IMO this could lead them to believe that you parked for this purpose which is the exact opposite of your main argument.
I think you have to decide what's the thrust of your argument which, based upon your first posts, is not alighting.
Alighting makes no difference to the car not there at the time of contravention point but it is a firm exemption planned or not
-
IMO, be careful with alighting which I take to mean parked for the purpose of and not something done opportunistically. If you mention alighting, then IMO this could lead them to believe that you parked for this purpose which is the exact opposite of your main argument.
I think you have to decide what's the thrust of your argument which, based upon your first posts, is not alighting.
-
Dear all, below is a draft. Would this be ok or it is better to quote the exact legal clause in making a respresentation? I think I am approaching the end of 28 day period. Following HCA's advice, I can't find the exact clause in Regulation 10 about the time. This is the link I used for reading through the exact clauses. However, the points about time is not found in this link... https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/regulation/10/made
Formal Representation Against PCN [BH89007150] for Vehicle [Vehicle Registration Number]
I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice (BH89007150) issued on 22/10/2025 for an alleged contravention of Code 40 - Parked in a designated disabled bay without displaying a valid Blue Badge.
The basis for my challenge is that the evidence provided by the council does not prove the contravention occurred at the time stated on the PCN.
The PCN states the contravention took place at 08:53am. However, the photographic evidence supplied with the PCN shows the following:
1. Image 1, 2(Timestamp 08:52:): Shows my vehicle at the location.
2. Image 3 (Timestamp 08:53): Shows the disabled bay is vacant. My vehicle is not present.
This evidence clearly demonstrates that my vehicle was not parked in the disabled bay at 08:53am, the precise time cited for the contravention.
For a Penalty Charge Notice to be upheld, the council must provide conclusive evidence that proves the contravention on the balance of probabilities. The timestamps on your own photographs create a direct contradiction with the details on the PCN. The image from 08:53am, in particular, proves my vehicle was not committing the contravention at that time.
Therefore, as the core allegation on the PCN is not supported by the evidence, I request that you cancel the PCN.
I have attached a copy of the PCN and have annotated the provided photographs for clarity. I look forward to your confirmation that this penalty charge has been cancelled.
I would add a paragraph re the alighting which is an exemption to stopping a a disabled bay
CODE: 40
Penalty charge level:
Higher
Code description:
Parked in a designated disabled person’s parking place
without displaying a valid disabled person’s badge in the
prescribed manner.
Code contravention:
The contravention occurs when a vehicle waits in a disabled
person’s parking place without displaying a valid disabled
person’s parking badge and/or clock.
Extra information to be recorded:
• Details of any out of date or invalid badges
• Details of the Blue Badge clock, if appropriate, including the
time being displayed.
Loading/unloading allowed:
Yes
Observation period:
Yes
Exemptions:
ADEH1IJKNP
Suffixes:
n = red route
7 Exemptions
A. Setting down and/or picking up of passengers, or to load
or unload any personal luggage
-
Issued 22nd, deemed served 24th which is day 1.
28-day period ends on 20 Nov.
I would amend the following as shown in red:
However, the photographic evidence supplied with the PCN and which would be relied upon in any proceedings by the authority shows the following:
-
Yes you need to get reps in now. I would send what you've done later today - see if Mr Andersen pops up with anything else.
I think you could add that driver was not parked in bay but waiting briefly for traffic to clear and the council's pics also show the car had moved forward.
-
I am afraid that I have another question to ask...
The PCN was issued on 22nd Oct, so is it correrct to say that the 28-day period is starting from 23rd Oct 2025 which means 19th Nov is the 28th day?
Below is from I found:
"If the PCN was sent by post: The date of service is usually considered to be the second working day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and bank holidays) after the date it was postmarked. The 28-day period begins from this deemed date of service. "
-
Dear all, below is a draft. Would this be ok or it is better to quote the exact legal clause in making a respresentation? I think I am approaching the end of 28 day period. Following HCA's advice, I can't find the exact clause in Regulation 10 about the time. This is the link I used for reading through the exact clauses. However, the points about time is not found in this link... https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/regulation/10/made
Formal Representation Against PCN [BH89007150] for Vehicle [Vehicle Registration Number]
I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice (BH89007150) issued on 22/10/2025 for an alleged contravention of Code 40 - Parked in a designated disabled bay without displaying a valid Blue Badge.
The basis for my challenge is that the evidence provided by the council does not prove the contravention occurred at the time stated on the PCN.
The PCN states the contravention took place at 08:53am. However, the photographic evidence supplied with the PCN shows the following:
1. Image 1, 2(Timestamp 08:52:): Shows my vehicle at the location.
2. Image 3 (Timestamp 08:53): Shows the disabled bay is vacant. My vehicle is not present.
This evidence clearly demonstrates that my vehicle was not parked in the disabled bay at 08:53am, the precise time cited for the contravention.
For a Penalty Charge Notice to be upheld, the council must provide conclusive evidence that proves the contravention on the balance of probabilities. The timestamps on your own photographs create a direct contradiction with the details on the PCN. The image from 08:53am, in particular, proves my vehicle was not committing the contravention at that time.
Therefore, as the core allegation on the PCN is not supported by the evidence, I request that you cancel the PCN.
I have attached a copy of the PCN and have annotated the provided photographs for clarity. I look forward to your confirmation that this penalty charge has been cancelled.
-
The owner (presumed as keeper) is liable not the driver.
The two pics of the car show it had moved and the time of PCN should win this. Plus alighting is probably an exemption. It's not no stopping contravention.
-
Sorry. I did not make myself clear about this. I am the RK, not the driver.
The driver took my daughter to school, and when the driver stopped at the corner of Edburton Ave, my daughter decided to get off the car whilst the driver was waiting for other cars to run past. CEO's photo at 8.52 dose not show my daughter getting off the car.
There is no evidence to show the car stationary at 8.53. The driver told me that the entire duration of the stopping was less than a minute. The photo taken at 8.53 by the CEO was after the driver left the spot.
May I ask if RK is not the driver will make any difference in this case? I have recently dealt with PCN issued by a priviate company. I thought council is different to Private Parking Company, so POFA will not be applicable. My knowledge in this area is very limited...I dont' know if I must reveal the driver's identity to the council or I have no obligation to do so...
-
my kid decided to jump out of the car (this is not shown on the council's photos), whilst I was stopping there. She thought it was an opportunity to get off,
Why? Where were you taking her?
Can we just have a candid account pl e.g. I was taking my ** year-old daughter to *** but when we reached *** which was only ** from ** she decided to get out while I was *** because of ***. This was/was not observed by a CEO.....
In any event:
Particulars to be included in a regulation 10 penalty charge notice
3.—(1) The information to be included in a regulation 10 penalty charge notice is—
(a)...
(b)the regulatory matters,
Meaning of “regulatory matters”
1. In this Schedule “the regulatory matters”, in relation to an alleged relevant road traffic contravention, means—
(a)..
(b).....
(c)the date on and the time at which the alleged contravention occurred,
So, at what time, according to the PCN, did the 'alleged contravention occur'?
All we've got is 8.53.
But according to the authority's own evidence the car was not in contravention at 8.53! Are there any photos which show you stationary at 8.53?
OP, are you the registered keeper?
-
Thank you all for digging out the pictures and photos. I would have been a lot slower to get this GSV and Council's evidence uploaded here (still in the learning process). The GSV view seems to be dated, as this Disabled Bay is not marked on GSV. I am not sure if stopping or parking should be a valid point to make my appeal, but even this is counted as parking, it is less than a minute. On the other side, my kid decided to jump out of the car (this is not shown on the council's photos), whilst I was stopping there. She thought it was an opportunity to get off, whilst I was stopping there. Everything happened so fast, I did not have time to think or stop her. In a narrow and busy road, where there are oncoming cars and cars behind, it is very tricky keep an eye on all areas. May I have some views on this case, whether it is worth making an appeal or there is very little chance of success? A bit nervious about dealing with the council...
-
Council pics. Clearly someone in driver's seat and not fully in bay, and time of PCN is 8:53 when the car is gone.
(https://i.ibb.co/N2nPJV81/b1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/VWMyc4Yb/b2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/SD67gh3z/b3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/DPZFwfGh/b4.jpg)
-
give us a GSV of exactly where you stopped There are exemptions in any case re BB bay stopping loading and or boarding/alighting being two
Looks like it's just before this bend in the road.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Edburton+Ave,+Brighton+and+Hove,+Brighton/@50.8399078,-0.1352111,3a,75y,167.98h,84.33t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLYMUzaqxdq0Mb9HcKuXv8Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D5.669283141072029%26panoid%3DLYMUzaqxdq0Mb9HcKuXv8Q%26yaw%3D167.98091019560675!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x48758581912f0995:0x6ed30b024e4872fe!8m2!3d50.8413313!4d-0.1356296!16s%2Fg%2F1tdzqlr3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTExMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
-
give us a GSV of exactly where you stopped There are exemptions in any case re BB bay stopping loading and or boarding/alighting being two
-
You state you were stopped "in traffic" giving way to vehicles approaching in the other direction, correct ?
In which case the PCN is totally flawed and you should submit reps on the above basis. This CEO is in serious need of retraining, or, preferably, dismissal.
-
Good evening,
I don't have much experence dealing with PCN from council, although I understand it is a compoletely different game comparing with Private Parking Company's PCNs.
May I ask if it is worthy challenging this PCN? I understand from another topic, that CEO's notes are more trustworthy?
Many thanks in advance!
-
Good afternoon,
We have another PCN which I had missed the 14 day discounted payment period...
I did a brief stop, no more than 30 seconds on Edburton Avenue. This road was busy with two rows of cars parking on the street and I stopped in the corner between Edburton Avenue and Grantham as there was a van coming towards me from Grantham, I briefly stopped there to allow the yellow van to drive past and then another black car came behind. I saw the traffic warden taking a picture of me, but I thought he wasn't servious, but rather a act of threat or attitude. My phone was nearby, I took some photos of the van and black car running past. Then the next day, I got the PCN. Apparently, where I stopped was a disabled bay. However, I never got off the car and certainly did not want to park there, and I only occupied half of the disabled space to allow the oncoming vehicles to drive past. It would be too difficult to maneuver if I did not stop and give way. I am afraid that I can't upload more pictures as Imgpile seems to have set a limit ...The pictures that are missing here is photo evidence posted by Brighton council. These can be found on https://brighton-hove.tarantoportal.com/PCNs/Ticket/EvidenceImage/Next. Their evidence shows a picture of my car, and the vacant disable bay and a post. I am wondering how we define parking and stopping. In my mind, I only stopped, not parking there. Could anyone give me some guidance on how to challenge this, if possible? Your help will be highly appreciated!!
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/MUE68rX_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/gqQG78M_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/tFQ6sLA_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/n0hgYEg_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/JQKTIMq_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/kce5pw1_xl.jpeg)