Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: JOJO1209 on November 28, 2025, 11:55:07 am
-
Usually most London councils re-offer the discount when rejecting formal reps against a NtO, the exception being Havering. They re-offer it because it is a PITA for them to prepare the evidence pack and they also have to pay the adjudication fee.
Your dilemma is summed by the Earl of Montrose here: -
"He either fears his fate too much
Or his deserts are small
Who fears to put it to the touch
To win, or lose it all"
If you take the case all the way and lose, you'd have to pay an additional £80, but that is all, there are no extra costs. Is that too fearful a fate, or too small a gain if you win, (paying nothing) ?Councils rely on people folding and paying the discount so you'd be in a large company.
-
@H C Anderson
@stamfordman
@cp8759
@Incandescent
@404BrainNotFound
Urgent advice needed
Please could I have some urgent advice.
Sorry for the late post. Had difficulty uploading the council rejection letters so that it is clear and legible
The new ( 2nd rejection letter to my informal challenges) states that I have until 20 January 2026 to pay the reduced amount of £80.
Seeking advice on prospects at tribunal vs paying discount (£80) – PCN CR49091397
Sorry for the late posting, I’d appreciate some guidance on whether it’s worth continuing to tribunal or paying the discounted amount today. The discount (£80) is significant and expires end of today (20/01/26)or else I will have to pay £160 if I lose or pay if I wait for the NTO and appeal and lose.
Timeline:
• 1st informal challenge → rejected ( Link to challenge and rejection letter)
• https://ibb.co/wrMPf7DN
• https://ibb.co/jZjxRM5j
• Updated informal challenge → rejected( Link to challenge and rejection letter)
• https://ibb.co/TxTtwj8M
• https://ibb.co/KcYKWf6M
• Discount re-offered until today 20th January 2026.
In the council’s rejection letter dated 5 January 2026, they now state that I was parked outside Nos. 31–33 Church Street and rely on a photograph to support this. However, they argue that the precise location (door number / lamp post / exact position) is irrelevant as long as the street name is correct.
My concern is that this would only be correct if the entire stretch were a single bay. In this case, there are two distinct loading bays, separated by double yellow lines, serving:
• Nos. 27–33, and
• Nos. 35–41
The bays are not contiguous and are subject to separate restrictions. The PCN originally alleged parking outside No. 35, which relates to a different bay.
Questions:
1. Is the authority correct in saying that the precise location (door number / bay location) is irrelevant in these circumstances, where there are two separate bays on the same street?
2. The council admits that the CEO photograph of the restriction signage / timeplate is blurred, but dismisses this by saying photographic evidence is not a statutory requirement.
o Is that correct in practice?
o As an ordinary motorist, if the signage image is blurred and the PCN wording does not specify the class of vehicle the bay is restricted to, how is one supposed to understand the alleged contravention from the face of the PCN?
3. Are there any other procedural or evidential issues anyone can spot from the rejection letter or facts?
Ultimately, I need help deciding:
• Whether to pay the £80 today, or
• Continue to the Notice to Owner and tribunal
What are my realistic chances of success at tribunal based on this?
Also, if I wait for the NTO, is the discount typically re-offered, or should I assume it will be gone?
Any expert insight would be much appreciated.
-
I think you're fairly safe waiting for the NTO as they'll probably reoffer the discount should they reject again.
You posted many links with no grouping and no inline images - you need to make it easier for us.
What links are the rejection letter?
-
@H C Anderson
@stamfordman
@cp8759
@Incandescent
@404BrainNotFound
Urgent advice needed
Please could I have some urgent advice.
The rejection letter states that I have until 5 January 2026 to pay the reduced amount of £80.
For background, please see my previous post:
Reply #17 on: December 18, 2025, 01:40:55 pm for full details and a copy of the rejection letter.
The council’s initial rejection is dated 17 December 2025.
I then sent a further challenge around 20 December 2025, raising the issue of the wrong location. I have not yet received any response to this additional challenge, which I assume may be due to the Christmas and New Year holiday period.
My questions are:
Are they likely to consider and respond to this additional challenge about the wrong location?
Are they under any obligation to place the PCN on hold while they review and respond to the additional challenge?
Will the discounted amount be reoffered, given that both my initial challenge and the additional challenge were submitted while the PCN was still at the discounted rate?
I am worried about losing the option to pay the discounted amount if they do not respond to my additional challenge before today.
I am therefore in a dilemma as to whether:
to pay the discounted amount, which expires today (5 January 2026) according to the rejection letter dated 17 December 2025, or
to wait and see if they respond to my additional challenge.
Also:
What are the realistic chances of success if this goes all the way to the tribunal?
Would I be able to get help from the expert forum members in drafting my tribunal representations if needed?
Many thanks in advance for your time and help.
-
@H C Andersen
@stamfordman
@CP1857
Advice Needed: Croydon Council PCN Rejection
Croydon Council has rejected my informal challenge. I’ve posted the full details and their rejection letter in my earlier post here: Reply #17 December 18, 2025, 01:40:55 pm
https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?action=post;topic=8956.15;last_msg=103008#:~:text=%C2%AB%C2%A0on%3A%20December%2018,Insert%20Quote
Could I please ask for your expert eyes on my case? I’d really appreciate your thoughts:
Many thanks in advance for any advice—it’s a great help.
-
Seeking advice: informal rejection and issues pictorial evidence provided by Council.
I need some advice regarding the informal rejection I received by email yesterday. The experts may identify issues with the rejection letter.
Link below to the original letter emailed yesterday.
https://ibb.co/jZjxRM5j
They have dismissed the issue of the missing suffice that it is for administrative purposes; ineffect denied that the PCN has insufficient information describing the contractrvention for the motorist to understand the contravention. The PCN
needs to identify, whether by wording or images, that the class of vehicle
for which the bay is designated is goods vehicles only.
Also, I noticed a few issues with the evidence attached to the letter:
* The title of the council's picture on Page 4 labelled “outside No35,” is showing Nos. 29 A & B ( The Lyca Shop) which is incorrect. I have attached the link to the council 's picture which is on page 4 of the rejection letter below.
https://ibb.co/FbBmw5W0
Current GSV showing Nos. 27 - 35 No.s Church Street including the two bays and the double yellow line separating the two bays.
https://ibb.co/nsHg6T1S
https://ibb.co/jP8LZvYw
https://ibb.co/7J895YM7
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.373493,-0.102113,209.18h,-27.39p,1.91z,vgv-lCaS5L74BhJqM5FtIw
See attached link
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.373442,-0.1024,94h,10.39p,2.7z,2w_QXUVANf3u6y4OQL9l5Q
Link below to the Files with all the pictures including the PCN and The Authorities evidence/ pictures.
https://ibb.co/7J895YM7
https://ibb.co/nsHg6T1S
https://ibb.co/jP8LZvYw
https://ibb.co/jZjxRM5j
https://ibb.co/FbBmw5W0
https://ibb.co/mFYSNpCF
https://ibb.co/CpSqrdGp
https://ibb.co/gCS2Hy9
https://ibb.co/sJDbxy0X
https://ibb.co/7N0t3Hzj
https://ibb.co/BKcK5nLZ
https://ibb.co/Q3sKGV9P
https://ibb.co/21ScSKDr
https://ibb.co/fVjh9sQS
https://ibb.co/84SgGDF1
https://ibb.co/214VRjKr
https://ibb.co/DgGZdHYy
Any advice or help would be appreciated.
Any advice on how to proceed?
Thanks in advance.
-
If you have anything that backs up your challenge include it.
-
#HC Andersen
Quote
I went to the location to take some photos and realised the PCN has the wrong location.
Thanks for the additional challenge points. Brilliant write up!
When sending this additional information
Should I include pictures of the 2 bays with location or include a link to the Google street view showing the 2 separate bays and door numbers?
Thanks
-
#Roythebus
How did you go about applying for the blue badge?
Thanks
-
I went to the location to take some photos and realised the PCN has the wrong location.
Now you tell us!
Perhaps...
Since receiving the PCN, I have discovered that in the vicinity of the alleged contravention there are 2 parking places marked LOADING ONLY. One runs from nos. 27 -33 at which point it terminates to be followed by a 24/7 waiting restriction which protects the vehicle crossover to the rear entrance of the Iceland store (which is situated in Surrey Street). This is then followed by a further parking place marked LOADING ONLY which extends runs from nos.35-41.
These parking places are distinct.
The PCN is clear: 'Church Street, Croydon, os 35'. Therefore I was alleged to have contravened whichever restriction applies to the parking place which runs from nos. 35-41. But this is not in evidence because not only was I parked in the parking place which terminates at no. 33, the blurred traffic signs in evidence relate to this parking place and not 35-41. Therefore, not only do your photos show that I was not parked where alleged, they also do not indicate what restriction applied 'os 35' because none of the photos shows that parking place, its road markings or applicable traffic sign.
In short: you allege I was parked 'os 35' and contravened whichever restriction applied at that place. But I wasn't, therefore I couldn't.
Please cancel the PCN.
-
It's far easier to use mobility issues if you can get a blue badge. I managed to get one as I too have difficulty walking very far and have some invisible things wrong. It's worth mentioning i suppose, but there again may be better to use the council's failings to your advantage.
-
@HC Andersen
Thanks.
I’d stick to the main/substantive issues, IMO.
Just to be clear, I’m not an expert.
For example, there’s the missing suffix (not stating the grounds clearly). Are there any other solid points you can see?
And what about the unclear/blurry signage they uploaded with the PCN?
I went to the location to take some photos and realised the PCN has the wrong location. I was actually parked outside 31–35 Church Street.
Outside No. 35 there’s a different bay with similar restrictions.
Does that make a difference?
Stick with substantive issues IMO... Like??? Clarification will help.
Should I leave out the mobility issues?
-
I can see the full PCN now, thanks. So, it's Church St, Croydon o/s no. 35.
Photos aren't required.
Library pictures or GSV would be available. You're not disputing the contravention, are you?
Stick with substantive issues IMO.
-
@stamfordman.
Thanks for posting this case.
If you find any others please post them or PM them to me.
Appreciated
-
I didn't crop the PCN. I am aware that all the details needs to be visible.
The first picture I uploaded was horizontal even though the actual picture was taken vertical.
I can see the full PCN in the new link I have removed the old link.
Please recheck the link.
What is your take on the blurred signage that was uploaded by the CEO and the 1st blurred photo of the PCN affix to my car. The 2nd picture seen a bit clear?
-
We have at least four adjudicated cases on failure to describe the contravention.
Here's one we often wheel out.
---------
Case
reference
2160271291
Appellant Mary Harding
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM LA65CCY
PCN Details
PCN KT76116077
Contravention
date
27 Apr 2016
Contravention
time
12:56:00
Contravention
location
Lenelby Road
Penalty
amount
GBP 110.00
Contravention In bay for special vehicle class e.g. motor cycles
Referral date
Decision Date 26 Jul 2016
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal
decision
Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a
parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle. The PCN
was issued at 12.56pm on 27 April 2016 and the location was Lenelby
Road.
The Schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions
(England) General Regulations 2007 sets out the contents required by the
Regulations for a valid PCN served under Regulation 9.
Among other things, the PCN is required to state the grounds on which the
enforcement authority believes that the penalty charge is payable. Those
grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to
properly understand the nature of the alleged contravention.
The Council say that the place in which Mrs Harding's vehicle was parked
was a goods vehicle only loading bay. In other words, the bay was
designated for goods vehicles only. This is not, however, clear on the face
of the PCN which states simply that the vehicle was parked in a place not
designated for that class of vehicle.
A motorist reading the PCN would not understand from the wording the
nature of the alleged contravention because there is nothing to explain the
class of vehicle for which the parking place was designated. The PCN
needs to identify, whether by wording or images, that the class of vehicle
for which the bay is designated is goods vehicles only.
I therefore find that the PCN was invalid and the appeal is allowed for that
reason.
-
No need to crop the PCN, we need to see everything pl.
You parked in a Goods Vehicle only loading bay. Yours is not a goods vehicle.
So you're left with proving an exemption or that there has been a procedural impropriety on the authority's behalf, for example the PCN not accurately giving 'the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer issuing the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable,'.
As regards the PCN, numbers and alpha suffixes aren't the issue because a motorist wouldn't have, and is not expected to have, any knowledge of these which are for administrative purposes only. What the PCN lacks is sufficient specificity as regards the contravention. This is provided for in LC's contravention descriptions as 'goods vehicle loading bay'.
IMO, your informal reps should address this omission, for example:
I am making representations on the grounds that the contravention did not occur because I am unclear as to why my vehicle was not permitted to park in the parking place. The PCN simply states.....class of vehicle. I am not an expert on vehicle classes and therefore am at a loss to understand what I did wrong. When I opened the PCN I looked around and saw a sign regarding goods vehicles and loading, but if this relates to my PCN why was this not included in the contravention grounds instead of the non-specific wording which was used?
Since starting to draft these representations I have been referred to the approved descriptions mandated by London Councils which state clearly that a 'suffix is required to fully describe the contravention'.
If the authority wish to pursue this penalty then they must explain why they have failed to use the specified description.
OP, I'm simply trying to tease out as much, or reveal how little, reasoning the authority use in any rejection which IMO would better inform any decision as to whether to pursue this to the NTO stage.
But the bottom line is at the top! You were parked in a goods vehicle only bay and whether you wish to pursue the argument above I leave to you.
-
Please post-up all the documents you have; just posting fragments is no good at all. We don't even know where this is. Please help us to help you.
If you have mobility issues, why haven't you got a Blue Badge ?
I have uploaded another set of links. Sorry, I wasn't aware that the link didn't give access to all the images in the folder.
https://ibb.co/album/3yJ1NZ
I will reply later to your question of why I haven't applied for a blue badge.
-
There are a few cases won where the PCN doesn't describe the contravention and I think we've seen another case in Croydon we had a go at.
Please can you sign post me to these cases so I can have a look. Do you have links to them.
Thanks
-
Link to all the pictures & images uploaded.
https://ibb.co/album/3yJ1NZ
https://ibb.co/whPGzHGw
https://ibb.co/mChsndKJ
https://ibb.co/7N0t3Hzj
https://ibb.co/BKcK5nLZ
https://ibb.co/Q3sKGV9P
https://ibb.co/21ScSKDr
https://ibb.co/fVjh9sQS
https://ibb.co/84SgGDF1
https://ibb.co/214VRjKr
https://ibb.co/DgGZdHYy
https://ibb.co/PG0J9XT0
-
There are a few cases won where the PCN doesn't describe the contravention and I think we've seen another case in Croydon we had a go at.
-
Please post-up all the documents you have; just posting fragments is no good at all. We don't even know where this is. Please help us to help you.
If you have mobility issues, why haven't you got a Blue Badge ?
-
Hello all,
I need help challenging this PCN.
Link below to pictures and the PCN Contravention Code List in an ibb image folder.
https://ibb.co/album/3yJ1NZ
Please can you help me check if this PCN has been issued correctly, or if there are any procedural improprieties.
My main point is that there is no suffix on the contravention code CC23 on the PCN. According to the CC List, CC23 should have a suffix to fully describe the contravention.
Another point: the picture of the signage/template taken and uploaded onto the Croydon website is not very clear (blurry). It cannot be read legibly. Will that make a significant difference?
Did the contravention occur? Does the penalty exceed the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case? Is the Traffic Order allegedly contravened invalid? Are the mitigating circumstances and evidence sufficient for cancellation?
**Background story:**
I have mobility issues and find it challenging to walk long distances. I cannot walk very fast. I parked to get some medication from Savers across the road.
I had barely entered the shop and looked back when I saw a parking attendant standing by my car, logging into his machine. The PCN was issued within 1 minute. I did a U-turn and started walking back towards my vehicle. It had just stopped raining, so the ground was wet and very slippery, so I had to be extra cautious not to slip or twist my knees/legs.
I believe he saw me coming and hurriedly issued the ticket. The ticket was quickly crumpled into the yellow envelope; it wasn't even folded properly and was stuck on the windshield by the time I got to him. He was moving away, and I stopped him and tried to speak to him, but he was very rude, arrogant, and dismissive. He said, "I don't want to hear anything, you can appeal and explain that to the council." I asked if he could put a note in his log book as this would corroborate my appeal, but he was basically shouting that he didn't want to hear anything.
I left him and went to pick up the medication I purchased from Savers. I have the receipt.
I also have a letter for my physio assessment and appointments. I have medical evidence of my mobility issues.
Also, I looked at contravention code 23, and it says "suffix required to fully describe contravention." No suffix was issued with code 23 on this PCN. The suffix on the CC Sheet looks like "2". I have uploaded a copy of the CC sheet. Is this a valid challenge? Please see the PCN.
Please, what is the best way to appeal this PCN successfully? Ideally, I would like to preserve the discount. It is showing as £80 on the website.
Thanks