Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: pepipoo_is_gone on December 02, 2025, 11:08:47 pm
-
I would add:
Please also send me the traffic management order for this location if you reject my challenge.
-
Updated version:
I’m sincerely sorry that my parking has caused concern. I always try to park properly and within the rules, and it was not my intention to cause any issue.
When I parked the night before, the end of the bay was really difficult to judge because the road was covered by standing water and leaves. A lot of it cleared up by the next morning when the PCN photos were taken, but even in those you can see that some road markings were still obscured by standing water. For example, in the picture with the white scooter, the kerb-side yellow line is submerged for several feet behind the vehicle. I hope this reflects how difficult it was to see the road markings and bay at the time of parking (which was a rainy night when even more of the road was covered).
I also noticed that the PCN appears to have been issued immediately, with no observation time recorded. As set out in Brent’s published parking policy, a CEO is normally expected to allow a minimum observation period in situations where a statutory exemption, such as loading, might apply. With no observation time recorded, it appears that this assessment may not have been carried out.
Given the very poor visibility of the bay markings at the time I parked, and the lack of any recorded observation to confirm that no exemption applied, I would be very grateful if you could consider cancelling the PCN as a matter of fairness and discretion.
-
Hi all would like to bump this thread as the deadline is approaching. Many thanks!
-
TY for the great suggestion. Would appreciate if people could help give the below draft a once-over? Many thanks.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to challenge PCN [number]. I’m sincerely sorry that my parking has caused concern, I always try to park properly and within the rules and it wasn’t my intention to cause an issue.
When I parked the night before, the end of the bay was very difficult to judge since that whole section of road was covered by standing water and leaves. The conditions were of course worse during the night and rain, but even in the CEO's evidence photos from the next morning you can still see standing water covering the kerb-side markings for several feet behind the vehicle, which reflects how unclear the area had been.
I also noticed that the PCN was issued instantly with no observation time recorded. As set out in Brent’s published parking policy, a CEO is expected to allow a minimum observation period in situations where a statutory exemption to the contravention such as loading might apply. With no observation time recorded at all, it appears this assessment was not carried out.
Given the visibility conditions the night I parked and the lack of any observation to confirm that no exemption applied, I would be very grateful if the council could cancel the PCN as a matter of fairness and discretion.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my challenge.
-
If you're struggling to find a defence, and IMO you are, then you might consider:
Penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.
You were parked mostly within a 24/7 free parking place;
You were parked beyond the bay markings by a complete axle;
You were parked on a simple SYL(whether in force at that time no-one's commented as far as I can see);
Exemptions to parking within a bay contrary to its restrictions include boarding/alighting and loading;
Exemptions to parking on a simple SYL are boarding/alighting and loading.
A CEO should test whether an exemption applies before deciding that a contravention has occurred and this takes time.
The PCN shows that the CEO observed for nil minutes and issued an 'instant' PCN.
The council is required to act proportionately and fairly. IMO, the CEO has not by issuing an instant PCN when they should have observed for as long as necessary to determine that a contravention occurred.
The council's position is undermined IMO because, as observed by other posters, the contravention is at the lower penalty, in effect disregarding the SYL because you were parked mostly in a free parking space. But this benefit did not extend to the observation required for parking place-related contraventions.
IMO, the option to issue an instant PCN was not open to the CEO, they should have observed first.
See what others think.
-
Ah okay. Thank you. Any suggestion on how to find this Traffic Order? I've tried the council website but without much luck.
-
No, I'm just pointing out that London Councils guidance is to select the higher penalty if there's a choice, not that the lower level one you have is wrong although we should check the traffic order.
-
Are you suggesting the defence should be the other way round? That the higher penalty should've been issued - therefore the PCN is invalid? There should be a yellow line under the leaves if I'm not mistaken (I can go take a picture later if it helps).
-
Where wheels are on a yellow kine they are supposed to issue the higher level penalty.
The bay markings are clear from the roadway but we usually see this contravention in single pay bays.
The traffic order needs to be consulted.
(https://i.ibb.co/xtdbxMKg/Screenshot-2025-12-03-at-12-44-46.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/Lz1MhPFq/Screenshot-2025-12-03-at-12-44-37.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/ZRKVQTHm/Screenshot-2025-12-03-at-12-44-16.png)
-
Yes, you're right, thinking about it, because the PCN is for parking outside the bay markings, not for being on the yellow line, but as this is a marked bay, but not subdivided into individual bays, my opinion is an appeal to London Tribunals would fail. But as I said, wait for others to input (hopefully !). However, don't miss the deadline for paying or submitting representations.
So to my fellows out there - am I right or wrong ?
-
There was no line visible as far as that shown pavement stretched. But after a few yards the pavement turns into a dropped kerb entryway for a building, next to which part of the yellow line is visible. There's no indication that yellow line stretches past that dropped kerb all the way to the pavement in question. See video (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pY_WMUsDGsSSx7sB_BIXpbnOuC4nianL/view?usp=drive_link).
<br>
<br>
Also curious if the yellow line thing is a red herring altogether? Since the contravention is to do with the bay marking, I wonder what the Brent TMO regarding bays is. This (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/bromley-pcn-is-this-not-parking-correctly-within-the-markings-of-the-bay/msg78329/#msg78329) example from Bromley gets off due to peculiar wording in the TMO requiring the bay itself to have a parking meter next to it, not sure if that's the case for Brent too.
-
You may have a case, but the bay marking is clear, and the puddle can be seen in the photo, but how long is the puddle ? If the yellow line can be seen after a couple of yards, then no adjudicator is going to accept that you couldn't see the yellow line. Remember, you have to risk the full PCN penalty at adjudication. Any reps you submit will be rejected by the council. However, wait for others to comment as they may disagree with me.
-
- Code 24 Not parked within bay markings
- The back wheels were indeed slightly outside the bay.
- The bay has a sign next to it saying it's Free Parking.
- There was no indication of the single yellow line at the end of the bay as it was (and still is) completely covered by water and leaves (the bit the back wheels are near).
- Picture of PCN link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ut8WmYU0VboU-oQsDm6dLQeSl4piKJV-/view?usp=drive_link)
- Picture showing that the single yellow line next to back wheels is not visible at all link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tar8eB_f_EmmlrRwCuAuhPcVgdoHpBCR/view?usp=sharing)
Is there a case here? Many thanks in advance.