Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Chr1s100 on January 02, 2026, 03:15:43 pm
-
Adjudicator decisions are not legally binding, in fact one adjudicator some years ago changed his mind from a previous decision of his, and found against the appellant who had quoted his own decision in his representations !
-
I've submitted to tribunal website in order to meet deadline. Excluded section about legally binding adjudicator decision as I didn't feel I knew enough to include that.
Thanks very much for your help regarding this.
-
Thanks very much for your responses,
A few questions:
Under point 4, I have added where the council mistakenly suggests this case differs from case 225015104 because of a sign on the right-hand side and under point 5 I have added what appears to be an additional mistake by the council relating to whether adjudicators rulings are binding.
Is there any reason I should not include these?
You mention not needing to restate my reps, will all of what I have submitted so far to the council be provided to the adjudicator or do I need to include any of that information?
If it will be included, will I be sent this before the adjudication to check everything is there? Will I have an opportunity to include things that have been missed? Or should I include all the evidence I wish to refer to in my tribunal submission?
Are there any other changes you would suggest before submitting to the tribunal website?
Redraft:
I am appealing on the grounds that the contravention did not occur due to defective entry signage for the Permit Parking Area (PPA).
1. I was puzzled to receive the PCN as I had parked in what looks like an unrestricted section of road with no parking signs on Wellington Road (shown in image 1 and the CEO photos). This is about 150 metres from the junction with the high street (map shown in image 2).
2. The council relies on entry signs to this zone at the junction with the high street but the key sign on my approach was twisted as also found in adjudicated case 225015104 and in image 3.
3. In its notice of rejection, the council misidentifies the area as a controlled parking zone (CPZ), which would have all kerbsides marked as bays or yellow lines. This is not such a zone - it is a permit parking area, and the council has mischaracterised it as a CPZ.
4. The council’s notice of rejection also mistakenly suggests that there is a difference between this case and adjudicated case 225015104 due to the presence of a sign on the right-hand side of the road in this case. The adjudication of case 225015104 explicitly addresses the existence of a sign on the right-hand side, stating that the right-hand sign is insufficient, “I am not satisfied that this right-hand sign alone is sufficient to indicate the restriction to drivers entering the road”.
The differentiation the council seeks to make is not accurate. The key elements of the cases are identical.
5. Additionally in its notice of rejection, the council states that “adjudicator decisions are not binding”, whilst the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators “Your right to appeal” document which was also enclosed with the notice of rejection states under the “Appeal Procedure” section that “The adjudicator’s decision is binding in law”.
The council is incorrect in several key facts when enforcing the PCN – these have not misled me, and I hope they do not mislead the adjudicator!
6. I draw the adjudicator's attention to guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual on permit parking areas and map of the area in question (image 4):
Not all roads will be suitable for this type of signing. A cul de sac or a small network of roads with little or no through traffic would be the most appropriate. Otherwise the lack of road markings might tempt drivers unfamiliar with the area to park.
I contend this large area has breached the guidance.
Evidence I would attach if needed:
Image 1:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/UcQbdFN_xl.jpg)
Image 2:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/O1g1v0Q_xl.png)
Image 3:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/rWEOopL_xl.jpg)
Image 4:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Nfz8CTp_xl.jpeg)
Document 1:
Case: 2250151042 from tribunal website
Document 2 (will convert to single pdf for submission):
Council's rejection letter
-
I would just make a few bullet points for the adjudicator as you've already set out the story in your reps.
1. I was puzzled to receive the PCN as I parked in what looks like an unrestricted street with no parking signs.
2. The council relies on entry signs to a zone but the key sign on my approach was twisted as also found in adjudicated case xxxxx and in my picture.
3. The council insists in its notice of rejection that this is a controlled parking zone, which would have all kerbsides marked as bays or yellow lines. It is not such a zone - it is a permit parking area and the council is misleading itself in enforcing the PCN - but not me and I hope not the adjudicator!
4. I draw the adjudicator's attention to guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual on permit parking areas:
Not all roads will be suitable for this type of signing. A cul‑de‑sac or a small network of roads with little or no through traffic would be the most appropriate. Otherwise the lack of road markings might tempt drivers unfamiliar with the area to park.
I contend this large area has breached the guidance.
-
Thanks very much,
A couple of things I wasn’t sure about:
Did you mean with or without the additional photos and references to them that I included previously? I don’t feel entirely comfortable leaving out those photos (which show the defective sign, in particular), but I have no relevant experience of these cases. I have left in for now.
Where you say “did not pass any sign which indicated”, I’m a bit worried that this wording could be argued because it turns out I did pass signs, I just wasn’t aware of passing those signs as they were not clearly visible. I have opted for: “I did not pass any signs which clearly indicated that I was within an area where parking was restricted.”
The sections that have not been explicitly referenced, I have left in.
Redraft:
I am appealing on the grounds that the contravention did not occur due to defective entry signage on the Permit Parking Area (PPA).
On the date of the alleged contravention, I parked on an unmarked section of Wellington Road (shown in image 1 and the CEO photos) about 150 metres from the junction with the high street.
I did not pass any sign which clearly indicated that I was within an area where parking was restricted.
I entered Wellington Road turning left from the High Street. A map of the location is provided in image 2.
That the mandatory signs were not clearly visible is supported by your CEO's photos. That these fail to show the necessary sign is not an oversight, it is because photos would have shown that they were not clearly visible.
The PPA entry sign on the left-hand side of the carriageway was rotated approximately 90 degrees, meaning it was not visible. Photographic evidence of this sign in its rotated condition is provided in image 3.
This situation is not unknown to the council as can be seen in the following adjudication decision regarding the same facts which applied around a year ago.
In case 2250151042 (Adjudicator Philippa Alderson, 23 May 2025), an appeal was allowed for a vehicle parked on Wellington Road in materially identical circumstances.
The adjudicator found the left-hand entry sign rotated approximately 90 degrees and not sufficiently visible to drivers entering the road. Having considered the council's photographic evidence, they found the right-hand sign alone insufficient to indicate the restriction. Adjudicator Alderson found in case 225015104 that a driver who missed the entry sign may reasonably conclude, in the absence of road markings, that the street is unrestricted. The full decision is provided in document 1.
As a result, I contend that the contravention did not occur.
I appealed to the council, citing these facts and the previous adjudication for this specific entry point and signage defect.
The council has rejected this appeal, however their Notice of Rejection of Representation incorrectly identifies the zone as a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) instead of a Permit Parking Area (PPA). The council's Civil Enforcement Officer photographs do not include a photograph of the entry sign as it appeared at the time of the contravention. The council’s response is included in document 2.
The CEO photos show my car parked on an unmarked length of road. The sign shown in the CEO evidence is a zone repeater on a lamppost within the road, which is not clearly visible in the wider photographs of the vehicle. A repeater sign cannot substitute for a defective mandatory entry sign on a PPA. The council has not evidenced that the mandatory entry sign was compliant on the day.
Further thoughts and feedback extremely welcome.
-
My preferred approach is to re-order your points.
On the day in question I parked on an unmarked length of highway as can be seen in the council's evidence photos.
Then you did not pass any sign which indicated that you were within an area where parking was restricted, your route.
That the mandatory signs were not clearly visible is supported by your CEO's photos. That these fail to show the necessary sign is not an oversight, it is because photos would have shown that they were not clearly visible. This situation is not unknown to the council as can be seen in the following adjudication decision regarding the same facts which applied only a few months ago.
-
Thank you very much for your input,
Assuming I know nothing about the best way to fight this is the safest assumption and I’m really appreciative of knowing where I’ve made mistakes.
I have referred to the restrictions as PPA in my previous appeals (informal and formal). I had assumed CPZ was a more generic term for restrictions, rather than the council getting this completely wrong.
Having reviewed the link you shared, I can see that this distinction is quite clear.
I am happy to adjust my argument to account for this mistake and include a new draft lower down the page.
Your help is really appreciated.
Here are the photos that are provided by the council on the Redbridge site:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/wbS8PCJ_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/oVfnyzL_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Pyt6Nn9_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/vmfRjnA_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/XbF1wAL_xl.jpg)
Redraft:
I am appealing on the grounds that the contravention did not occur due to defective entry signage on the Permit Parking Area (PPA).
On the date of the alleged contravention, I entered Wellington Road turning left from the High Street. A map of the location is provided in image 1.
The PPA entry sign on the left-hand side of the carriageway was rotated approximately 90 degrees, meaning it was not visible. Photographic evidence of this sign in its rotated condition is provided in image 2.
I parked on an unmarked section of Wellington Road about 150 metres from the junction with the high street shown in image 3 and the CEO photos.
As a result, I contend that the contravention did not occur.
I appealed to the council, citing these facts and a previous adjudication for this specific entry point and signage defect. In case 2250151042 (Adjudicator Philippa Alderson, 23 May 2025), an appeal was allowed for a vehicle parked on Wellington Road in materially identical circumstances.
The adjudicator found the left-hand entry sign rotated approximately 90 degrees and not sufficiently visible to drivers entering the road. Having considered the council's photographic evidence, they found the right-hand sign alone insufficient to indicate the restriction. Adjudicator Alderson found in case 225015104 that a driver who missed the entry sign may reasonably conclude, in the absence of road markings, that the street is unrestricted. The full decision is provided at document 1.
The council has rejected this appeal, however their Notice of Rejection of Representation incorrectly identifies the zone as a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) instead of a Permit Parking Area (PPA). The council's Civil Enforcement Officer photographs do not include a photograph of the entry sign as it appeared at the time of the contravention.
The CEO photos show my car parked on an unmarked length of road. The sign shown in the CEO evidence is a zone repeater on a lamppost within the road, which is not clearly visible in the wider photographs of the vehicle. A repeater sign cannot substitute for a defective mandatory entry sign on a PPA. The council has not evidenced that the mandatory entry sign was compliant on the day.
Thoughts on this proposed appeal - regardless of how extensive the changes required - are very welcome.
-
The twisted entry sign as per the other appeal and then lack of anything obvious you were in a PPA - looks like an unrestricted street - are about it in my view.
Plus of course the council is misleading itself and you hope not the adjudicator in insisting it is a CPZ, which is an entirely different thing as all kerbsides in a CPZ are lines or bays.
-
+1.
I cannot rewrite your argument because IMO it's wrongly argued from the start IMO: as per stamfordman, it is NOT a CPZ, it's a PPA.
A CPZ regulates yellow lines and loading;
A PPA regulates parking places and crucially relieves the council of the need to MARK them. Traffic signs as seen by your car are OPTIONAL. See this link to understand:
CPZ - page 193, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
PPA - page 161 of the above.
But would you at least please post their evidence photos showing their signs. NB pl do NOT include yours, just theirs.
Their initial burden is to prove, not yours to disprove.
-
They say it's a CPZ - it's not, it's a PPA. You must pick this point up in your appeal as it shows they don't know what they're talking about.
Your reps will in any case go into the evidence pack so I would register the appeal, ask for a Teams or telephone hearing, and summarise briefly key points for the adjudication.
-
Thanks tincombe, I have attempted a shorter, more focussed draft:
I am appealing on the grounds that the contravention did not occur due to defective entry signage.
On the date of the alleged contravention, I entered Wellington Road turning left from the High Street. A map of the location is provided in image 1.
The Controlled Parking Zone entry sign on the left-hand side of the carriageway was rotated approximately 90 degrees, meaning it was not visible. Photographic evidence of this sign in its rotated condition is provided in image 2.
I parked on an unmarked section of Wellington Road about 150 metres from the junction with the high street shown in image 3 and the CEO photos.
As a result, I contend that the contravention did not occur.
I appealed to the council, citing these facts and a previous adjudication for this specific entry point and signage defect. In case 2250151042 (Adjudicator Philippa Alderson, 23 May 2025), an appeal was allowed for a vehicle parked on Wellington Road in materially identical circumstances.
The adjudicator found the left-hand entry sign rotated approximately 90 degrees and not sufficiently visible to drivers entering the road. Having considered the council's photographic evidence, they found the right-hand sign alone insufficient to indicate the restriction. Adjudicator Alderson found in case 225015104 that a driver who missed the entry sign may reasonably conclude, in the absence of road markings, that the street is unrestricted. The full decision is provided at document 1.
The council's Civil Enforcement Officer photographs do not include a photograph of the entry sign as it appeared at the time of the contravention. Their photos show my car parked on an unmarked length of road. The sign shown in the CEO evidence is a zone repeater on a lamppost within the road, which is not clearly visible in the wider photographs of the vehicle. A repeater sign cannot substitute for a defective mandatory entry sign. The council has not evidenced that the mandatory entry sign was compliant on the day.
Image 1: Map of Wellington road - red marking denotes entry point to Wellington Road and entry point signs. Yellow marking denotes the location where the car was parked.
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/O1g1v0Q_xl.png)
Image 2: Entry sign at Wellington Road/High Street junction showing sign rotated ~90 degrees
Option 1: (https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/rWEOopL_xl.jpg)
Option 2:(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/viFCaMD_xl.jpg)
Image 3: Car parked on unmarked length of road
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/UcQbdFN_xl.jpg)
Document 1:
Will attach case: 2250151042 from tribunal website
- Is this better?
- Does this cover all the points it needs to?
- Is there anything you would recommend changing?
- In terms of pictures, I have included two options for image 1. One is from the evening of the incident the other is from some days later but is a bit clearer. Any views on which is better evidentially?
- Is there anything else I should attach?
-
May I suggest you shorten and focus your 'further representations'.
The facts:
You parked on an UNMARKED length of highway;
The authority claim that this was a parking place reserved to permit holders;
In support they refer to Controlled Parking Zones as establishing parking place restrictions.
etc..
In law, IMO the only issues are:
Was the length of highway marked? No it wasn't as shown in their evidence.
Were the required signs, indicating a Permit Parking Area, placed as required and visible at the point you entered the alleged PPA zone?
IMO, focus on the second aspect because the first can be dealt with in short order because it's their evidence.
-
Thanks very much,
Rejection received as expected:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/IuPrmSD_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Of9qvA6_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Qla1ArK_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/g48P1vX_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/kTL9Jxa_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/MFuEYCw_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/JOXK46j_xl.jpg)
Based on the response and my original appeal, I have created a first draft for a tribunal submission.
I have incorporated comments from toncombe about repeater sign being irrelevant if entry sign unsuitable.
I would really appreciate assistance with determining if this is suitable for a tribunal submission, any areas which need amending, as well as anything which might need adding or removing. Explanantions for any suggestions would be greatly appreciated:
I am appealing on the grounds that the contravention did not occur due to defective entry signage, and that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority.
The factual case
On the date of the alleged contravention I entered Wellington Road from the High Street, turning left. The Controlled Parking Zone entry sign on the left-hand side of the carriageway was rotated approximately 90 degrees, rendering it not visible to approaching drivers. Photographic evidence of this sign in its rotated condition is provided at image 1.
As the council itself acknowledges in its Notice of Rejection, a Controlled Parking Zone is legally required to have a pair of visible entry signs, one placed on each side of the road, at every entry point. This requirement exists to ensure that drivers are able to see the sign before entering the zone. A rotated sign does not meet this requirement. A single sign on the far side of the carriageway for a driver turning left does not fulfil that requirement. For example, a single sign on the opposite carriageway is easily obscured by any large vehicle going in the other direction.
Having passed the entry point I drove approximately 150 metres along Wellington Road, passing through a mini roundabout, before parking. Wellington Road contains sections with double yellow lines and single yellow lines with accompanying signage. I parked in a section with none of these markings. Both the presence of these lines and the absence of markings where I parked are shown in image 2. I reasonably concluded that this section of road was unrestricted.
The council's Civil Enforcement Officer photographs do not include a photograph of the entry sign as it appeared at the time of the contravention. The only sign shown in their evidence is a zone repeater which is not clearly visible in the wider photographs of the vehicle, on a lamppost within the road. This repeater sign is positioned adjacent to a single yellow line restriction which stops before the section where I parked, shown in image 2. A driver encountering it would reasonably interpret it as relating to that yellow line restriction, not as a zone-wide restriction applying to the carriageway beyond it. Furthermore, a repeater sign cannot substitute for a defective mandatory entry sign — it is supplementary to it, not a replacement for it. The council has not evidenced that the mandatory entry sign was compliant on the day.
Previous adjudicator decision
This specific entry point and signage defect has already been the subject of an adjudicator decision. In case 2250151042 (Adjudicator Philippa Alderson, 23 May 2025), an appeal was allowed for a vehicle parked on Wellington Road in materially identical circumstances. The adjudicator found the left-hand entry sign rotated approximately 90 degrees and not sufficiently visible to drivers entering the road. Having considered the council's own photographic evidence, she found the right-hand sign alone insufficient to indicate the restriction, noting it was on the opposite side of the road and that it would be reasonable for a driver not to see it. As Adjudicator Alderson found in case 2250151042, a driver who missed the entry sign may reasonably conclude, in the absence of road markings, that the street is unrestricted. The full decision is provided at document 1.
The council's Notice of Rejection dated 10 March 2026, provided at document 2, attempts to distinguish that decision by asserting the right-hand sign was upright and visible at the time of my alleged contravention and that the circumstances therefore differ. This misrepresents Adjudicator Alderson's findings. She had both signs in evidence and still found the right-hand sign insufficient on identical approach geometry — a driver turning left from the High Street for whom the right-hand sign is on the far side of the carriageway. The council's distinguishing argument fails on the face of the decision, which is available on the statutory register.
The signage defect has not been remedied since May 2025. The council has defended a second PCN at the same location on a point already decided against it, while misrepresenting that decision in its rejection letter. I respectfully invite the adjudicator to consider whether this conduct amounts to wholly unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Enforcement Authority.
Suitability of restrictions
The Department for Transport's Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, paragraph 13.10.2, image 3, states that permit parking areas designated by entry signs without bay markings are suitable for "a cul-de-sac or a small network of roads with little or no through traffic."
Wellington Road is a through road with a mini roundabout and forms part of a large, complex permit parking zone covering multiple through roads. The application of this approach to parking restrictions in this case is inconsistent with the guidance, making it inherently difficult for unfamiliar drivers to identify the restrictions.
I request the adjudicator to allow this appeal and direct that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
Image 1 - Entry sign at Wellington Road/High Street junction showing sign rotated ~90 degrees
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/viFCaMD_xl.jpg)
Image 2 - Car clearly parked outside double and single yellow line areas.
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/UcQbdFN_xl.jpg)
Image 3 - Map of the permit parking zone and extract from DfT Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, Section 13.10
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Nfz8CTp_xl.jpeg)
Document 1:
Will attach case: 2250151042 from tribunal website
Document 2 (will convert to single pdf for submission):
will be council's rejection
-
As you've put a lot of effort into this and they're likely to reject your reps anyway I would go with what you've got.
If subsequently you are then faced with pay or appeal then IMO I suggest you consider the following, drawing upon the points in the cited decision and their evidence photos:
1. There were no parking place road markings therefore the presence or otherwise of a parking place sign is not relevant to their case;
2. If a NOR reiterates their reliance upon this sign as supporting the PPA then you have a very, very strong argument because repeater signs are NOT material IF the mandatory PPA entrance sign does not meet the standard, all it represents is a restriction which applies to an unmarked area of carriageway! And as the PPA entrance sign isn't in evidence, it could be on the moon.
-
Thanks very much,
I will submit this representation.
-
It's thorough - I don't think you can better. They will probably reject of course.
-
I was puzzled to receive the PCN as it appeared I had parked in an unrestricted street. On further investigation I have found that the street is in a large permit parking area, but on retracing my steps I contend that the contravention did not occur owing to the entry signage on my approach being inadequate.
I entered Wellington Road from the High Street. The entry sign on the left-hand side of the carriageway has been rotated approximately 90 degrees, rendering it not visible to approaching drivers. I attach photographs of this sign in its rotated condition.
Sections of Wellington Road are marked with double yellow lines and single yellow lines with accompanying signage. I parked in a section with no road markings and no signage, reasonably concluding it was unrestricted. I attach photographs of my car parked in an unsigned and unmarked area.
The Department for Transport's Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, paragraph 13.10.2, states that permit parking areas designated by entry signs alone (without bay markings) are suitable for "a cul-de-sac or a small network of roads with little or no through traffic." Wellington Road is a through road with a mini roundabout. The application of entry-sign-only designation to this large, complex zone covering multiple through roads is inconsistent with this guidance, making it inherently difficult for unfamiliar drivers to identify the restriction.
I would also bring to the Council's attention a previous decision of the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators concerning this same entry point. In case 2250151042 (decided 23 May 2025, Adjudicator Philippa Alderson), an appeal was allowed for a vehicle parked on Wellington Road in the same permit parking area. The Adjudicator found that the left-hand entry sign from the High Street had been rotated approximately 90 degrees and was not sufficiently visible to drivers entering the road. The Adjudicator further found that the right-hand sign alone was not sufficient to indicate the restriction, and that a driver who missed the entry sign may reasonably conclude, in the absence of road markings, that the street is unrestricted. My circumstances are materially identical. The signage defect identified in that case has not been remedied, and the Council has been on notice of this issue since at least May 2025. I respectfully invite the Council to cancel this PCN without the need for a further tribunal hearing on the same point.
Image 1 - Entry sign at Wellington Road/High Street junction showing sign rotated ~90 degrees
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/viFCaMD_xl.jpg)
Image 2 - Car clearly parked outside double and single yellow line areas.
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/UcQbdFN_xl.jpg)
Image 3 - Map of the permit parking zone and extract from DfT Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, Section 13.10
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Nfz8CTp_xl.jpeg)
I have cited the case you kindly found and shared. Is this suitable for the official appeal stage? Any other suggestions?
Thanks very much
-
You also have the case I found to cite on the same entry to zone?
-
Thanks Stamfordman,
I was trying to adapt my original appeal draft to be more like your suggestion, I wasn't really clear on the difference you were suggesting from my original and your proposed alternative (i.e. I had already mentioned the "alleged contravention" and the signage being inadequate, so it seemed like starting with being puzzled was what you were recommending. I obviously misunderstood that). As you mention, it seems like there is a good chance they would reject either way, which they did.
I have now received the Notice to Owner which I attach below:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/5dgvgIL_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/y5iDbqp_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/t4peSdX_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/EIOEVDP_xl.jpg)
I intend to make a representation online.
My proposed representation details are:
I was puzzled to receive the PCN as it appeared I had parked in an unrestricted street. On further investigation I have found that the street is in a large permit parking area, but on retracing my steps I contend that the contravention did not occur owing to the entry signage on my approach being inadequate.
I entered Wellington Road from the High Street. The entry sign on the left-hand side of the carriageway (the nearside for drivers entering from this direction) has been rotated approximately 90 degrees, rendering it not visible to approaching drivers. I attach a photograph of this sign in its rotated condition.
Sections of Wellington Road are marked with double yellow lines and single yellow lines with accompanying signage. I parked in a section with no road markings and no signage of any kind, reasonably concluding it was unrestricted. I attach a photograph of my car parked in an unsigned and unmarked area.
I further note that the Department for Transport's Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, paragraph 13.10.2, states that permit parking areas designated by entry signs alone (without bay markings) are suitable for "a cul-de-sac or a small network of roads with little or no through traffic." Wellington Road is a through road with a mini roundabout. The application of entry-sign-only designation to this large, complex zone covering multiple through roads is inconsistent with this guidance, making it inherently difficult for unfamiliar drivers to identify the restriction.
==
I only expect to be able to attach 4 photos, below are the 4 I am proposing to include - there is a 5th which shows the double yellow lines but I think this is less relevant. There are other photos in earlier posts which might be relevant. If any photos taht should be included are not here, please let me know:
Photo 1 - Entry sign at Wellington Road/High Street junction showing sign rotated ~90 degrees
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/6nvig1B_xl.jpg)
Photo 2 - Car clearly parked outside single yellow line restricted area. Ahead, you can see a lamp post adjacent to the single yellow line zone, this is where the Civil Enforcement Officer's photo of signage is from:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/R9LlvX5_xl.jpg)
Photo 3 - Parking restriction sign. This is the sign from the Civil Enforcement Officer's photo which is in the distance in photo 2:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/X3pDUH5_xl.jpg)
Photo 4 - Map of the permit parking zone and extract from DfT Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, Section 13.10
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Nfz8CTp_xl.jpeg)
Photo 5 - Car parked outsize double yellow restricted area:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/2xRLD9J_xl.jpg)
-
You didn't take up my suggested wording which focused up-front on no contravention owing to inadequate entry signage for which we have a case for, and instead made a too long challenge that told a story that they are never going to read properly.
If you want to go on I suggest making more concise reps they can't ignore although to be fair they often just reject with template at this stage.
-
If you want to take it all the way to adjudication, yes.
-
So I adjusted the wording and appealed and the appeal has been rejected.
I had to edit the appeal slightly before submitting as it would only allow 4 photos to be attached but the appeal said pretty much this:
I was extremely surprised and frustrated to find a parking ticket had been put on my car as it appeared I had parked on an unrestricted street and I am always very conscious to park in a legal and considerate manner.
Upon finding the ticket, I took photos of the car as parked and walked along the street re-checking for signs to indicate that there was any sort of restriction in place. As I had noticed when I first parked, there were some sections of the road marked with parking restriction signs, but these were a distance away from the section of road I was parked on and had single yellow lines. There were also sections of the road with double yellow lines, however I was parked on a completely unmarked section of the road with no signs.
At this point I went home and was confident that there had been a mistake because even after looking around, there was nothing to suggest restrictions in place where I had parked.
Upon returning home and on further investigation I have found out that the street is in a large permit parking area, with signs at entries to this large area (albeit not on the section of road that I had parked on). I had not found these signs even when walking around the area to look for signs after receiving a ticket due to their distance from my parking location and seeming irrelevance to the section of road I was actually parked on.
After identifying this restriction online, I returned to the area again retracing my steps and contend that the contravention did not occur owing to the entry signage on my approach being inadequate. There are no signposts on either end of this section of the road from the mini roundabout down to the other end where the road meets Nelson road to suggest that there are restrictions which apply to this section of street. The signage at the entrance to Wellington Road from the High Street was not readily visible at the time of the alleged contravention. The sign on the left-hand side of the carriageway has been turned through approximately 90 degrees, rendering it effectively invisible to drivers entering the road from this direction.
Having missed the obscured entry sign due to its condition and identifying no signs or markings that indicated any parking restrictions related to the unmarked section of road after passing the mini roundabout, I reasonably concluded that this area was unrestricted. I took care to observe the visible parking restrictions on the road, noting areas marked with double yellow lines and single yellow lines with accompanying signage. I deliberately parked in a section with no road markings and no visible signage indicating any restriction. In the absence of road markings or visible signage, it was reasonable to conclude that this section of the street was unrestricted.
Upon researching further, I have identified that the permit parking area in question does not conform to the Department for Transport's Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, which provides guidance on the appropriate use of permit parking areas designated by entry signs alone (without bay markings). Paragraph 13.10.2 of the guidance states that this type of signing is suitable for "a cul-de-sac or a small network of roads with little or no through traffic" and warns that "otherwise the lack of road markings might tempt drivers unfamiliar with the area to park." Wellington Road is a through road with a mini roundabout, not a cul-de-sac or small enclosed network. The current arrangement covers a large zone of multiple roads with unclear boundaries.
It is extremely difficult for drivers to identify that there is a restriction at all unless you notice the signs at the boundaries of this large section and then map out the boundaries of the restriction area. Even had the entry signage been visible, the application of this signing method to such a large and complex area is inconsistent with the official guidance, which anticipates its use only where drivers can reasonably be expected to understand the extent of the restricted area.
As explained, there are clearly several issues with this charge and I request that this is promptly cancelled to avoid causing any further unfair and unwarranted disruption for something that was the result of poor and inadequate signage.
I attach the following photographic and pictorial evidence:
1. Photograph showing vehicle parked outside the single yellow line restricted area
2. Photograph showing vehicle parked outside the double yellow line area
3. Photograph showing distance between vehicle and the single yellow line restriction (Not included in the end)
4. Photograph of entry sign at Wellington Road/High Street junction, showing sign rotated 90 degrees
5. Map of the permit parking zone (merged with photo 6 to keep within 4 photo limit for redbridge site)
6. Department for Transport Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 extract (Section 13.10 – Permit Parking Areas)
Here is the response:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/UKWRcnx_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/EFFixnM_xl.jpg)
I assume I'm now waiting for a Notice to Owner?
-
You need to rework it a bit.
I would start it off:
I was puzzled to receive the PCN as it appeared I had parked in an unrestricted street. On further investigation I have found that the street is in a large permit parking area, but on retracing my steps I contend that the contravention did not occur owing to the entry signage on my approach being inadequate.
etc.
-
Any thoughts on the proposed appeal before I send it? Thanks very much
-
Thanks very much,
Here is my proposed appeal:
The signage at the entrance to Wellington Road from the High Street was not readily visible at the time of the alleged contravention. The sign on the left-hand side of the carriageway has been turned through approximately 90 degrees, rendering it effectively invisible to drivers entering the road from this direction.
Furthermore, Wellington Road is divided by a mini roundabout into two distinct sections. The section where my vehicle was parked has no signage at either entry point indicating parking restrictions. Having missed the obscured entry sign due to its condition, and finding no further signage upon entering the second section of the road, I reasonably concluded that this area was unrestricted.
I took care to observe the visible parking restrictions on the road, noting areas marked with double yellow lines and single yellow lines with accompanying signage. I deliberately parked in a section with no road markings and no visible signage indicating any restriction. In the absence of road markings or visible signage, it was reasonable to conclude that this section of the street was unrestricted.
The permit parking area in question does not conform to the Department for Transport's Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, which provides guidance on the appropriate use of permit parking areas designated by entry signs alone (without bay markings).
Paragraph 13.10.2 of the guidance states that this type of signing is suitable for "a cul-de-sac or a small network of roads with little or no through traffic" and warns that "otherwise the lack of road markings might tempt drivers unfamiliar with the area to park." Wellington Road is a through road with a mini roundabout, not a cul-de-sac or small enclosed network.
The guidance further notes that where a permit parking area "comprises a through road or is used for access to other roads not included in the area," specific amended wording should be used on signage. The current arrangement covers a large zone of multiple roads with unclear boundaries, making it difficult for drivers unfamiliar with the area to identify which streets are included in the restriction.
Even had the entry signage been visible, the application of this signing method to such a large and complex area is inconsistent with the official guidance, which anticipates its use only where drivers can reasonably be expected to understand the extent of the restricted area.
Attached Evidence:
Photograph showing vehicle parked outside the single yellow line restricted area
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/R9LlvX5_xl.jpg)
Photograph showing vehicle parked outside the double yellow line area
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/2xRLD9J_xl.jpg)
Photograph showing distance between vehicle and the single yellow line restriction
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Xi4x64d_xl.jpg)
Photograph of entry sign at Wellington Road/High Street junction, showing sign rotated 90 degrees
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/OwkuQoW_xl.jpg)
Map of the permit parking zone
(https://i.ibb.co/3Y0f5xsY/Screenshot-2026-01-02-at-18-31-48.png)
Department for Transport Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 extract (Section 13.10 – Permit Parking Areas)
(https://i.ibb.co/39qh5W1y/Screenshot-2026-01-02-at-18-37-04.png)
-
Draft a challenge and post here.
-
On that basis, how would you recommend is best to take this forwards?
If you haven't already, now submit representations based on what you have told us about the signage. Of course they will reject them, but may shoot themselves in the foot in their reply. It is usual for them to re-offer the discount, provided the reps are received within the discount period, and may even re-offer it if outside it too, but that is less certain.
-
On that basis, how would you recommend is best to take this forwards?
-
I turned left into Wellington road from the high street, passed the twisted sign at the end of the road (although didn't see any signs at the time). I drove down that part of Wellington road then went across the mini roundabout onto latter part of Wellington road (which has no signs at either end of that section) and parked up.
-
So if you entered by that twisted sign did you turn left or right into Wellington Road?
-
Thanks very much,
Based on the information you've shared, there seem to be several possible grounds for appealing based on the permit parking set up itself, as well as an example where the left hand twisted sign has been used successfully to appeal a PCN.
How would you recommend is best to take this forwards?
-
Redbridge is not very good at providing evidence to he tribunal of its various zones.
If this is one zone it's not compliant with guidance in my view and should not have any yellow lines. It should also have zone ends signs on all exits. Repeater signs are obviously scattered around but they are confusing as they are not adjacent to parking bays.
Traffic map, traffic signs manual and a tribunal case below that references that left hand sign.
They seem to have gone mad with these PPAs.
(https://i.ibb.co/3Y0f5xsY/Screenshot-2026-01-02-at-18-31-48.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/39qh5W1y/Screenshot-2026-01-02-at-18-37-04.png)
--------
Case reference 2250151042
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM KS23VYK
PCN Details
PCN AF08541629
Contravention date 14 Jan 2025
Contravention time 13:52:00
Contravention location Wellington Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 23 May 2025
Adjudicator Philippa Alderson
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice/Enforcement Notice.
Reasons
The Appellant is appealing a PCN issued in respect of parking in a permit holder only zone during restricted hours at the location.
The Appellant has attended the hearing.
The Council relies upon the contemporaneous evidence of the Civil Enforcement Officer, a copy of the PCN, map/site report, a copy of the relevant legislation and correspondence.
The Appellant contends that the signage at the entrance to Wellington Road was not readily visible as it had been turned sideway at the relevant time.
I have carefully considered all the evidence in this matter.
The CEO’s photographs show the vehicle parked and unattended on an unmarked section of carriageway on Wellington Road. The CEO has also provided a photograph of the signage relied upon. However, the proximity of the signage to the vehicle cannot be determined from the CEO's photographic evidence and the sign is not readily obvious in any of the photographs of the vehicle itself. One of the additional photographs provided by the Council denotes, by way of yellow arrow, relevant signage in relation to the vehicle, but such signage is on the opposite side of the road and it would be reasonable of a driver not to see/pay attention to such signage.
The Appellant has provided photographic evidence of relevant signage at the entrance to Wellington Road from the High Street. These photographs show this sign, on the left of the carriageway, to be turned through some 90 degrees, to the extent that I find it not to be sufficiently visible to drivers entering the road. Whilst the Council's photographic evidence shows there to be another similar sign on the right of the carriageway, I am not satisfied that this right hand sign alone is sufficient to indicate the restriction to drivers entering the road. Once a driver has missed the entry point sign, that driver may conclude, in the absence of road markings, that the street is unrestricted.
I therefore allow this appeal.
-
I came down the road where the sign is twisted round, went round the mini roundabout and parked up.
I've parked there before without any issues, not sure when the last time was though and I don't know when they brought these restrictions in.
-
It's a large permit holders-only zone, way beyond what official guidance suggests. On the other hand they seem to have put up repeater signs in the zone. What was your approach ?
-
I have driven round and this is a map of the permit parking area where each red line indicates an entrance point with two signs, one on either side of the road.
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/IsCp82R_xl.png)
One of the two signs at the top of Wellington road is currently at 90 degrees, so facing down the footpath.
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/OwkuQoW_xl.jpg)
-
Entrance to Wellesley Road from Herman Hill that Wellington Road leads off:-
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TB3oNbsFiCkZYdkn8
and also entrance to Nelson Road off Herman Hill that Wellington Road leads off at its other end: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ixk2iJrDHYFFQxRX8
-
Redbridge has put in a lot of permit parking areas - these have entry and repeater signs but do not require kerbsides to be marked with permit bays - exceptions to permits are signed bays (eg pay pays).
So check what route you took and whether the PPA is of a reasonable size - they should only be used in single or a few streets in one PPA.
(https://i.ibb.co/6R7St60S/Screenshot-2026-01-02-at-15-27-36.png)
-
Council: Redbridge council
Alleged contravention: Code 16, parking in a permit space or zone without a permit.
Location: Wellington Road, Wanstead, Redbridge
Just received a PCN on car windscreen parked on a section of the road with no obvious parking restrictions.
The road has a section of double yellow lines, a section of single yellow lines which also has a parking restriction sign, and then a section of road with no markings or signs.
The car was parked on the section of road with no markings or signs but received a yellow ticket on the windscreen regardless.
Photos attached of the layout described above including my car parked as well as of the PCN. My car is the grey VW polo.
I would like to make an appeal and would like advice on the best way to approach this. It seems fairly clear to me that if the sign applies to the section of the road that the car was parked on, then these signs and markings are not adequate and are misleading because the single yellow line clearly ends before where my car is parked, however, I am quite willing to believe that putting just this information into an appeal may well not be accepted and therefore I would like advice on how best to approach this.
Please let me know if I have left out any required information, thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/keYz7FT6PbyuE5Kg8
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/K3HEzV6_xl.jpg) - PCN FRONT
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/4UFx7Q1_xl.jpg) - PCN BACK
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Xi4x64d_xl.jpg) - Car outside single yellow zone 1
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/R9LlvX5_xl.jpg) - Car outside single yellow zone 2
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/2xRLD9J_xl.jpg) - Car outside double yellow zone
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/X3pDUH5_xl.jpg) - parking sign and single yellow line