Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Yakov on January 27, 2026, 12:11:35 am
-
Thanks stamfordman for looking at this.
I understand it might not invalidate the PCN itself, but doesn't it demonstrate failure to properly consider my representations under the 2007 Regulations?
My informal challenge specifically stated:
- I held a valid Zone T visitor voucher book
- I was entitled to park in that Zone T bay
- I provided photographic evidence of the voucher book
Their rejection letter says:
- "parking in bay for... Zone F permit holders only"
- "no valid permit... nor displayed at the time"
The enforcement photos clearly show the sign says Zone T.
So they rejected my challenge claiming I needed Zone F when:
1. The actual bay requires Zone T
2. I told them I held Zone T voucher
3. I provided evidence of Zone T voucher
Can they just argue this was a "typo" at Notice to Owner stage and correct it then? Or does the fact they got the zone wrong in their formal rejection show they never actually reviewed what I submitted?
It looks like they just used a template rejection, rather than addressing my specific claim about holding the correct Zone T permit for that Zone T bay.
Does this support a procedural/statutory duty breach ground, or am I overestimating how significant the Zone F/T error is?
Thanks.
-
It's just a mistake on zone J vs T I think.
It seems the PCN was correctly issued according to the sign and you do have the benefit of a lower level penalty.
But we've seen confusion with road legends before particularly with disabled permit bays but for EV bays the traffic signs manual suggests there is no scope.
(https://i.ibb.co/XgLNXBf/Screenshot-2026-01-27-at-16-06-33.png)
-
(https://res.cloudinary.com/dktopa2f6/image/upload/v1769507844/20260127_095305_ednkyr.jpg)
(https://res.cloudinary.com/dktopa2f6/image/upload/v1769507845/20260127_095335_yoefg9.jpg)
(https://res.cloudinary.com/dktopa2f6/image/upload/v1769507870/challengeandrep_QZ23679165-0_n7xnbo.jpg)
(https://res.cloudinary.com/dktopa2f6/image/upload/v1769507870/challengeandrep_QZ23679165-1_ml1ilf.jpg)
(https://res.cloudinary.com/dktopa2f6/image/upload/v1769507861/Our_Response_to_you_bhcsrk.jpg)
(https://res.cloudinary.com/dktopa2f6/image/upload/v1769507860/Our_Response_to_you1_a04bgb.jpg)
(https://res.cloudinary.com/dktopa2f6/image/upload/v1769507988/liberatorImageProxyRaw_3_ehxcth.jpg)
(https://res.cloudinary.com/dktopa2f6/image/upload/v1769507988/liberatorImageProxyRaw_2_z4zwox.jpg)
(https://res.cloudinary.com/dktopa2f6/image/upload/v1769507989/liberatorImageProxyRaw_1_oq7xkw.jpg)
(https://res.cloudinary.com/dktopa2f6/image/upload/v1769507989/liberatorImageProxyRaw_scuszc.jpg)
Thanks
-
Welcome to FTLA.
Please also post up:
both sides of the unredacted PCN,
a copy of your challenge,
any Council photos,
and
the rest of the rejection.
(Only redact yr name & address from documents - leave all else in.)
-
Parked in EV charging bay at Cazenove Road. Had valid Zone T visitor voucher book on dashboard but didn't scratch voucher for that day - thought the large "ELECTRIC VEHICLES" road marking meant active charging was sufficient. Never seen an EV bay requiring a zone permit before.
CEO issued Code 19 (invalid permit displayed), not Code 12, confirming voucher book was visible.
Informal challenge: Explained I held Zone T voucher book, was entitled to park in Zone T bay, provided photo evidence.
Hackney's rejection letter (23/01/26) says:
"parking in bay for electric vehicles... for Zone F permit holders only"
Enforcement photos clearly show sign says "Zone T"
I had Zone T voucher for Zone T bay. Council rejected based on Zone F.
Also:
Code 19 says permit was displayed, rejection letter says "no permit... nor displayed"
My evidence of Zone T voucher completely ignored
Question: Zone F/T error - is this as fatal as I think? Waiting for Notice to Owner.
(https://res.cloudinary.com/dktopa2f6/image/upload/v1769472102/pcn_w5vaq9.png)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/NdDMUbpDXYyupwQo8
Thanks.