Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Hiram on January 28, 2026, 12:01:56 pm
-
That's much better.
-
How about this:
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to make a formal representation against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.
At the location where my vehicle was parked, traffic cones had been placed in a way that appeared to mark out a space. Their positioning reasonably gave the impression that parking within that area was permitted, and I therefore understood this to be an acceptable place to park.
In your response to my initial challenge, you stated that vehicles are only permitted to park within clearly marked bays along this road. However, this restriction is not clearly indicated by the signage present at the location.
On 28 January, I revisited the road and took photographs of the signs along it. These photographs show that the signs do not clearly state that parking is restricted to marked bays only.
For a restriction to be enforceable, it must be clearly communicated through signs and road markings. In this case, the signage does not clearly convey the requirement to park only in marked bays, and the placement of the cones added to the impression that parking in that location was permitted.
In light of this, I believe the alleged contravention did not occur and I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
Please find attached the photographs taken on 28 January showing the signage along the road.
Yours faithfully,
-
This needs simplifying as I find it hard to understand...
-
Something like this:
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to make a formal representation against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.
For the purposes of these representations I am assuming that the cones which are shown clearly in my photos were placed by or with the permission of the council. Their presence had the effect of reducing the size of the bay by some 2m such that what remained had a length far less than the statutory minimum. But instead of suspending the use of what was now a redundant and unlawfully sized rump, the council chose to penalise a driver who tried their level best to fit within the space which remained.
Of course, if the cones were not placed as above, then the CEO should have removed them and invited the driver to reverse in order to regularise the situation.
In your response to my initial challenge, you stated that vehicles are only permitted to park within clearly marked bays along this road. However, this restriction is not clearly conveyed by the signage present at the location.
On 28 January, I revisited the location and took photographs of the signs along the road. These photographs demonstrate that the signage does not clearly indicate that parking is restricted solely to marked bays. As such, the restriction relied upon in your response is not adequately communicated to motorists.
For a parking restriction to be enforceable, it must be clearly indicated by appropriate signs and road markings so that a reasonably diligent motorist can understand the restriction. In this case, the signage along the road fails to clearly convey the requirement that vehicles must park only within marked bays, and the placement of the cones further contributed to the reasonable belief that parking in that position was permitted.
Given the lack of clear signage indicating this restriction, and the misleading placement of the cones, I believe the alleged contravention did not occur and that the Penalty Charge Notice has been issued incorrectly.
I therefore request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled. Please find attached the photographs taken on 28 January which show the signage present along the road at the time.
I look forward to your confirmation that this notice has been cancelled.
-
Maybe a new 2nd para.
For the purposes of these representations I am assuming that the cones which are shown clearly in your photos were placed by or with the permission of the council. Their presence had the effect of reducing the size of the bay by some 2m such that what remained had a length far less than the statutory minimum. But instead of suspending the use of what was now a redundant and unlawfully sized rump, the council chose to penalise a driver who tried their level best to fit within the space which remained.
Of course, if the cones were not placed as above, then the CEO should have removed them and invited the driver to reverse in order to regularise the situation.
-
How does this sound:
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to make a formal representation against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.
At the location where my vehicle was parked, a number of traffic cones had been placed in a manner that reasonably gave the impression that parking within that area was permitted. The cones were arranged in such a way that they appeared to define or mark a space in which a vehicle could park. I therefore reasonably interpreted their placement as an indication or invitation that parking within that coned area was acceptable.
In your response to my initial challenge, you stated that vehicles are only permitted to park within clearly marked bays along this road. However, this restriction is not clearly conveyed by the signage present at the location.
On 28 January, I revisited the location and took photographs of the signs along the road. These photographs demonstrate that the signage does not clearly indicate that parking is restricted solely to marked bays. As such, the restriction relied upon in your response is not adequately communicated to motorists.
For a parking restriction to be enforceable, it must be clearly indicated by appropriate signs and road markings so that a reasonably diligent motorist can understand the restriction. In this case, the signage along the road fails to clearly convey the requirement that vehicles must park only within marked bays, and the placement of the cones further contributed to the reasonable belief that parking in that position was permitted.
Given the lack of clear signage indicating this restriction, and the misleading placement of the cones, I believe the alleged contravention did not occur and that the Penalty Charge Notice has been issued incorrectly.
I therefore request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled. Please find attached the photographs taken on 28 January which show the signage present along the road at the time.
I look forward to your confirmation that this notice has been cancelled.
-
You must address the cones - I would say you considered it an invitation to park within them, before saying there is nothing about parking in bay markings anyway on the signage (a few adjudicators are persuaded by this).
They will reject anyway so best to get down now all that you will discuss with the adjudicator.
-
I don't know who put the cones out unfortunately.
Would love feedback on the draft representation I've made please - thanks in advance!
-
I want to get to the bottom of the cones. Who placed them etc? Are they still there?
Scenario 1
The council placed or condones the placement of these cones(the latter is unlikely as it's a highways matter i.e. you cannot just place barriers on the carriageway willy-nilly.
The contravention occurred because you were parked 'partially outside white markings', so it's nothing to do with the next bay, it's all about where you were. So, was the length of what remained of your bay 4.5m in length(this being the minimum mandated length of a bay of this type)? If not, then IMO the placing of cones by or with the condonation of the council was not correct in the first place: they should have coned off the whole bay. And then you have the under whose authority and with what lawful authority arguments.
Scenario 2
The cones were placed by a third party without the council's permission. This is an offence under the Highways Act and IMO the CEO should have removed them(after establishing the situation) and invited you to move back, not issue a PCN which would IMO have the effect of unlawfully enriching the council!
-
Here's a draft letter:
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to make a formal representation against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.
In your response to my initial challenge, you stated that vehicles are only permitted to park within clearly marked bays along this road. However, this restriction is not clearly conveyed by the signage present at the location.
On 28 January, I revisited the location and took photographs of the signs along the road. These photographs demonstrate that the signage does not clearly indicate that parking is restricted solely to marked bays. As such, the restriction relied upon in your response is not adequately communicated to motorists.
For a parking restriction to be enforceable, it must be clearly indicated by appropriate signs and road markings so that a reasonably diligent motorist can understand the restriction. In this case, the signage along the road fails to clearly convey the requirement that vehicles must park only within marked bays.
Given the lack of clear signage indicating this restriction, I believe the alleged contravention did not occur and that the Penalty Charge Notice has been issued incorrectly.
I therefore request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled. Please find attached the photographs taken on 28 January which show the signage present along the road at the time.
I look forward to your confirmation that this notice has been cancelled.
-
Just go with contravention did not occur.
Draft reps here first.
-
Ok so per their letter and your advice I'll be making a representation. Which item should I tick on the fourth page under MAKING REPRESENTATIONS? Bearing in mind my argument is that it is not clearly sign posted that you have to park within the marked bays and I have photo evidence.
Thanks again
-
Any advice out there, would be much appreciated!
Clearly, with no re-offer of the discount, it is a complete no brainer to take them to London Tribunals and make them do some work for their ill-gotten gains for a change ! The penalty remains the same at London Tribunals and there are no additional costs. If you win you pay nothing, and if you lose you pay the £90. If you don't take them to London Tribunals you'll have to pay the £90 anyway.
I am surprised to see Havering mentioning the discount, because they made a decision early last year to no re-offer the discount in any circumstances. We reckoned this foolish decision would come back to bite them, as it meant that it immediately became a no-brainer to take them all the way through the process to adjudication !! Maybe they have changed their mind.
-
Hi all,
Any advice out there, would be much appreciated!
-
Can you post just the text or pic of the rejection.
(https://i.ibb.co/TMjmwH0K/Screenshot-20260128-113713-Adobe-Acrobat.jpg) (https://ibb.co/pjVJ13KW)
-
Can you post just the text or pic of the rejection.
-
Hi all,
Just received the NtO today. Photos in the links below. Any advice on best next steps, welcomed - thanks in advance.
https://ibb.co/gZfStzNG
https://ibb.co/hJSXrwPZ
https://ibb.co/qLsTZb6m
https://ibb.co/VYPRMyF5
-
Thanks all.
No idea why the cones were there. I'll keep you all posted
-
Absolutely no point in coughing-up as the penalty remains the same at London Tribunals, so make them do at least some work for their money, and if you win they get no money but have had to spend it. What's not to like !
My advice is don't pay-up now and join the Mugged Club !
-
I'd say the cones are there to segment a permitted parking place not worn markings.
Any idea why the cones were there?
Some friendly adjudicators have found lack of instruction to park in marked bays is good enough to allow appeals.
Havering would also have to produce a traffic order and can fall down on that.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/fzsjhMh3/image.png)
-
Here's the GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/FgtXkCBLFeScsziLA?g_st=ac
And yes it's me.
-
The photo shows very worn bay markings. Can you post a GSV link to the exact location, please. Havering have now made a rod for their own back, because by not re-offering the discount, (against the statutory guidance BTW), it is now a total no-brainer to take them all the way to London Tribunals. This means they have the PITA of preparing an evidence pack and also must pay the adjudication fee.
So wait for the NtO. This is sent to the name and address on the V5C Registration Certificate, so is this you or not ?
-
Hi there, I was issued a council PCN on 3rd Jan for parking outside of the marked bay. At the time there were cones either side of the bay obstructing me from parking inside a bay but the bay I used was definitely available to park in. The traffic warden himself said to appeal. I did appeal, however, they upheld their decision siting that the regulations are clearly shown and that I can either pay £90 (having unknowingly waived my right for a reduced amount when I appealed) or wait to make a formal representation of refer the case to London Tribunals.
I returned to the street where I was fined and there are no notices stating I have to park within the marked bays.
Please can I have advice on best next steps?
https://ibb.co/fz6cm6sx
https://ibb.co/4nrNHf6h
https://ibb.co/JW7TTzFd
https://ibb.co/cSnCJFwX
https://ibb.co/pjVJ13KW
https://ibb.co/k2MPB8xT
https://ibb.co/5QBGTGF
https://ibb.co/N2FJ5td4
https://ibb.co/6Cj788M