Free Traffic Legal Advice

@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.

@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.

#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

@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 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?

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

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

@H C Anderson 
@stamfordman 
@cp8759 
@404BrainNotFound

Mitigating circumstances - Mobility Issues
In my informal appeal, I explained that I have mobility issues which prevented me from returning to my car in time. The council rejected it, stating that the CEO had already given extra observation time (4 mins instead of 2). They did not ask for any evidence at that stage.
Now, in their TPT case summary, they state: "In conclusion, the contravention is supported by clear visual evidence, and no mitigating circumstances have been provided that would warrant cancellation of the Penalty Charge Notice.”
This seems to be their main argument. However, I do have evidence:
• My mobility issue worsened around that time, and I attended A&E on 05.01.2025 for my lower limbs. I have the A&E report showing I had X-rays and was given medication.
• I am also currently attending physiotherapy for this condition.
My specific questions are:
1. Should I explicitly address the council's "no mitigating circumstances" claim head-on in my submission?
2. Is this A&E evidence strong enough to serve as the formal proof the council says is missing?
3. What is the most effective way to present this? Should I just state the facts, or should I explicitly point out that the council is wrong?
Any insights on how to frame this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance


Link to my informal appeal and the authorities' response
https://ibb.co/Z6bYCdJb
https://ibb.co/Rpb4p05p