1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Medway- Chatham High Stret - CC01- Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
« on: Yesterday at 09:06:45 pm »
Thank you.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Medway- Chatham High Stret - CC01- Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
« on: Yesterday at 05:19:37 pm »
@stamfordman
Thank you.
Sorry for the delay in posting this.
I intend to send something today before midnight before the amount increases to £105.
Is there anything else you think I can add to the representation?
What do you think about the other points that I raised.
Thanks
Thank you.
Sorry for the delay in posting this.
I intend to send something today before midnight before the amount increases to £105.
Is there anything else you think I can add to the representation?
What do you think about the other points that I raised.
Thanks
3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Medway- Chatham High Stret - CC01- Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
« on: April 19, 2026, 11:59:45 pm »
Medway- Chatham High Stret - CC01- Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
Loading Exemption & CEO Conduct and any other– Grounds to Challenge this PCN.
Link to photos & Postal PCN
https://ibb.co/album/bszcDX
I would appreciate advice on whether I have grounds to challenge a PCN issued by Medway Council.
Background
On 19/03/2026, I parked in order to load large and heavy items I had just purchased from Primark in Chatham. These included:
13 thick bulky long dresses
Packed in a very large IKEA bag & a large pink Lidl shopping bag.
Due to the size, weight, and awkward nature of the items, I needed to park as close as possible. Even then, the walk back to my car was approximately 6 -7 minutes, and longer due to mobility issues.
I have a receipt timed at 17:56.
Timeline
PCN observation time: 18:02:31 – 18:04
I was returning to my vehicle while carrying the big heavy bags when I saw the CEO standing next to my car.
I informed the CEO I was loading and showed him the bags but he ignored me a said he has already issued the PCN but to there was no PCN affixed to my car no did he have one ready to hand over. He was still taking pictures and was trying to start printing it
He stood by the passenger door, preventing me from loading until I asked him to move.
When I began opening the door, he moved in front of my car instead to prevent me from driving away.
At this point:
The PCN had not yet been printed or served.
The CEO stated he had “already issued the ticket,” but it was clearly not complete.
CEO Conduct
The situation escalated as follows:
The CEO stood in front of my vehicle, preventing me from leaving.
He was shouting and behaving in an aggressive and intimidating manner.
He began taking photos of me while I was in the driver’s seat.
I felt forced to reverse to avoid hitting him, as he blocked my path forward.
This created a dangerous situation, as my visibility was compromised while trying to manoeuvre safely. I felt panicked, intimidated, and fearful.
Postal PCN
A postal PCN dated 20/03/2026 was later received.
The council’s website shows only an image of my car driving away.
Grounds for Challenge (Please advise)
1. Loading Exemption
I was actively loading heavy, bulky goods.
The timing supports this:
Purchase: 17:56
Observation: 18:02–18:04
The activity was continuous and necessary.
2. Duration
I was parked only as long as necessary to collect and load the items.
3. PCN Service (Regulation 10)
The CEO had not completed or served the PCN when I returned.
The situation suggests I was not prevented from being served, but rather the CEO had not finished issuing it.
Does this invalidate the use of a postal PCN?
4. Mobility Issues
I have ongoing mobility problems and medical evidence (orthopaedic referral, physiotherapy).
This necessitated parking as close as possible.
5. CEO Behaviour
Aggressive, intimidating, and confrontational.
Obstructed me from loading and leaving.
Created a hazardous situation by standing in front of my vehicle.
6. Procedural Impropriety – Service Period
The PCN states that Medway Council allows “an additional 3 working days” for service.
However, legislation states service is deemed 2 working days after posting.
Is this discrepancy a procedural impropriety?
7. Discount Period Issue
On 6th April, the PCN showed £35 (discounted).
On 7th April, it showed £70.
This appears to be before the 14-day discount period expired.
Does this amount to unfair or unlawful enforcement?
8. Additional Grounds?
Are there any further arguments I may have missed?
Deadline Question
I calculate the 28-day deadline for appeal as 20 April 2026.
Is this correct?
Can the experts review and advise on the strength of this case—particularly around loading exemption and postal PCN validity and any other grounds that I may have missed or not aware of
—I would be very grateful.
Loading Exemption & CEO Conduct and any other– Grounds to Challenge this PCN.
Link to photos & Postal PCN
https://ibb.co/album/bszcDX
I would appreciate advice on whether I have grounds to challenge a PCN issued by Medway Council.
Background
On 19/03/2026, I parked in order to load large and heavy items I had just purchased from Primark in Chatham. These included:
13 thick bulky long dresses
Packed in a very large IKEA bag & a large pink Lidl shopping bag.
Due to the size, weight, and awkward nature of the items, I needed to park as close as possible. Even then, the walk back to my car was approximately 6 -7 minutes, and longer due to mobility issues.
I have a receipt timed at 17:56.
Timeline
PCN observation time: 18:02:31 – 18:04
I was returning to my vehicle while carrying the big heavy bags when I saw the CEO standing next to my car.
I informed the CEO I was loading and showed him the bags but he ignored me a said he has already issued the PCN but to there was no PCN affixed to my car no did he have one ready to hand over. He was still taking pictures and was trying to start printing it
He stood by the passenger door, preventing me from loading until I asked him to move.
When I began opening the door, he moved in front of my car instead to prevent me from driving away.
At this point:
The PCN had not yet been printed or served.
The CEO stated he had “already issued the ticket,” but it was clearly not complete.
CEO Conduct
The situation escalated as follows:
The CEO stood in front of my vehicle, preventing me from leaving.
He was shouting and behaving in an aggressive and intimidating manner.
He began taking photos of me while I was in the driver’s seat.
I felt forced to reverse to avoid hitting him, as he blocked my path forward.
This created a dangerous situation, as my visibility was compromised while trying to manoeuvre safely. I felt panicked, intimidated, and fearful.
Postal PCN
A postal PCN dated 20/03/2026 was later received.
The council’s website shows only an image of my car driving away.
Grounds for Challenge (Please advise)
1. Loading Exemption
I was actively loading heavy, bulky goods.
The timing supports this:
Purchase: 17:56
Observation: 18:02–18:04
The activity was continuous and necessary.
2. Duration
I was parked only as long as necessary to collect and load the items.
3. PCN Service (Regulation 10)
The CEO had not completed or served the PCN when I returned.
The situation suggests I was not prevented from being served, but rather the CEO had not finished issuing it.
Does this invalidate the use of a postal PCN?
4. Mobility Issues
I have ongoing mobility problems and medical evidence (orthopaedic referral, physiotherapy).
This necessitated parking as close as possible.
5. CEO Behaviour
Aggressive, intimidating, and confrontational.
Obstructed me from loading and leaving.
Created a hazardous situation by standing in front of my vehicle.
6. Procedural Impropriety – Service Period
The PCN states that Medway Council allows “an additional 3 working days” for service.
However, legislation states service is deemed 2 working days after posting.
Is this discrepancy a procedural impropriety?
7. Discount Period Issue
On 6th April, the PCN showed £35 (discounted).
On 7th April, it showed £70.
This appears to be before the 14-day discount period expired.
Does this amount to unfair or unlawful enforcement?
8. Additional Grounds?
Are there any further arguments I may have missed?
Deadline Question
I calculate the 28-day deadline for appeal as 20 April 2026.
Is this correct?
Can the experts review and advise on the strength of this case—particularly around loading exemption and postal PCN validity and any other grounds that I may have missed or not aware of
—I would be very grateful.
4
News / Press Articles / Croydon Croydon LTNs ruled unlawful as High Court finds they were used to boost council finances
« on: March 06, 2026, 07:25:19 pm »
The High Court has quashed six permanent Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) schemes in Croydon after a judge ruled they were unlawfully introduced, with the court finding they were partly used to help address the borough’s severe financial difficulties.
Full article:
https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/croydon-ltns-ruled-unlawful-high-33539749
This is a very interesting development and could be a bit of a breather for local residents and drivers.
It may come as welcome news for people who were caught out by the restrictions, as well as for locals and commuters who relied on these roads to avoid the already very busy main routes.
It will be interesting to see whether other councils could face similar legal challenges.
I’ve also heard that it might be possible to claim back fines that were issued under these schemes, although I’m not sure how accurate that is. If anyone has more information on this, it would be good to hear.
Full article:
https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/croydon-ltns-ruled-unlawful-high-33539749
This is a very interesting development and could be a bit of a breather for local residents and drivers.
It may come as welcome news for people who were caught out by the restrictions, as well as for locals and commuters who relied on these roads to avoid the already very busy main routes.
It will be interesting to see whether other councils could face similar legal challenges.
I’ve also heard that it might be possible to claim back fines that were issued under these schemes, although I’m not sure how accurate that is. If anyone has more information on this, it would be good to hear.
5
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Croydon Council - Code 23 - Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that type of vehicle. Church Street
« on: January 25, 2026, 02:18:39 am »
@Incandescent
Thank You for this useful information about the discount being reoffered if the formal challenge is rejected after receiving the NTO.
Very wise Words indeed.
Appreciated
Thank You for this useful information about the discount being reoffered if the formal challenge is rejected after receiving the NTO.
Very wise Words indeed.
Appreciated
6
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Croydon Council - Code 23 - Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that type of vehicle. Church Street
« on: January 20, 2026, 11:34:14 pm »
@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.
@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.
7
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Croydon Council - Code 23 - Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that type of vehicle. Church Street
« on: January 05, 2026, 02:53:20 pm »@H C Anderson
@stamfordman
@cp8759
@Incandescent
@404BrainNotFound
Urgent advice needed
Please could I have some urgent advice.
The rejection letter states that I have until 5 January 2026 to pay the reduced amount of £80.
For background, please see my previous post:
Reply #17 on: December 18, 2025, 01:40:55 pm for full details and a copy of the rejection letter.
The council’s initial rejection is dated 17 December 2025.
I then sent a further challenge around 20 December 2025, raising the issue of the wrong location. I have not yet received any response to this additional challenge, which I assume may be due to the Christmas and New Year holiday period.
My questions are:
Are they likely to consider and respond to this additional challenge about the wrong location?
Are they under any obligation to place the PCN on hold while they review and respond to the additional challenge?
Will the discounted amount be reoffered, given that both my initial challenge and the additional challenge were submitted while the PCN was still at the discounted rate?
I am worried about losing the option to pay the discounted amount if they do not respond to my additional challenge before today.
I am therefore in a dilemma as to whether:
to pay the discounted amount, which expires today (5 January 2026) according to the rejection letter dated 17 December 2025, or
to wait and see if they respond to my additional challenge.
Also:
What are the realistic chances of success if this goes all the way to the tribunal?
Would I be able to get help from the expert forum members in drafting my tribunal representations if needed?
Many thanks in advance for your time and help.
8
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Croydon Council - Code 23 - Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that type of vehicle. Church Street
« on: December 22, 2025, 02:21:54 pm »
@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.
@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.
9
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Croydon Council - Code 23 - Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that type of vehicle. Church Street
« on: December 18, 2025, 01:40:55 pm »
Seeking advice: informal rejection and issues pictorial evidence provided by Council.
I need some advice regarding the informal rejection I received by email yesterday. The experts may identify issues with the rejection letter.
Link below to the original letter emailed yesterday.
https://ibb.co/jZjxRM5j
They have dismissed the issue of the missing suffice that it is for administrative purposes; ineffect denied that the PCN has insufficient information describing the contractrvention for the motorist to understand the contravention. The PCN
needs to identify, whether by wording or images, that the class of vehicle
for which the bay is designated is goods vehicles only.
Also, I noticed a few issues with the evidence attached to the letter:
* The title of the council's picture on Page 4 labelled “outside No35,” is showing Nos. 29 A & B ( The Lyca Shop) which is incorrect. I have attached the link to the council 's picture which is on page 4 of the rejection letter below.
https://ibb.co/FbBmw5W0
Current GSV showing Nos. 27 - 35 No.s Church Street including the two bays and the double yellow line separating the two bays.
https://ibb.co/nsHg6T1S
https://ibb.co/jP8LZvYw
https://ibb.co/7J895YM7
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.373493,-0.102113,209.18h,-27.39p,1.91z,vgv-lCaS5L74BhJqM5FtIw
See attached link
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.373442,-0.1024,94h,10.39p,2.7z,2w_QXUVANf3u6y4OQL9l5Q
Link below to the Files with all the pictures including the PCN and The Authorities evidence/ pictures.
https://ibb.co/7J895YM7
https://ibb.co/nsHg6T1S
https://ibb.co/jP8LZvYw
https://ibb.co/jZjxRM5j
https://ibb.co/FbBmw5W0
https://ibb.co/mFYSNpCF
https://ibb.co/CpSqrdGp
https://ibb.co/gCS2Hy9
https://ibb.co/sJDbxy0X
https://ibb.co/7N0t3Hzj
https://ibb.co/BKcK5nLZ
https://ibb.co/Q3sKGV9P
https://ibb.co/21ScSKDr
https://ibb.co/fVjh9sQS
https://ibb.co/84SgGDF1
https://ibb.co/214VRjKr
https://ibb.co/DgGZdHYy
Any advice or help would be appreciated.
Any advice on how to proceed?
Thanks in advance.
I need some advice regarding the informal rejection I received by email yesterday. The experts may identify issues with the rejection letter.
Link below to the original letter emailed yesterday.
https://ibb.co/jZjxRM5j
They have dismissed the issue of the missing suffice that it is for administrative purposes; ineffect denied that the PCN has insufficient information describing the contractrvention for the motorist to understand the contravention. The PCN
needs to identify, whether by wording or images, that the class of vehicle
for which the bay is designated is goods vehicles only.
Also, I noticed a few issues with the evidence attached to the letter:
* The title of the council's picture on Page 4 labelled “outside No35,” is showing Nos. 29 A & B ( The Lyca Shop) which is incorrect. I have attached the link to the council 's picture which is on page 4 of the rejection letter below.
https://ibb.co/FbBmw5W0
Current GSV showing Nos. 27 - 35 No.s Church Street including the two bays and the double yellow line separating the two bays.
https://ibb.co/nsHg6T1S
https://ibb.co/jP8LZvYw
https://ibb.co/7J895YM7
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.373493,-0.102113,209.18h,-27.39p,1.91z,vgv-lCaS5L74BhJqM5FtIw
See attached link
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.373442,-0.1024,94h,10.39p,2.7z,2w_QXUVANf3u6y4OQL9l5Q
Link below to the Files with all the pictures including the PCN and The Authorities evidence/ pictures.
https://ibb.co/7J895YM7
https://ibb.co/nsHg6T1S
https://ibb.co/jP8LZvYw
https://ibb.co/jZjxRM5j
https://ibb.co/FbBmw5W0
https://ibb.co/mFYSNpCF
https://ibb.co/CpSqrdGp
https://ibb.co/gCS2Hy9
https://ibb.co/sJDbxy0X
https://ibb.co/7N0t3Hzj
https://ibb.co/BKcK5nLZ
https://ibb.co/Q3sKGV9P
https://ibb.co/21ScSKDr
https://ibb.co/fVjh9sQS
https://ibb.co/84SgGDF1
https://ibb.co/214VRjKr
https://ibb.co/DgGZdHYy
Any advice or help would be appreciated.
Any advice on how to proceed?
Thanks in advance.
10
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Croydon Council - Code 23 - Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that type of vehicle. Church Street
« on: December 15, 2025, 06:32:16 pm »
#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
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
11
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Croydon Council - Code 23 - Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that type of vehicle. Church Street
« on: December 15, 2025, 06:16:30 pm »
#Roythebus
How did you go about applying for the blue badge?
Thanks
How did you go about applying for the blue badge?
Thanks
12
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Croydon Council - Code 23 - Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that type of vehicle. Church Street
« on: December 06, 2025, 04:13:27 pm »
@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?
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?
13
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Croydon Council - Code 23 - Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that type of vehicle. Church Street
« on: November 28, 2025, 09:26:19 pm »
@stamfordman.
Thanks for posting this case.
If you find any others please post them or PM them to me.
Appreciated
Thanks for posting this case.
If you find any others please post them or PM them to me.
Appreciated
14
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Croydon Council - Code 23 - Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that type of vehicle. Church Street
« on: November 28, 2025, 09:21:38 pm »
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?
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?
15
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Croydon Council - Code 23 - Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that type of vehicle. Church Street
« on: November 28, 2025, 03:11:39 pm »Please post-up all the documents you have; just posting fragments is no good at all. We don't even know where this is. Please help us to help you.
If you have mobility issues, why haven't you got a Blue Badge ?
I have uploaded another set of links. Sorry, I wasn't aware that the link didn't give access to all the images in the folder.
https://ibb.co/album/3yJ1NZ
I will reply later to your question of why I haven't applied for a blue badge.