Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hey all, it would be great to hear your thoughts.  I believe the 14-day discount period would end on 10th April and the 28 day period on the 24th April.
Thanks

Hi All,

The registered keeper of the vehicle initially received an email from the leasing company on 10 March advising that they had been notified of a parking charge. They confirmed they would contact the issuing authority on my behalf and request that the notice be reissued directly to me.

I have now received the PCN.


On the day in question, I had taken my two sons to a football tournament and had paid for parking from 10:06 to 14:50. Unfortunately, the tournament overran, and one of my sons sustained a minor injury which required my attention, resulting in a delay in returning to the vehicle.

I would appreciate any advice on how best to proceed.

A suggestion:

Appeal to adjudicator against rejection of representations - PCN *********

I refer to the above and specifically the Notice to Owner issued to me on ******.

When I received the NTO, I assumed, and therefore did not consider the alternative, that the council had a lawful basis for demanding from me the penalty to which the PCN itself referred. I therefore made representations on substantive grounds. Subsequently, I was informed by my lease company of their NTO and that they had sought to transfer liability to me as if they were a vehicle hire firm and the car was hired to me under a hiring agreement. The council accepted these grounds despite there not being proof that a hiring agreement existed and that the lessee was a vehicle hire company.

But as can be seen from the attached lease, which is summarised below, this is not the case:

Lessee: Select Car Leasing;
Form of agreement: Personal contract hire;
Term: 3 years commencing May 2024 and terminating May 2027;

I was not previously aware of the legal effect of the distinction between a lease and a hiring agreement in this context, although I can now see from the Chief Adjudicator's annual reports in 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 that I was not alone and that the matter has exercised him and the tribunal for some time:

Adjudicators have found that the legal difference between short-term hire and long
leases are not well understood by motorists and authorities.

Adjudicators have found that despite the restrictive statutory provisions which are
re-stated in case law, parties are still not grasping provisions. Adjudicators noted that
some authorities have allowed transfer even when the required evidence has not
that their representations have been accepted by some but not other authorities.


I therefore respectfully submit that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the council in seeking to treat me as being the person liable for the penalty charge and that given that there is precedent case law my appeal should succeed on these grounds.

But OP, pl let me know whether the PCH means that you never own the car which must be returned at the end of the term.

Many thanks for this! Yes, I would never own the car and it will be returned at the end of the term. Does that change anything or is what you've written still valid?

I've read up on the H C Andersen point and can draft something for you on this point which is objective and regulatory and therefore adjudicators have no discretion if the facts fit. But first pl give us details of your lease e.g. from whom, when it started and when it terminates etc.

Personal contract hire
Started May 2024
Expires May 2027
Select Car Leasing

Thanks

Couple of same adjudications from Redbridge not encouraging but they are both for the same school pedestrian zone by the same adjudicator.

Here's one.

-----------


Case reference 2250447038
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM FE65JUJ
 
PCN Details
PCN AF20525756
Contravention date 22 Jul 2025
Contravention time 15:14:00
Contravention location Cleveland Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
 
Referral date -
 
Decision Date 08 Jan 2026
Adjudicator Chez Cotton
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons Introduction
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (Code 53).
2. This a postal appeal.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is set out as, ‘My vehicle entered the temporary pedestrian zone on Cleveland Road at 15:14 on 22nd July 2025. The restriction applies during school hours on school days and the nearest school in that area is Cleveland Primary School which broke up for the summer holidays at 1:30 PM on the same day (as stated in their newsletter). Therefore, by 15:14, the school was closed, and the restriction was no longer in effect. Given that the contravention occurred outside of term time, I respectfully request that this penalty charge be cancelled.’
4. A copy of the relevant newsletter has been provided.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
5. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on footage to show the contravention occurred. A plan and photographs of the signage has been provided. The EA says this shows the restriction is signed and clear, and, further, enforceable under a valid Traffic Management Order (TMO), a copy of which is provided.
6. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations. The EA state, ‘Whilst the school closed early at 13:30 on 22 )uly 2025. The restriction under Code 53-J is based on published and legally enforceable time periods, not on the operational status of the school on any given day. The signage clearly indicates the restricted hours, and enforcement is valid during those times regardless of whether pupils are present. The contravention is based on failing to comply with a traffic sign, not the presence of children.’
7. The EA has provided a screenshot of the Redbridge Council website showing Summer Term dates are, ‘Tuesday 22 April 2025 to Tuesday 22 July 2025.’
8. The EA does not wish to exercise their discretion.
9. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.

Findings and Conclusion
10. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully.
11. Based on the footage provided, and additional evidential materials from the EA, I am satisfied the Appellant’s vehicle was in the relevant location, at the relevant time. I am satisfied that the signage complies with the relevant regulations and is adequately clear to inform a motorist. I am therefore satisfied that the contravention occurred and that it is enforceable by way of a valid Traffic Management Order, which I have seen.
12. I accept the EA evidence that the Summer Term is Tuesday 22 April to Tuesday 22 July 2025. I accept the school in the relevant location may have closed earlier on the 22 July 2025. However, I accept the EA evidence that this is a discrete ‘operational’ decision of the relevant school. On balance, I find this does not mean the stated term time has changed. It follows that I find, on balance, the restriction was in force at the relevant time.
13. The circumstances set out by the Appellant amount to mitigation, which no adjudicator is allowed to consider. This was confirmed in the case of Walmsley v TfL and others [2005] EWCA Civ 1540. It is an established principle that adjudicators in these cases do not have a discretion, nor can they direct an Enforcing Authority to exercise its discretion to consider mitigating circumstances.
14. For these reasons I find a contravention occurred and the PCN has been validly issued.
Decision
15. The appeal is refused.

Thanks - so not sounding good for me 

Hi All, thanks for your help thus far. Finally received the NTO. I believe the 28-day deadline would end 15 Jan 2026.  Please can you help. Here is my proposed challenge (which I used for the appeal previously - originally using links and not attachments, but now including attachments):

To Whom It May Concern
The driver believed the no stopping sign with specified times applied only
during term time. Their sons finished school early that day, see attached proof.  Based on the fact the term had ended, enforcement could not apply according to the order.
 
Although term time isn’t stated on the sign, it’s illogical to enforce such specific
Times year-round when school isn’t in session. Research revealed the Harrow
(Prohibition of Stopping Outside Schools) (Amendment No. 1) Traffic Order 1998,
which confirms the restriction applies during term time only (see attached).

The sign contradicts the order by implying year-round enforcement. Therefore,
The PCN should be cancelled.

If not, please provide the Traffic Management Order that supersedes the 1998 one
and explicitly authorises all-year restrictions, rather than relying on misleading
signage..

You didn't post a draft - you should have copied the school's term info and then said as the term had ended enforcement could not apply according to their order.

All you have is a template rejection.

You can write to them now spelling this out to try and head off the NTO or paying.

Sorry, I should of explained. I posted the school terms info with proof that it closed early that day.

Is it 'hired' or is it 'leased'?

Unfortunately, the issue is fundamental, not incidental, because, as already stated, should your informal reps be rejected and the matter progress to a NTO this would be sent to the hire/lease company and then you're in their hands.

So, let's get the best informal reps as we can compiled.

Actually, it's a lease.