Free Traffic Legal Advice

Good afternoon, I have created 5 separate appeals for Croydon Council and was wondering if you could cast your knowledgeable eye on these? Would you remove/add something else. Many thanks. Sorry for the long, repetitive post.



PCN 1:


PCN Number: CR24097859

Date of Contravention: 12 May 2026 at 08:20

Location: Springfield Road, Thornton Heath, by Northwood Road


 

I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice and respectfully request that it be cancelled for the reasons set out below.



Background and Context

On 12 May 2026, I was dropping my daughter off at St Cyprian's Greek Orthodox Primary Academy, Thornton Heath, where she was undertaking a formal week of work experience. This was a temporary, one-off arrangement and not a regular weekday journey. I am not a regular weekday driver in this area. For the past seven years I have driven to the same school exclusively on Saturdays, on which day there is no restriction in operation. I had no prior knowledge of the Healthy School Streets restriction.



Ground 1: Inadequate and Flawed Advance Signage: Northwood Road Approach



The advance warning sign alerting drivers to the Springfield Road restriction is critically flawed in its placement. As confirmed by Google Street View imagery of Northwood Road (April 2025), this sign is mounted exclusively on the right-hand side of the road. Under standard UK traffic management principles, regulatory signs should be positioned on the left-hand side so that they fall naturally within a driver’s forward line of sight. Placing this sign on the right is non-standard and means it sits entirely outside the sightline of a driver approaching the junction in normal traffic conditions. Furthermore, this right-hand sign is positioned directly alongside a TfL bus stop serving Route 450 towards Crystal Palace. If a bus is stopped at this stop during the morning school run restriction hours (as is entirely routine), the sign is completely physically obscured from oncoming traffic. As the driver of a Fiat 500, a low-slung vehicle, my eye level is further compressed, meaning my view of this already non-standard right-hand sign was blocked by the roadside infrastructure on the mornings in question. The sign at the entry to Springfield Road itself is also positioned on the right-hand side at the roundabout exit and faces directly towards oncoming traffic at an angle that makes it genuinely ambiguous as to whether it applies to Springfield Road or to Northwood Road continuing straight ahead. There is a further sign inside Springfield Road, which I did not see in time given the speed of travel through a roundabout junction. It is wholly unreasonable to penalise a driver on the basis of signage that is improperly positioned, liable to be obscured by routine bus operations, and ambiguous in its application.


 
Ground 2: Notification Delay


This PCN was not received until 19 May 2026. The issue is not the time taken for postal delivery but the absence of any contemporaneous notice at the time of the first contravention. Because no notification was issued at the point of the offence, I continued to use the same route on 13 and 14 May in complete ignorance that I had done anything wrong. The lack of contemporaneous notice created a financial trap: penalties accumulated silently while I remained entirely unaware. Had any notification been received after 12 May, the subsequent contraventions, including PCNs CR24101617, CR24109007 and CR24103678, would not have occurred. The journeys on 13 and 14 May, taking place entirely before the first notice was served, constitute a continuous contravention born out of initial ignorance rather than separate, deliberate breaches.



Ground 3: Disproportionality

I have received five Penalty Charge Notices in connection with what was a single temporary arrangement to support my daughter's formal work experience placement. The cumulative penalty of £400 (5 x £80) is wholly disproportionate to the nature of the infraction, which caused no harm, was not deliberate, and arose from a genuine and reasonable failure to identify ambiguous signage. The contraventions on 13 and 14 May constitute a continuous contravention arising from the same initial ignorance, not separate wilful breaches. I respectfully ask that the council take this into account.



I trust that the above representations will be considered carefully and look forward to your response.





PCN2



PCN Number: CR24098603

Date of Contravention: 12 May 2026 at 08:21

Location: Ingram Road, Thornton Heath, by Carolina Road




I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice and respectfully request that it be cancelled for the reasons set out below.



Background and Context

On 12 May 2026, I was dropping my daughter off at St Cyprian's Greek Orthodox Primary Academy, Thornton Heath, where she was undertaking a formal week of work experience. This was a temporary, one-off arrangement. I am not a regular weekday driver in this area and had no prior knowledge of the Healthy School Streets restriction.



Ground 1: This PCN Relates to the Same Continuous Journey as CR24097859

I must draw to the council's attention that this PCN was issued at 08:21:24 on 12 May 2026, precisely one minute after PCN CR24097859, which was issued at 08:20:32 on the same morning. Both contraventions arose from a single, uninterrupted journey: I entered Springfield Road, turned right onto Carolina Road, and turned right onto Ingram Road solely to avoid reversing on a narrow residential road. This was one continuous journey with one decision to enter the area, not two separate or deliberate decisions to breach a restriction. It would be wholly disproportionate to impose two full penalties for what was a single act of entry.



Ground 2: Signage on Carolina Road Obscured by Legally Parked Vehicles

The no-right-turn sign on Carolina Road is positioned on the left-hand side of the road at pavement level. On the morning in question, white vans were legally parked on the left-hand side of Carolina Road. As the driver of a Fiat 500, a low-slung vehicle, my sightline to this sign was entirely blocked by the parked vehicles. I was required to drive in the centre of the road to pass them, which placed me further from the sign and made it impossible to see. Google Street View imagery of this location corroborates that the sign is positioned in a spot where any standard-height vehicle parked legally alongside it would obstruct the view of a driver in a low vehicle.



Ground 3: Ingram Road Signs Not Visible Before the Turn

There is an advance warning sign on Carolina Road before the turn into Ingram Road. However, as set out in Ground 2 above, this sign was not visible to me on the morning in question because it was obscured by legally parked vans on the left-hand side of the road. I was driving in the centre of the road to pass those vehicles and had no sightline to the sign. Furthermore, the restriction signs on Ingram Road itself are positioned facing along the road and only become visible to a driver after the right turn from Carolina Road has already been completed. By the time those signs are visible, the contravention has already been recorded. In the absence of any visible advance warning, a driver cannot be reasonably expected to comply with a restriction they had no opportunity to see before the relevant decision point.



Ground 4: Notification Delay

This PCN was not received until 19 May 2026. The issue is not the time taken for postal delivery but the absence of any contemporaneous notice at the time of the first contravention. No notification was issued at the point of the offence, and so I continued to use the same route on 13 and 14 May in complete ignorance. The lack of contemporaneous notice created a financial trap: penalties accumulated silently while I remained unaware. Because all contraventions took place before the first notice was served, they constitute a continuous contravention born out of initial ignorance rather than separate, deliberate breaches.



Ground 5: Disproportionality

I have received five Penalty Charge Notices in total, with a cumulative penalty of £400, in connection with a single temporary arrangement to support my daughter's formal work experience. The contraventions across all five PCNs constitute a continuous contravention arising from the same initial ignorance of the restriction, not separate wilful acts. I respectfully submit that a cumulative penalty of £400 is wholly disproportionate in these circumstances.





PCN3:



PCN Number: CR24101617

Date of Contravention: 13 May 2026 at 08:18

Location: Springfield Road, Thornton Heath, by Northwood Road



I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice and respectfully request that it be cancelled for the reasons set out below.



Background and Context

On 13 May 2026, I was again dropping my daughter off at St Cyprian's Greek Orthodox Primary Academy for her formal work experience placement. I used the same route as on 12 May as I had not yet received any notification that my earlier journey had triggered a Penalty Charge Notice.



Ground 1: Notification Delay (Primary Ground)

The PCN relating to my journey on 12 May 2026 (CR24097859) was not received until 19 May 2026. The issue is not the time taken for postal delivery but the absence of any contemporaneous notice at the time of the first contravention. Because no notification was issued at the point of the offence, I continued to use the same route on 13 May in complete ignorance. The lack of contemporaneous notice created a financial trap: a further penalty accumulated silently while I remained entirely unaware I had done anything wrong. The contravention on 13 May, having taken place before the first notice was served, constitutes part of a continuous contravention born out of initial ignorance rather than a separate, deliberate breach. It would be unjust to impose a further full penalty in these circumstances.



Ground 2: Inadequate and Flawed Advance Signage: Northwood Road Approach

As set out in my representation against CR24097859, the advance warning sign on Northwood Road is mounted on the right-hand side of the road, contrary to standard UK traffic management principles which require regulatory signs to be positioned on the left. It is also positioned directly alongside a TfL bus stop (Route 450), meaning any bus stopped during the morning restriction hours would physically block the sign from oncoming traffic. As the driver of a Fiat 500, a low-slung vehicle, my sightline to this already non-standard sign was further compressed by the surrounding roadside infrastructure. I had not identified it as applying to Springfield Road on my first journey and had no reason to approach it differently on the second.



Ground 3: Disproportionality

This PCN is one of five I have received in connection with a single temporary arrangement to support my daughter's formal work experience. The contraventions across all five PCNs constitute a continuous contravention arising from the same initial ignorance of the restriction, not separate wilful acts. A cumulative penalty of £400 is wholly disproportionate, particularly where, as here, this specific contravention would not have occurred had contemporaneous notice been issued after the first.





PCN4



PCN Number: CR24109007

Date of Contravention: 14 May 2026 at 08:25

Location: Springfield Road, Thornton Heath, by Northwood Road



I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice and respectfully request that it be cancelled for the reasons set out below.



Background and Context

On 14 May 2026, I was dropping my daughter off at St Cyprian's Greek Orthodox Primary Academy for the final day of her formal work experience placement. I had still not received any notification of the earlier contraventions on 12 and 13 May.



Ground 1: Notification Delay (Primary Ground)

The first PCN (CR24097859, 12 May) was not received until 19 May 2026, five days after this contravention. Neither the 12 May nor the 13 May PCNs had been received by 14 May. The issue is not the time taken for postal delivery but the complete absence of contemporaneous notice at the point of the first offence. Had any notification been issued after 12 May, I would have become aware of the restriction and would not have used this route again. The lack of contemporaneous notice created a financial trap in which penalties continued to accumulate while I remained entirely unaware. The contraventions on 13 and 14 May, occurring entirely before the first notice was served, constitute a continuous contravention born out of initial ignorance rather than separate, deliberate breaches.



Ground 2: Inadequate and Flawed Advance Signage: Northwood Road Approach

As set out in my representations against CR24097859 and CR24101617, the advance warning sign on Northwood Road is mounted on the right-hand side of the road, contrary to standard UK traffic management principles which require regulatory signs to be positioned on the left. It is also positioned directly alongside a TfL bus stop (Route 450), meaning any bus stopped during the morning restriction hours would physically block the sign from oncoming traffic. As the driver of a Fiat 500, my sightline to this already non-standard sign was further compressed by the surrounding roadside infrastructure. I had not identified it as applying to Springfield Road on either of my two previous journeys.



Ground 3: Disproportionality

This PCN is one of five I have received, with a total cumulative penalty of £400, in connection with a single temporary arrangement to drop my daughter at school for one week of work experience. I had no intention to flout any restriction and was entirely unaware one existed. The contraventions across all five PCNs constitute a continuous contravention arising from the same initial ignorance, not separate wilful acts. I respectfully ask the council to consider the totality of the circumstances and exercise its discretion accordingly.





PCN5



PCN Number: CR24103678

Date of Contravention: 14 May 2026 at 08:25

Location: Ingram Road, Thornton Heath, by Carolina Road



I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice and respectfully request that it be cancelled for the reasons set out below.



Background and Context

On 14 May 2026, I was completing the school drop-off for the final day of my daughter's formal work experience placement at St Cyprian's Greek Orthodox Primary Academy. I had still not received any notification of the four earlier contraventions on 12 and 13 May.



Ground 1: This PCN Relates to the Same Continuous Journey as CR24109007

This PCN was issued at 08:25:57 on 14 May 2026, within moments of PCN CR24109007 issued at 08:25:57 on the same morning at Springfield Road. Both arose from a single uninterrupted drop-off journey: Springfield Road to Carolina Road to Ingram Road. This was one continuous journey with one decision to enter the area, not two separate contraventions. I respectfully submit it is disproportionate and unjust to impose two full penalties for a single act.



Ground 2: Signage on Carolina Road Obscured

As set out in my representation against CR24098603, the no-right-turn sign on Carolina Road is positioned at pavement level on the left-hand side. White vans were legally parked alongside it on the morning in question. As the driver of a Fiat 500, a low vehicle, my sightline to the sign was completely blocked. I was driving in the centre of the road to pass the parked vehicles and the sign was not visible to me.



Ground 3: Ingram Road Signs Not Visible Before the Turn

As set out in my representation against CR24098603, there is an advance warning sign on Carolina Road before the turn into Ingram Road. However, on the morning in question this sign was obscured by legally parked vans on the left-hand side of Carolina Road. As the driver of a Fiat 500, a low-slung vehicle, my sightline to the sign was completely blocked by those vehicles. I was driving in the centre of the road to pass them and the sign was not visible. Additionally, the restriction signs on Ingram Road itself only become visible once the right turn from Carolina Road has already been completed. In the absence of any visible advance warning, I had no opportunity to identify the restriction before the contravention was recorded.



Ground 4: Notification Delay

Not one of the four earlier PCNs had been received by 14 May. The issue is not the time taken for postal delivery but the complete absence of contemporaneous notice at the point of the first offence. Had any notification been issued after 12 May, I would not have used this route again. The lack of contemporaneous notice created a financial trap in which penalties continued to accumulate silently. All contraventions after 12 May, having taken place before the first notice was served, constitute a continuous contravention born out of initial ignorance rather than separate, deliberate breaches.



Ground 5: Disproportionality

This is the fifth and final PCN I have received in connection with one week of school drop-offs for a formal work experience placement. The cumulative penalty of £400 is entirely disproportionate to what was an honest mistake arising from genuinely inadequate and ambiguous signage, compounded by the complete absence of contemporaneous notice after the first contravention. All five contraventions constitute a continuous contravention arising from the same initial ignorance, not separate wilful acts. I respectfully ask the council to exercise its discretion and cancel this notice.

https://imgpile.com/p/6dHRA7i


Here the link to the images. the drawing is of from where I come and where I go and blue dots of the signs. My husband luckily only drove into Ingram Road directly and turned around there rather than me going around and getting 2 PCN for it.

Hello,

I received today 4 penalty charge notices from Croydon Council. Three in my name and one in my husband's. My daughter did 4 days of work experience at the school there and because of distance my husband and I dropped her off and picked her up.

I believe there will be more PCN's coming as they have "only" sent 4 tickets for two days.

PCN's dated 19/05/2026
 
1. 12/05/2026 08:20:32 Springfield Rod, Thornton Heath by Northwood Road, By Northwood Road (mine)
2. 12/05/2026 08:21:24 Ingram Rd, Thornton Heath by Carolina Road, Near Carolina Road (mine)

I entered Springfield Road, did two right turns, dropped my daughter off and left.

3. 13/05/2026 08:18:25 Springfield Rod, Thornton Heath by Northwood Road, By Northwood Road (mine)
4. 13/05/2026 15:33:53 Ingram Rd, Thornton Heath by Carolina Road, Near Carolina Road (husband)

Knowing that there are potentially a lot more tickets coming is really distressing. Potentially 4 tickets per day for 4 days.

On Carolina Road there is a sign saying that no right turns (Mon-Fri) 8:00 - 9:30am 2 - 4pm except authorised vehicles. However, most of the time this sign is obscured because lots of vans and large vehicles park on the right hand side and you have to drive in the middle of the road so can't see that sign. There is another sign once you turned into the road but by then I guess it is too late?

On entering Springfield Road you are at a roundabout but there is a sign pointing straight ahead and then one near you but on other side of road.

Would I have chance appealing these tickets, I mean this is almost extortion. Would I be able to claim continuous contravention or procedural unfairness or something? It seems totally disproportionate to the infraction?

Let me know if you want any further details. Would really hope for some advise on this.

Many thanks

Many thanks for this. I will submit this today.

Good evening. I have now received the "evidence" from Spring Parking. This included the Contract they have with the property management company. It also contains a

Case Summary

Actions Taken:
- The vehicle was observed parked at Mill Parc, Isleworth, London, TW7 6TH, without Clearly Displaying a Valid Permit.
On 5th March 2025 at 14:04
- As the vehicle was parked in breach of the parking terms and conditions, a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued.
- An email appeal was received from the driver.
- No proof that they were authorised to park was provided and the appeal was rejected. The account was held for 14 days at the reduced amount of £55.00, then at £95.00 for a further 14 days.
There is a contract in place at the above location.
There are multiple contractual agreement signs at the site the PCN was issued, 1 of which was near the vehicle.
Please find enclosed a copy of the signage that is located at the entrance to the car park and within.

____

It also includes the parking charge notice and then Registered Keeper's Details and Liability Trail It states that "The Registered Keeper's details were obtained from the DVLA under a reasonable cause request. Once the details were obtained, a reminder Notice to Keeper was issued by post." It shows underneath the name and address of the registered keeper. But they have not provided proof of postage or anything, nor a date when it was requested. 

I need to point out, that at no point did we receive a letter at this address from Spring Parking.

The evidence pack then includes the Original Representation and Rejection which also includes the information that no Registered Keeper details should be requested, since they were provided.

The evidence pack then continues with a number of images showing the Signs around this area and also an image of the parking permit and its features. It does not show any entrance sign. It also shows the signage around some parking bays. One could argue that a driver was under the impression that these signs are for the parking bays and not for on the road parking?

I now have 7 days to respond to the evidence and would appreciate your suggestions and feedback. Do let me know if you need any further info.

Hello, I have started on my POPLA appeal and was hoping for some feedback if this is sufficient, overkill or not enough. I haven't figured out how to copy the contents nicely into here, so have also attached the appeal as document.

POPLA Appeal

Appeal Reference: [xxxxxx]

Personal Details:
•   Name: 
•   Address: 
•   Email: 

Parking Charge Details:
•   Parking Charge Notice Number: [PCN NUMBER]
•   Vehicle Registration: [YOUR VEHICLE REGISTRATION]
•   Location: Mill Parc, White Lodge Close, Isleworth, London TW7 6TH
•   Date of Incident: 05/03/2025
•   Operator: Spring Parking

Grounds for Appeal:

I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Spring Parking on the following grounds:


1. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) Issued - Creditor Cannot Establish Keeper Liability

The creditor (Spring Parking) has not issued a Notice to Keeper and therefore has not satisfied the precedent condition at paragraph 6(1)(a) [and therefore paragraph 4(2)] of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, the assessor is obliged to uphold this appeal and direct the creditor that they do not have the "Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle."
The sequence of events clearly demonstrates this:
•   Notice to Driver issued on 05/03/2025
•   I engaged with the creditor's internal disputes resolution procedure on 31/03/2025
•   Creditor issued rejection on 03/04/2025 stating: "You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure"
Having expressly stated that I have reached the end of their internal appeals procedure without issuing a Notice to Keeper, they cannot now attempt to establish keeper liability, as this procedural sequence has closed.

2. The Notice to Driver (NtD) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

The NtD affixed to my vehicle does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in several critical ways:

a) No Period of Parking Stated (Breach of PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 7(2)(a)):
•   The NtD only records an "Observed Time" of 14:01 and "Time of Issue" of 14:04.
•   This 3-minute interval does not constitute a legitimate period of parking for establishing a contravention.
•   This brief period falls within the minimum consideration period required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) for a driver to seek out, read, and understand any terms and conditions before deciding whether to remain or leave.

b) Failure to Identify the Creditor (Breach of PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 7(2)(e)):
•   The NtD does not clearly state who the actual creditor is.
•   It is unclear whether Spring Parking is acting as the creditor or merely as an agent for the landowner.
•   Without this information, the notice fails to meet the statutory requirements of PoFA.

3. Inadequate Signage and No Valid Contract

There was insufficient signage at the entrance to the location to inform drivers they were entering private land with parking restrictions. Without clear entry signage, no valid contract could have been formed between the driver and the parking operator.

This location appeared to be a public road with no clear markings, lines, or signage indicating parking restrictions or that it was private property subject to a parking scheme.

4. Failure to Allow Reasonable Grace Period

The extremely short time between observation (14:01) and ticket issuance (14:04) - just 3 minutes - demonstrates that Spring Parking failed to allow a reasonable grace period for the driver to:
•   Locate any relevant signage
•   Read and understand any terms and conditions
•   Make an informed decision about whether to park

This practice contradicts the principles established in the British Parking Association (BPA) and International Parking Community (IPC) Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires operators to allow a reasonable consideration period.

5. The Ticket Was Issued on What Appeared to Be a Public Road
The vehicle was parked at a location that had all the characteristics of a public road, with no clear demarcation or signage indicating it was private land subject to parking restrictions. The driver had a reasonable belief they were parking legally on a public road.

6. Breach of Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)

There is no entrance sign at the location to indicate that drivers are entering controlled private land subject to contractual parking terms. This is a clear breach of the PPSCoP section 3.1.1 which requires operators to display an entrance sign that informs drivers that they are entering controlled land.

This location is not a designated car park but rather appears to be a residential street with no ground markings, making it entirely unclear that any restrictions apply. The alleged contravention is "not clearly displaying a valid permit," but without proper signage indicating this requirement, no contract could possibly have been formed.

Conclusion:

Given the multiple failures to comply with PoFA requirements, the failure to issue a Notice to Keeper, the inadequate signage, the breach of the PPSCoP, and the failure to allow a reasonable grace period, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the parking charge in its entirety.

Spring Parking has already expressly stated that I have "reached the end of [their] internal appeals procedure" without issuing a Notice to Keeper, and therefore they cannot now attempt to establish keeper liability under PoFA. This procedural failure alone is sufficient grounds for POPLA to uphold this appeal.

I confirm that the information provided in this appeal is true to the best of my knowledge.

Yours faithfully,
Name, Date

Supporting Evidence:
1.   Copy of the Parking Charge Notice (front and back)
2.   Copy of Spring Parking's appeal rejection email dated 3rd April 2025
3.   Photographs of the parking location showing lack of clear signage
4.   Google Maps screenshot of the location where the vehicle was parked



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thank you for your response. We have not received a notice to keeper.

I will have a look at other popla appeals in the meantime and put a reminder in my calendar.

Many thanks

Appeal went out today. Wish me luck.