Free Traffic Legal Advice

APPEAL ALLOWED!!!!

Thank you so much everyone who chimed in and helped me on this.

I had this whole 5 minute presentation ready with all of my points.

The adjudicator asked me for my main point briefly, I mentioned it was that the signage was inadequate, far away etc. She got me to look at the picture with the rear view of my car and the white van in front, and asked me where in relation to that the signage was. I told her it was beyond the white van and behind the tree. She told me just based on that, the PCN shouldn't have been issued, and she will allow the appeal.

https://imgpile.com/p/DkO8sJ3#D3Xx48r

She did add that my argument that the car should have been relocated, would not have held up. I told her I won't argue with her since she has allowed the appeal.

The hearing is on the 3rd of March, that's 4 days away. I have not yet received any evidence in the post.

According to this link the tribunal sent me:

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/environment-and-traffic-adjudicators-your-microsoft-teams-appeal

"The Enforcement Authority should send you a copy of its evidence at least three days before the hearing."

Though in the practice direction it says:

"The Chief Adjudicator has directed that authorities must serve their evidence no later than five days before the first scheduled date of hearing of the appeal... The five days take into account weekends and Bank holidays."

If I don't receive it by Sunday, I'll say that this breaches the tribunal direction of receiving the evidence pack at least 3 or ?5 days before the hearing.

In another thread:

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-council-parking-ticket/45/

... Stamfordman listed a couple of allowed appeals (2250338371 and 2250295803) based on not receiving the evidence pack on time, they were from Redbridge though, mine is Tower Hamlets, can I still use these? If so, do I need to familiarise myself with the details of these appeals? If so, where do I access them?

I'd much appreciate any extra input/advice you can give me before my hearing date, which is the 3rd of March 2026.

H C Andersen, thanks, I'll check that post out.

stamfordman, I don't know, only thing I can think of, is that my availability time of 10am to 2pm Monday to Saturday, was a bit restrictive, so maybe that's the soonest date they had available to match those times.

H C Andersen, thank you for your prompt input, much appreciated.

Here's the tribunal application I submitted:

https://imgpile.com/p/n4H8c9y#4GkQZJH

Since the following picture shows 2 plates, I didn't mention about a single plate, but none of the pics still show 3 plates.

https://imgpile.com/p/OCQcns6

Here's the text I entered:

I appeal on three grounds: (1) The contravention did not occur; (2) The penalty/other charge paid to have the vehicle released exceeded the amount applicable; (3) Procedural impropriety.

1) Contravention did not occur – inadequate / unclear signage at my position.
This was a long residents’ bay (≈30 m). On the removal date there was a single suspension sign at the far end of the bay, ≈27 m from my space; there was no sign near my vehicle and the permanent bay plate above the suspension plate remained visible. I did not see any indication that the space I used was suspended. The authority says its suspension signs are three-sided and DfT-authorised, but its photographs do not show a compliant three-sided unit with side arms. That raises serious doubt that a compliant sign was actually displayed, which would explain why no suspension was apparent from where I parked. In a long bay, with no three-sided unit with side arms and an uncovered permanent plate do not adequately convey that my specific position is suspended.

2) Penalty/other charge exceeded the amount applicable – removal/storage not applicable if relocation should have been used.
The Notice of Rejection (NoR) asserts the suspension sign was erected 04/08/2025 at 11:25 and that my VRM was not on the “already present” list. However, the authority has not produced the suspension-**** log, the vehicle-presence/VRM list, or **** photos. Its own Removal & Relocation Policy for contravention 21 requires that any vehicle recorded as present when the notices were erected must be relocated to the nearest lawful bay (not taken to the pound). If, on proper disclosure, the records show my vehicle was already present, the removal/storage charges were not applicable and must be refunded. If the authority cannot prove its assertion, the same conclusion follows: it has not discharged the burden to justify removal charges.

3) Procedural impropriety.
(a) Failure to consider: my formal reps raised the number/positioning of signs over a 30 m bay, the uncovered permanent plate, and the relocation-only policy. The NoR replies with bare assertions (including the 04/08/25 11:25 claim and “vehicle not on list”) but no supporting records and no engagement with the adequacy of signing at my position.
(b) Failure to disclose key documents reasonably requested and central to its case: the suspension **** log (with times/locations/photos and extent diagram), any VRM list, CEO photos and notes, the removal job sheet, the Traffic Order/TTRO/works authorisation, any DfT authorisation relied on, and the policy/decision record explaining why removal (not relocation) was used. The authority’s refusal/failure to provide these constitutes procedural unfairness.

Remedy sought.
Allow the appeal, cancel the PCN and direct a refund of £415 (PCN £80 + removal £280 + storage £55). In the alternative, please issue a direction requiring the authority to produce the items listed above; if it cannot produce them, draw an adverse inference and allow the appeal.

I will upload: PCN (front/back), pound receipt (£415), photo showing the single sign at the far end of the bay, my correspondence requesting disclosure, and the NoR. I reserve the right to file a fuller submission once the authority serves its evidence.

Just got my Notice of Rejection today:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11WGNpFyDQVXrIG9n41JyuFHGDilXRA2p/view?usp=drive_link

Here's my original appeal:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hkMJsOgg4r4l6bHAYUzxdDevxd6omz2W/view?usp=sharing

Apparently the car was not there when they put the signs up:

"Our suspension record shows your vehicle was not in the bay prior to the suspension sign was put in place on 04/08/25 at 11:25."

Should I ask for evidence for this?

Do you think it's worth appealing this to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators?

Thanks.

I am the registered keeper.

Google Street View of the location:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/W2CkPEfSx3EAQ5yv6

On 03 June 2024, my car was photographed entering Mile End Leisure Centre at 10:53:04, and leaving at 11:17:14 on the same day, for a total stay of 24 minutes. Here is the PCN:





The very next day after receiving the PCN in the post, I wrote to Mile End Leisure Centre, asking if they would cancel the PCN, because the driver was there for a legitimate reason (attending their child's school event), and was not abusing the parking, especially because they have a Tower Hamlets resident parking permit, and could easily have parked on the road, and would have done so, had the signage at Mile End Leisure Centre been more clear.

Unfortunately, I missed the deadline to appeal to Gemini Parking, and now have received a debt collection letter:



I guess there's nothing to do now but to wait for the CCJ letter.

Here are some possible arguments:

1. The signage is too small, and the driver genuinely did not know that they had to pay for parking. The entry sign is too small, especially because people have to turn in from a 30 mph road. Once inside the parking area, there are few parking signs that are very small and won't necessarily be seen depending on where you park.

2. Notice to keeper received late

For ANPR cases, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) says the Notice to Keeper must be delivered to the keeper within 14 days. A notice issued on the 14th (a Saturday) would be deemed delivered two working days later (normally the 18th) – outside the 14-day window.

Just for piece of mind, do you think I have a chance at winning this if they take it to the CCJ stage?

Thanks in advance. Here are some pictures I took of the place:

https://imgur.com/a/LX7l8jl

Since I have no experience in these matters, I'm going to use H C Andersen's template and add in the part about possibly being parked there from before the signs were erected. I'll send it before midnight today.

The argument about the old sign not being covered seems to hold some weight. Though not compulsory, them having not covered it, adds some weight to my argument that the sign was far away and not visible. So if their records indicate that my car was NOT parked there at the time the suspension signage was erected, I could argue that their signage was inadequate (far away, too low, didn't cover original sign).

Here's what I'll be sending, stamfordman or anyone else, please let me know if I should change anything.

Dear Tower Hamlets Parking Services,

I make representations against the PCN and the removal and storage charges under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions regulations.

PCN: TT59832434
VRM: FT04 EDL
Contravention code: 21 (parked wholly or partly in a suspended bay or space)
Location: Blair Street (junction Abbott Road)
PCN time: 08:34 on 11/08/2025
Vehicle release: 13/08/2025
Sums paid: £80 PCN (discount), £280 removal, £55 storage (total £415) – pound receipt attached.

1.The penalty charge or other charge... circumstances of the case;
2.Contravention did not occur.

1. I hold a valid resident's permit and therefore the council, acting fairly and proportionately, should have sought to relocate my car in the area and not remove to a pound which increased my financial liability by over £200 i.e. more than doubling the penalty charge. I acknowledge that the sign states that vehicles in contravention may be removed, but removal is not synonymous with taking to a pound, removing to another place on a road being equally applicable.

Additionally, your published Vehicle Removals & Relocations Policy for contravention 21 states that any vehicle recorded as being in the suspended area when the suspension notices were erected must only be relocated to the nearest lawful bay. If your records show my car was present when the signs were erected, removal to the pound was contrary to policy and disproportionate; relocation should have been used.

If the authority reject these grounds then they must state in detail on what basis the council chose (on this occasion) or has chosen (as a matter of public policy) to remove my car to a pound and not simply to another place on a road.

2. As regards the contravention, I notice from the authority's photos that there is a single parking place approx. 30m in length, that there was a single suspension sign in the parking place, that this was attached to the same post as and well beneath the only traffic sign in the bay, this being at the end of the bay and therefore approx. 27m from my car, that the suspension applied to the complete bay; and that at all times during the period of suspension this traffic sign was left uncovered by the council.

This is wholly improper.

The Department for Transport’s Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) Ch.3 advises that where a bay is suspended a temporary sign to diagram 640.1 should be used to cover the parking place upright sign (Figure 13-88) so that the restriction is properly conveyed to motorists using the bay.

Whereas a motorist being parked at the end of the bay furthest from the sign, as I was, might not see the suspension sign because this could be obscured by the roofs of cars, they would be able to see the traffic sign, which is set at a prescribed height for this purpose. Any resident permit holder parking and seeing this sign would not have any reason to look further whereas, if it had been covered - as it should have been because it served no purpose during the suspension- then it would have been incumbent upon a motorist to discover why and thereby see the suspension sign.

If the authority reject these grounds they must explain why, as a matter of policy, this sign was not covered.

Remedy sought

Please cancel the PCN and refund in full the removal and storage charges (£280 + £55) and the PCN sum I had to pay to recover the vehicle (£80), totalling £415.

Evidence enclosed

• PCN (front/back).
• Pound receipt showing £415 paid.
• Photo of the sole suspension sign at the far end of the bay.
• Neighbour’s photo showing my car parked at the opposite end of the bay on the morning of removal.

Disclosure requested

If you do not accept these representations, please supply with your Notice of Rejection:

• The suspension **** log for the Blair Street suspension covering my space, including date/time each sign was erected/checked/removed, installer details, photos, and the extent/diagram of the suspended length.
• Any vehicle-presence/VRM list made when the signs were erected (you may redact third-party VRMs). Please state explicitly whether VRM FT04 EDL appears and, if no list was produced, explain why given your relocation policy.
• All CEO photos showing the sign and my vehicle in context (not just close-ups), CEO notes, and the removal job sheet (PCN issue time, lift start/finish, pound arrival).
• The DfT authorisation for the precise suspension sign used (or confirmation it is the prescribed diagram 640.1 sign) and the Traffic Order/TTRO covering this suspension.
• The Council’s removal/relocation policy and assessment showing why relocation was not used.
• Assessment showing why the temporary suspension sign did not cover the permanent bay sign

Yours faithfully,

The point about the sign only makes sense if you were checking the car otherwise it seems you just parked before the suspension sign went up and then didn't check. 

And I'm not sure what Mr Andersen is on about as we've never seen the parking signs in suspended parking places under code 21 obscured on the day(s) of suspension.

I did a Google image search, and it seems a lot of yellow suspension signs are placed beneath the original permanent parking sign, without covering the original. I guess they place the suspension sign low so people can read the small print.

But why then does The Traffic Signs Manual (Ch.3) say, "Where a parking bay is suspended, a temporary sign to diagram 640.1 (S13‑6‑22, see Figure 13-88) should be used to cover the parking place upright sign."?

I asked ChatGPT about this:

By searching for suspended parking bay signs on Google Images, I can see that a lot of suspension signs don't cover the original permanent parking sign. Do they really have to cover the original sign with the suspension sign?

ChatGPT said:

Short answer: they don’t have to cover it, but they should.

The Department for Transport’s Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) Chapter 3 says that when a bay is suspended, a temporary sign to diagram 640.1 should be used to cover the parking place upright sign—the idea is to avoid two conflicting messages on the same post. “Should” here is guidance (not an absolute legal “must”), but councils are expected to have regard to it.
GOV.UK

Adjudicators look at adequacy and clarity overall. If both the permanent and temporary plates are visible, it isn’t automatically invalid—but it can support an argument that the restriction wasn’t clearly conveyed (especially coupled with distance/positioning issues). The Campbell v Camden key case is often cited on the need for a compliant, clear suspension sign.

Separately, most London boroughs (including Tower Hamlets) have DfT authorisations for their suspension signs. Those authorisations govern the design/wording; they don’t always dictate covering, which is why you’ll see many signs placed below the permanent plate in practice.
dft.gov.uk

How to use this in your appeal

Frame it as part of your “signage not adequately conveyed” ground, not as a technical knockout:

Point out the permanent plate remained visible above the temporary suspension plate, which is contrary to TSM guidance to cover the upright sign, creating mixed messaging at that location.

Combine this with your single distant sign over ~30 m argument to show that, taken together, the signage was insufficiently prominent and potentially confusing where you parked. Back it up by asking the council to disclose their **** photos and the extent diagram for the suspension.

Bottom line: covering the permanent sign is best practice (per TSM) but not a strict legal requirement. Your strongest position is to argue overall inadequacy/ambiguity—and the uncovered permanent sign is one of several points that support that.

When and how did you find out the car was impounded.

On the night of 12/08/2025, I went out looking for it and couldn't find it. I called the TRACE service, and they told me it was at Tower Hamlets Car Pound, so I went and collected it the next morning.