Free Traffic Legal Advice

I parked in Harben Parade NW3 at 1207 on Thursday 8/1/26 to deliver one pair of glasses and collect one other pair from Vision Express.

I assumed it was OK to park briefly because the red route sign said loading was permitted between 7am-4pm. I am now being asked for evidence which I don't have.

I might be able to get Vison Express to provide confirmation that I was delivering and collecting.

Here's the link to the images of the correspondence: https://we.tl/t-WGzWHMpVzA

Thank you in advance for your help!

Robin

27th November 2025
Case Reference: 2250397756
ROBIN CATTO
-v-
London Borough of Brent (the Enforcement Authority)



ROBIN CATTO appealed against liability for the payment of the Penalty Charge in respect of:
Vehicle Registration Number KX04BOC
Penalty Charge Notice BT24620378
Full PCN Amount £ 130.00
Contravention Date 28th February 2025
Contravention Time 07:17
Contravention Location Riffel Road
Contravention Parked in a suspended bay/space or part of bay/space


Adjudicator's Decision

The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has allowed the appeal.

The adjudicator directs London Borough of Brent to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.


Adjudicator's Reasons

An online hearing with Mr Catto took place today.

The issue in this case is the adequacy of the signing of the suspension.

The civil enforcement officer's photographs show the appellant's car parked at the end of a bay with the back of the car adjacent to a yellow line. The photographs show a suspension sign on a post a short distance in front of the appellant's car. The sign states that on Friday 28th February 2025 the parking bays outside 8-12 Riffel Road were suspended for the purposes of a domestic removal.

The appellant states that when he parked his car on the evening of 27th February he looked at the nearest sign to where the car was parked. The appellant has provided a photograph of a sign for the permit bay which is on a post to the right of the bay adjacent to the single yellow line. I am satisfied that this sign relates to the bay in which the appellant's car was parked as it clearly does not relate to the single yellow line. I do not accept the council's argument that the sign that states permit holders only does not relate to a parking bay. Further this was the post nearest to the appellant's car. Although there was a suspension sign on one of the posts for the bay in which Mr Catto parked his car there was no sign on the post nearest to the appellant's car. I find that the suspension was inadequately signed.

I allow this appeal.

At the appeal for the first time the appellant also argued that the Notice of Rejection had been issued
out of time. I make no finding on that point as I allow the appeal on the substantive issue.

Teresa Brennan
Adjudicator
26th November 2025
2250397756
BT24620378

Am I in a position to request some sort of financial compensation for all the time I've wasted on this when we win?

Thank you both again from the bottom of my heart for being so incredibly helpful!

Thanks!

That sounds easy.

1 Do I wait for the tribunal or bring this up in advance?

2 Is there some official reference to this timing issue so that I can cite this if I'm challenged about it?

Thank you!

Thank you!

I have forwarded the email.

I can't seem to attach anything to this thread any more, so I have also sent you via email the relevant picture which has been sent to the tribunal with my appeal.

Astonishingly Brent are sticking to their guns.

This morning I received an email with a document attached, but I can't seem to figure out how to attach it here, so this is a paste of the important bit:

On 28/02/2025 at 07:17 hours, the vehicle with registration mark XXX was seen
in Riffel Road, outside Nos 8, use of which was suspended. Parking at the location on
Riffel Road was suspended between 28/02/2025 and 28/02/2025. The Brent (Parking
Places) (Zone MW) (No. 1) Order 2019.

The contemporaneous notes of the civil enforcement officer (CEO) that issued the
PCN state: parking suspension lo loading from Friday 28 February at any time Riffel
Road outside Nos. 8-12, reason domestic removal reference number BS/04025; all
windows of the vehicle were checked; no driver seen; no note seen; no
loading/unloading activity seen; no disability persons badge seen; no permit seen;
PCN attached to the vehicle and photographs taken.

The CEO concluded that the vehicle was parked in contravention of the parking
regulations and the completed PCN was issued on 28/02/2025 at 07:17 hours
accordingly and affixed to the vehicle.

From the details recorded, the council was able to contact the D.V.L.A. and ascertain
the registered owner/keeper of the vehicle. In this case, Mr Robin Leigh Catto was the
D.V.L.A registered owner/keeper of the vehicle at the time of the contravention and is
held liable for this PCN.

The Appellant Mr Robin Leigh Catto has appealed on the notice of appeal to the
Adjudicator on the ground: There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the
Enforcement Authority.

To summarise, the appellant has stated in the notice of appeal to the Adjudicator the
following information: the appellant states that the prohibited zone is outside houses
numbers 8- 12. Although the pictures supplied by Brent do not show the signpost I
checked, which is outside number 8 nearest to where my car was parked, my picture
clearly shows that this signpost has no yellow sign attached advising of any parking
restriction. Since I always check the signpost nearest to where I park, and this signpost
had no yellow sign attached advising of any parking restriction, I saw no reason that I
shouldn’t park there on the evening of 27/2/25. Therefore, this PCN should be
cancelled because the signage is evidently insufficient. It is unreasonable to expect
residents to look further than the nearest sign. In Brent's notice of rejection, dated
29/7/25, they state that "We have noted your comments that you followed to (sic) sign
to the rear of your vehicle. However, this does not provide a defence or exemption as
the signage is not within the confines of the bay in question." In my opinion this is
wholly unreasonable (and bordering on frivolous/vexatious) because if that sign
doesn't apply to the bay in question then (a) why is it there? (b) which bay does it apply
to? (c) it is very misleading. It is fairly obvious that the council attached the sign to that
lamppost because it is right next to the bay it applies to, and the council decided it was
unnecessary to add another post.

In response to the notice of appeal received: the parking spaces located outside Nos.
8-12 were suspended on 28/02/2025. Sign of the suspension was affixed to the
nearest post, located at the same location. The nearest suspension sign was
positioned in front of the appellants vehicle at the time of the contravention. Please
refer to evidence form C for the photographs of the contravention. For the Learned
Adjudicator’s perusal, please find enclosed the suspension record sheet (please see
evidence J). The suspension sign was placed as close to the road as possible to allow
it to be viewed more easily by motorists, and although the appellant states there was
a post close to where he had parked, this post was against the garden wall of a
property and not in full view for motorists to see the signage.

If there is a whole or part suspension of a parking bay the suspension notice would be
positioned on the nearest/appropriate street furniture. Motorists should check the
adjacent signs on the left and right of where the vehicle is parked to ensure that there
is not a part suspension of a parking place. In this instance as per the first photograph
taken by the CEO clearly shows the signage in front of the appellants vehicle.

Parking bays may be suspended for a range of different reasons. Suspensions are not
arranged to allow vehicles to park, but to allow essential access for activities such as
domestic or commercial moves, special events, highway repairs, utility company works
(gas, electricity, water, telephone), building work, tree pruning or cutting or
loading/unloading of heavy equipment etc.

The Council always endeavours to erect suspension signs 1 week prior to the start of
the suspension if possible. In this particular case, the suspension sign was erected on
26/02/2025, to give residents due notice of when the suspension will be enforced.
The suspension sign is of yellow colour and highly visible. In this particular case, the
suspension sign was located behind in front of the appellants vehicle. The sign
displays nationally recognised sign for ‘No Waiting’ and the date and time of the
suspension. Resident permits holders are not allowed to park in suspended bays. The
Council is satisfied that the suspension sign at the location was adequate. Every
motorist is expected to check the relevant signage every day for possible suspensions
and act accordingly. Motorists are required to park legally at all times.

I have enclosed a copy of the Traffic Management Order in respect of the location of
the contravention. Article 12 of the Order refers to the ‘power to suspend the use of a
parking place.’

The Council is satisfied that the contravention did occur and that an exemption does
not apply in this case. The Council is also satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued
and legally served. The Council has decided not to accept the mitigation put forward
in this case.

In conclusion, Brent Council wishes to contest the Appeal. No payment has been
received in respect of the PCN and the amount of £130 is outstanding.