Show Posts - r45

Job's a good'un!

Thanks, what about something like this?QuoteMerton Parking ServicesMerton Civic CentreLondon RoadMordenSM4 5DXRe: Informal Challenge to PCN MT02275729 – Vehicle GJ22 GYYDear Sir/Madam,I am writing to challenge the above PCN issued on 03/12/2025 for contravention code 24 ("Not Parked Correctly Within The Markings Of The Bay Or Space") at Raymond Road, Wimbledon SW19. I request the PCN be cancelled on the following grounds.1.   Procedural Impropriety: Inaccurate Contravention TimeThe PCN contains conflicting timestamps, rendering it defective:o   CEO photos: 17:58–17:59o   Printed PCN: 18:12.o   Merton Portal: Contravention at 18:46:13. I departed the bay at approximately 18:25–18:30 (after a library event with my 18-month-old child), so the vehicle was not present at 18:46. This error means the alleged contravention did not occur at the stated time, breaching the requirement for accurate details under the Traffic Management Act 2004, Schedule 1. The PCN should be cancelled due to this procedural flaw.2.   Valid Payment Made – No Underlying ContraventionI paid for 1 hour via RingGo app upon arrival (~17:30), covering the stay (receipt attached). The bay was compliant with payment rules; the minor positioning (slight forward pull to allow rear space for others) caused no obstruction (see CEO photos—no impact on adjacent white vehicle). This is a de minimis issue, not warranting enforcement.3.   Defective Service of PCNThe PCN was discovered on 07/12/2025 in a ruined, soggy state (photos attached), despite rain on 03/12 evening (Met Office forecast: heavy showers post-17:00). While not fully illegible, this delayed my challenge and questions proper service. I request discretion here, given the family circumstances (young child, dark conditions).In light of these errors and my compliance, I ask that the PCN be withdrawn. I am happy to provide further details.Yours sincerely,[name]

Yes, car is owned by me and logbook address is correct.I managed to unfold the PCN using a hairdryer and some tweezers, I feel like a curator in a museum handling delicate historical documents.It appears to show "Observed at 17:58" yet "Date of contravention: 03/12/2025 18:12", and then on the council website a different timestamp altogether (18:46:13). Based on my phone's GPS history I think I got back to the car around 18:27 or 18:28.Is it worth submitting a challenge now based on:a) the PCN being effectively unreadableb) the timestamps not matching upc) numberplate not being visible in the photos?

Yes that's what I thought, is there any requirement written down anywhere that they're meant to enclose it in protective plastic? I am 99% sure they can't have done in this case, as when I noticed it it was just a piece of wet paper stuck to the windscreen and there was no plastic to be seen.

Hi all,PCN MT02275729Vehicle GJ22 GYYLondon Borough of Merton (Raymond Road, SW19) - https://maps.app.goo.gl/jQ1tVZ8C7NTwB7YC9Wednesday 3 December 2025Had a bit of a strange situation, I was hoping for some input/guidance. Last Wednesday (3 Dec) I drove to the local library for a Christmas event with my 18-month-old. Parked in a nearby side-street at around 5.30pm, paid for an hour's parking on Ringgo. It was dark already by this point. We went to the event at the library then returned to the car at maybe 6.15-6.20pm and drove home.Thought nothing more of it until yesterday (7 Dec) when I went back out in the car noticed a soggy white thing on the windscreen. Went out to investigate and it was the ruined remnants of a PCN. Strange that I wouldn't have noticed it on the drive home (but it's possible as it would've been pitch-black and I was occupied with my young daughter), but also strange that I wouldn't have noticed it on any of the subsequent days until yesterday.Anyway as I say the slip is ruined (see picture) but I was able to make out the PCN number enough to look it up on the Merton website. Few questions:1. Are they not required to put the PCN inside one of those yellow plastic packet things to keep it dry? Doesn't seem like that was the case here, from what I can gather he's just put the piece of paper on the windscreen. If it was in a bright yellow packet I'd probably have noticed it sooner, and of course it wouldn't have been ruined by the rain2. I notice that none of the 4 photos uploaded by the CEO show the full numberplate of the car. Is this a grounds on which it may be cancelled?3. The Merton Portal shows Contravention Date/Time as 03/12/2025 18:46:13 which is wrong, I had returned to the car and left by around 6.15-6.20pm. Could this be a grounds on which it could be cancelled? The timestamps on the CEO photos show 5.58pm which sounds more correct.4. And then in terms of the actual alleged contravention itself, I must confess somewhat embarrassingly I wasn't even aware that it was an offence to park outside of the marked segregation lines. Normally I just pull up towards the car in front to minimise wasted space and maximise the chances of someone else being able to park in behind me, which is what I did in this case - pulled up close to the white car in front, which took me over the segregation line visible in the photos. Is this enough to merit a charge?

Any advice on how to proceed? The rejection is dated 24/10/25 so if I have 28 days that gives me until 21/11/25 so another 10 days or so

Thank you both. NOR is attached. I can confirm I submitted separate reps for each PCN

Thanks stamfordman. I did make separate reps for the two PCNs.Shall I start the appeal process at https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/online-appeals ?Should the form of the appeal be similar to what I submitted to Merton or is there some other line I should take. Thank you

Response received, rejected    Next step appeal to the parking adjudicator?QuoteNOTICE OF REJECTIONPenalty Charge Notice: MT01121049, MT01121435Environment and Traffic Adjudicator Verification Code: 76J514Contravention Date: 19/05/2025 at 09:11 Vehicle Registration: NYN724Location: MURRAY ROAD, WIMBLEDON (VOT)Thank you for writing to us.I have investigated the circumstances raised in your correspondence and have made thedecision to not cancel your notices. The reasons for my decision are set out below, alongwith the options available to you at this stage.The Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to you because your vehicle was seen parkedin a suspended parking bay/place or part of a suspended parking bay/place.Whilst it is noted that you state that no works took place and that the signage did not go upon that day shown, please note that regardless of whether works had taken place the baywas suspended and I have checked our records and your vehicle was not present when thesuspension signs were erected on the day shown on the suspension sign. Also as you hadparked after the suspension signs had went up both of these PCNs are valid as the driversmust observe the relevant signage that is in place prior to leaving their vehicle especially formultiple days, therefore both PCNs are valid and we are unable to cancel.Furthermore we also note that you have stated that the signs were not covered making thesuspension invalid, however please note that the suspension sign shows that the bay isbeing suspended. Therefore the suspension as well as the PCNs remain valid.You can view photographic evidence of this PCN online at: www.merton.gov.uk/pcn.You have these choices:• The full fine of £160.00 is now due. To date you have paid £0.00, the balance of£160.00 is outstanding. You can pay £160.00 within the period of 28 days beginningwith the date of service of this Notice of Rejection.• Appeal to the Parking Adjudicator using the enclosed form. The Adjudicator can ask oneside to pay costs if he or she believes, for example, that they have been vexatious,frivolous or wholly unreasonable. However, the Adjudicator rarely asks either side to paycosts. The Adjudicator is independent and both sides must accept the Adjudicator'sdecision. For more information about the Adjudicator please visitwww.londontribunals.gov.ukIf you do nothingIf you take none of the above actions in the timescale shown, we may send you a ChargeCertificate increasing the charge from £160.00 to £240.00. If you do not pay the increasedcharge before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the ChargeCertificate being served we may apply to the County Court to recover the money - plus courtcosts - from you

Submitted. I believe they have 56 days to respond so should hear something by 14/11. Will update in here when I do. Thanks again for all help so far

Understood, thank you. I will submit two slightly different variants thenWill update in here when I hear back!

Thanks, changed "should" to "must":"Even if the suspension is deemed valid, the second PCN (MT01121435) must be cancelled on the grounds of continuous contravention."And sorry I didn't understand your second point, is there a typo there? Or is my brain just slow this morning 

Hi all, does above seem OK? Have until end of next week to submit my challengesThank you!

How about this? I have incorporated suggestions based on above feedback from stamfordman and H C Andersen, namely:- inclusion of the fact that the positioning of the suspension signage is not in line with the guidance from the Traffic Signs Manual- included a couple of paragraphs at the start setting the scene in terms of dates etcDoes that seem good to submit? Thank you!QuoteTo:London Borough of MertonParking ServicesCivic CentreLondon RoadMorden, SM4 5DXDate: 12 September 2025Subject: Appeal Against Penalty Charge Notices MT01121049 and MT01121435Dear Sir/Madam,I am writing to formally appeal two Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued to my vehicle, registration NYN 724, on Murray Road, SW19. The details of the PCNs are as follows:•   PCN MT01121049: Issued on 19/05/2025 at 09:11 for contravention code 21 (Parked Wholly or Partly in a Suspended Bay or Space).•   PCN MT01121435: Issued on 20/05/2025 at 09:32 for the same contravention.I hold a resident’s permit for zone VOt and on 13/05/2025 I parked my car as can be seen in the authority's photos. At this time I did not see any signs advising of a forthcoming suspension. My car remained parked until 20/05/2025 (I was on holiday from 16/05/2025 until 19/05/2025) when I returned to my car and found the above 2 PCNs.I inspected the suspension signs which stated that my bay was suspended from 19/05/2025 to 23/05/2025 for utility works to be carried out by Thames Water. I discovered subsequently that no works took place at any time during these dates, neither were the bays used for any other associated purpose as can be seen in the CEO's photos of my car.I respectfully request that both PCNs be cancelled on the following grounds:1.   Invalidity of the Parking SuspensionThe parking suspension on Murray Road, SW19, from 19/05/2025 to 23/05/2025, was purportedly implemented to facilitate utility works by Thames Water. However, no such works took place during the entire suspension period. No Thames Water vehicles, engineers, or equipment were observed on Murray Road at any point during the five days. Furthermore, on 23/05/2025, I placed a call to the council to report the absence of any works. During this call, a demand was made for either the commencement of works or the removal of the suspension signage. Within two hours, council representatives removed the signage, which strongly suggests that no works were planned or executed, further indicating that the suspension was invalid. I kindly request that you provide evidence of any works carried out to substantiate the necessity of the suspension.2.   Uncertainty Regarding When the Suspension Signage was PlacedThe council claims that suspension signage was erected on 12/05/2025, prior to the vehicle being parked in the bay. However, no independent evidence has been provided to confirm this. Given the prominent nature of the suspension signage (e.g., bright yellow signs overhanging the parking bay), it seems unlikely that I would have overlooked such signage when parking. While I do not dispute the council’s assertion outright, the absence of verifiable evidence raises reasonable doubt about whether the signage was in place at the time the vehicle was parked.3.   Positioning of Suspension Signage Not Conforming to Traffic Signs Manual GuidanceThe Traffic Signs Manual advises that, when an entire bay is suspended – as is the case here, as it was a single-space bay I parked in – the suspension signage should cover up the parking sign. However this was not the case, as can be seen in the CEO’s photos. The suspension signage is attached to the pole, with the parking sign remaining visible further up the pole. This is in contravention of the guidance provided by the Traffic Signs Manual.4.   Continuous Contravention for PCN MT01121435Even if the suspension is deemed valid, the second PCN (MT01121435) should be cancelled on the grounds of continuous contravention. The vehicle remained stationary in the same location and was not moved between the issuance of the first PCN on 19/05/2025 and the second on 20/05/2025. As the vehicle’s position and circumstances remained unchanged, this constitutes a single continuous contravention. Issuing multiple PCNs for the same infraction is unfair and contrary to established parking enforcement principles.I acknowledge that the vehicle was parked in the bay during the stated suspension period. However, I was away on holiday from 16/05/2025 to 19/05/2025 and was unaware of the suspension until returning on 20/05/2025, when the PCNs were discovered. While this does not negate the initial contravention, it underscores the absence of intent and the mitigating circumstances surrounding the incident.In light of the above, I respectfully request that both PCNs be cancelled. Should you require further information or clarification, please contact me by response letter/email. I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this appeal and look forward to your response.Yours sincerely,[name]

Thank you, I will make a new draft based on the above suggestions and post it here in a day or two