Free Traffic Legal Advice

Merton Parking Services
Merton Civic Centre
London Road
Morden
SM4 5DX

Re: Informal Challenge to PCN MT02275729 – Vehicle GJ22 GYY

Dear 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 Time
The PCN contains conflicting timestamps, rendering it defective:
o   CEO photos: 17:58–17:59
o   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 Contravention
I 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 PCN
The 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In light of these errors and my compliance, I ask that the PCN be withdrawn.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]

To:
London Borough of Merton
Parking Services
Civic Centre
London Road
Morden, SM4 5DX

Date: 12 September 2025

Subject: Appeal Against Penalty Charge Notices MT01121049 and MT01121435

Dear 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 Suspension
The 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 Placed
The 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 Guidance
The 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 MT01121435
Even 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]