Free Traffic Legal Advice

' PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE NUMBER: WE66329824
DATE OF CONTRAVENTION: 05 April 2026
TIME OF CONTRAVENTION: 11:37
VEHICLE REGISTRATION: EA58WLN
LOCATION OF CONTRAVENTION: Queen`s Gate [A4]
NATURE OF CONTRAVENTION:

12r - Parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without
a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or
voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required,
or without payment of the parking charge

Dear
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
The PCN was issued because you parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without a valid virtual permit
or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required, or
without payment of the parking charge.
I appreciate the evidence you have provided to verify that the location of the PCN is not the same as the location where you
had parked. Due to a procedural error, I am now able to cancel the PCN. I apologise for any inconvenience caused.
To find out why the Council needs to collect and store personal data, how this is used and your rights to access your
information please refer to our Privacy Policy (https://www.westminster.gov.uk/parking-services).
Yours sincerely

Jonathan Rowing
Head of Parking Operations '


Win!

Here is my draft:

PCN WE66329824 – Vehicle EA58WLN

Dear Sir or Madam,

I make this challenge to the above PCN for the following reason.

On returning to my vehicle on Sunday 5 April 2026, I found the PCN affixed to it. The PCN states that at 11:37am the vehicle was in contravention in Queen’s Gate.

However, as the Council’s own photographs clearly confirm, the vehicle was not located in Queen’s Gate at that time, but on Prince Consort Road (outside Albert Court), some distance away.

As the Council will be aware, an incorrect location renders the PCN invalid as the alleged contravention has not been properly particularised.

I therefore look forward to confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled.

Yours faithfully,


Do I need to add anything to try and prove the fact that its in the wrong location? (Such as map locations etc)
If all good I'll go ahead and challenge

Hi all,

Would really appreciate some advice on this one. I was having issues with replying on my other thread.

I’ve received a Westminster PCN (WE66329824) for vehicle EA58WLN (I’m the registered keeper). It’s for code 12r and was issued on Easter Sunday (5 April 2026). Location on the PCN is given as Queen’s Gate. It’s still at the discounted stage. https://appeals.westminster.gov.uk/pcnonline/index.php

Initially I thought this was just going to be a mitigation case. Before parking, I checked RBKC guidance which says resident bays aren’t enforced on bank holidays:
   •   https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/Residents%20parking%20map.pdf
   •   https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/parking/bank-holiday-parking

I later found Westminster’s page which confirms enforcement still applies there:
   •   https://www.westminster.gov.uk/parking/bank-holiday-parking

I now realise I was just over the boundary into Westminster, so I accept I may have been in contravention. The sign at the location was just “Resident permit holders only (Zone A)” with no days/times, which I understand likely means 24/7.

However, one thing that concerns me is the location stated on the PCN.

The PCN says Queen’s Gate, but I 100% parked on Prince Consort Road (exactly here Albert Court, 60 Prince Consort Rd, South Kensington, London SW7 2BE). These are different roads, not just different descriptions of the same location. In the photos you can see landmarks indicative of Prince Consort Road.

So I’m wondering:
   •   does this mean the location on the PCN is incorrect?
   •   if so, is that something that can invalidate it, or is it likely to be treated as “close enough”?

Separately, on mitigation:
I did make a genuine effort to check the rules beforehand and relied on nearby council guidance. From a driver’s perspective the road looks continuous and there’s no obvious indication that you’ve crossed into a different borough with different rules.

For context, I’m a medical student and was using the area to study for upcoming exams, so wasn’t trying to avoid paying — I had checked before parking.

So overall:
   •   is the location point worth pursuing, or a non-starter?
   •   or is this realistically just a mitigation case?

Happy to upload CEO photos or anything else if helpful.

Thanks 👍

Thanks for your reply!

I posted the ticket reference and gave the reg as I thought it would be easier than uploading the images.

https://appeals.westminster.gov.uk/pcnonline/index.php

Using that link above. Not sure how to attach images.

But to answer your question, yes the sign did say City of Westminster.

However - I did check Kensington Bourough map and cross referenced with google maps and I am on a border area.

The ticket indicates 'Queens Gate' - I parked here exactly (Albert Court, 60 Prince Consort Rd, South Kensington, London SW7 2BE) - which is Prince Consort Rd - which is not correct to what the ticket has indicated. I'll draft the  appeal and post below.

Edit: Do I have another angle of appeal here since they have given my parking location as an incorrect location as Queens Gate (A4) and not Prince Consort Road?

Any ideas at all? Worth doing anything?

The sign refers to column 27.

It's on column 23.

So where the f**k is this column 27?

Go to the right and you do not find any column in the parking place, you have to leave the parking place, go beyond a yellow line and then look further only to find that this is..column 21. B****r.

Oh well, retrace your steps and go to the left of column 23 and the only other column in the parking place is column 25.

Where and how would you find column 27? Traipse the streets? Remember, as a motorist you are safe ONLY as long as you remain in the parking place to read signs, make calls, use apps to pay etc. It's when you leave that you become vulnerable.

IMO, it's preposterous to expect a motorist to leave their car in potential contravention in order to search for a clue which isn't even on the parking place.

Of course we’re in agreement - but in your experience when these things go to a tribunal they’re successful?

If you decide to carry on then there's nothing to do procedurally until the NTO is served and the timetable for this is in their response.

I have attached the image of on street view outlining everything along with their response.

Arrow being where my vehicle is parked along with the parking spaces numbered and where lampost 27 is.

I would be inclined to take it to formal representation on the basis of signage being unclear as it is outside the parking area - but off the balance of probabilities - how likely would you think it would be successful - rather than pay the reduced fee now and be done with it? Just soley based off your experience.

Appreciate all your help so far.



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

IMO, carry on, but this would be for the full penalty at this (NTO) stage, although they could re-offer the discount.

They seem fixated by reliance upon a location(column 27) not even within the b****y parking place, let alone the suspended area.

Instructions must be correct, clear and not confuse.

But first of all:
Are you the registered keeper?
You must post the council's responses, not transpose them. See FAQs at the top of page 1 of this forum.

Yes I am the registered Keeper:

Ill attach a picture of the email they sent me now



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]