Free Traffic Legal Advice

Evidence J pl.

It’s 6 posts up - the case I posted decided by Adjudicator Burke.

Islington contacted me yestreday afternoon with their evidence pack submitted to the Tribunal. It's 129 pages long, so I've only skimmed through it to be honest. I can provide it to you if you would like to see it.

With that said, there are two key things in it.

They have provided photographs dated 03/06/2026 of entry signs showing the next match days being on Friday 6th and Saturday 7th June. Key points, they entry signs are only on Laycock street, one at the junction of Upper Street, and another at Liverpool Road. Again, I can't remember where I entered from, but this means if I approached Highbury Station Road from the North, they haven't provided evidence of Entry signs from that direction?

The other key thing is a recent adjudication they attached at the very end. It's quite worrying as the circumstances are near identical to mine.

What do you make of it?

XXXXXXXX

-v-
London Borough of Islington

(the Enforcement Authority)

XXXXXXXX appealed against liability for the payment of the Penalty Charge in respect of:
Vehicle Registration Number OU18MKA
Penalty Charge Notice IZ35663089
Full PCN Amount £ 160.00
Contravention Date 7th June 2025
Contravention Time 14:10
Contravention Location Sheringham Road
Contravention Parked in a resident/shared use place

without a valid permit
Adjudicator's Decision

The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has determined that the appeal
against liability for the charge should be refused.
The reasons for the adjudicator's decision are enclosed.
The full penalty charge must be paid within 28 days to:
London Borough of Islington
Islington Parking Services
PO Box 2019
PERSHORE
WR10 9BN
If you do not pay the Enforcement Authority can issue a Charge certificate increasing the full penalty charge by
a further 50%.

An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic penalty appeals
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils

Calls to London Tribunals will be recorded for training and quality purposes

Adjudicator's Reasons
The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked at 2.10pm on Saturday 07.06.25 in a residents or
shared-use parking place or zone without either clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display
ticket issued for that place, or without payment of the parking charge. The Appellant does not in fact dispute
this but he argues the signage implies extra restrictions only when football matches take place whereas on this
occasion the event at the Emirates Stadium was a pop concert. He contrasts this with the expression 'event
days' as used by other Enforcement Authorities and has provided photographs of such signage. He says that he
knew it was outside the football season and had no reason to believe the extra restrictions applied. He has also
stated that he had a valid resident's permit. in his most recent correspondence he refers to a conversation
regarding the renewal of his permit with a representative of the Enforcement Authority but he mentions the
morning on which he received a PCN and it may be this correspondence relates to a different PCN.
The Enforcement Authority's case is that the vehicle was parked in a shared-use bay in a controlled parking
zone in which the standard restrictions apply Monday-Saturday with the Saturday restrictions being 8.30am to
1.30pm but where there are extra restrictions on match days at Emirates Stadium. When a match day falls on a
Saturday the extra restrictions are 1.30pm-4pm. The next match day is not signed in individual bays but on
controlled parking zone entry point signage. The Enforcement Authority have provided evidence that
controlled parking zone signage was in place to indicate that 07.06.25 was a match day. I am satisfied the
signage of restrictions was substantially compliant, clear and adequate.
The Traffic Management Order includes the following definition:
"match day" where referred to in the map schedule legend in relation to the permitted hours, prescribed
hours, restricted hours or no stopping hours, as the case may be, of a parking place or loading place, or of a
length of waiting, loading or stopping restrictions, means a day on which an event is taking place or which is
planned to take place at the Arsenal FC Emirates Stadium, Hornsey Road, London N7 which: (a) under normal
circumstances, would have an expected attendance of 10,000 persons or more, not including any staff or
contractors engaged in either the operation or management of the aforementioned stadium or event; or (b) is
any other event at that stadium that the Council deem should be treated as though it were an event specified
in sub-paragraph (i) above for the purposes of the application of the provisions of this Order;
I am satisfied that 07.06.25 was a 'match day'. I am not satisfied the Appellant has established a reasonable
belief that the extra restrictions apply only to football match days.
The Appellant has not provided evidence of a permit which would have entitled him to park this vehicle at this
location at this time. He has not established anything which goes beyond mitigation. The Enforcement
Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion. An Adjudicator has no power to direct cancellation
on the basis of mitigating circumstances.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was
properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.

Michael Burke
Adjudicator
14th February 2026
2250538031
IZ35663089

It appears I've been given a date for May 2026 over video call.

Appears or have been given?

We have a long wait to receive their evidence to the Tribunal i.e. 7 days prior to 'a date in May'.

Didn't get an email update about it, but that's what it says when I logged in to their portal to see if I could edit what I had submitted.

I submitted a hastily written appeal last night before midnight to get one in before the deadline covering all the points on here, including the bit about my contention on there being no signage about the event in the CPZ boundaries. With that said, am I still able to edit what I submitted?

Apologies for being flip-floppy, but what you have all brought up recently is actually quite a bit more compelling than what was discussed before. One of my issues around this PCN being issued, while not the main issue, was the fact that there was no photographic evidence included in the PCN which detailed the specific event. I wasn't aware until now that the council is obliged to have signage regarding the event on the CPZ boundaries.

It wouldn't exactly be hard for a council to take photograhps of these signs when they send people out to update them to be included in the evidence bundle of any PCNs being issued in relation to that event, so the fact that I am contending that there was no such signage, and the council is unable to provide evidence to the contrary - does this not mean my appeal should be allowed based on the case referenced by Stamfordman?

Also, I would appreciate everyone's opinion on the councils contention that they are not obliged to change the signage in the borough to reflect the various different events that may be taking place as all the signage in the borough is compliant with the Department of Transport's traffic signs regulations and general directions.

I find this to be a bit of a bullshit argument because to me, they are suggesting that the TSRGD says it is ok to use the term 'Match Day' to cover events. If my interpretation is correct, the TSRGD does no such thing. The only time the word 'Match' is mentioned in the TSRGD is to say the following;

5. The expressions “Match”, “match”, “Event”, “event”, “Market”, “market”, “Day”, “day”,
“On”, “on”, any of those expressions in the plural or the expression “Next” or that expression
without a capital letter may be used with any of the expressions permitted by paragraph 1, 2, 3 or
4 as appropriate.

All this is doing is setting out to the local authority what terms are acceptable to use on their signage. It is not stating that any one of the terms are interchangable with all of the others. If we were to accept Islington's interpretation of the TSRGD, they could place the term 'Market Day' on their signs next to local stadiums and use them to enforce parking restrictions during football matches, or put 'Match Day' on signs on roads next to Market Places.

The signage would be compliant with a literal interpretation of what is acceptable as set out by the TSRGD - but this surely wouldn't make any sense? Surely the Local Authority is expected to pick out which of the acceptable terms is most appropriate for what the signs are enforcing?

I'd appreciate the thoughts of anyone who is willing to offer an opinion, as what has been contributed recently makes it seem like this may actually be worth following through.

You had an NTO did you not and then a rejection letter? Did you try and pay within the time they said?

Essentially yes. The rejection letter offered me the discounted rate of £55, but on their website it wants £110.

I submitted their contact form within the time frame, but no response yet.

I guess I'll just mention this is why my appeal was submitted late if Islington try to backtrack on their discount offer.

Thanks for your responses.

My position is that unless someone here can tell me that this is definitely worth pursuing as I'd very likely win on appeal, then I'd much rather just pay the £55 now so I can move on and forget about this. My heart just isn't in it anymore.

IMO, there's a defect in the NOR in that it does not inform you correctly of your rights of appeal. These are:
1. That an appeal may be made within the period of 28 days beginning on the date of service. In this case, 'may be made' takes on a legal meaning which is that reps so made and if in correct form MUST be registered by the tribunal AND such registration prevents the council from increasing the penalty and serving a Charge Certificate; and

2. That an appeal may be submitted to the adjudicator after the 28-day period has elapsed who may at their sole discretion register such an appeal with the effect that if the council have not served a CC they may not then do so and if they have then this must be cancelled.

2 is missing.

IMO, 2 is as important as 1 because there can be a whole host of valid reasons why an appeal is not submitted within 28 days e.g. NOR not delivered, recipient not able to deal with matter for reasons beyond their control such as illness, hospital confinement and possibly extended holidays abroad. Add to this the fact that as a matter of regular practice the Tribunal will accept appeals submitted after the end of the 28-day period. Whatever the reason which might apply, it does not lie with the authority to omit bringing this to the attention of the recipient as the law requires.
[/i]

These bits were provided, I just didn't include them as I assumed it's pretty similar to all the other ones they send out.