Free Traffic Legal Advice

I would characterise it differently.  I did not read the sign quickly, I read it carefully and then double-checked that my car was not in the bay indicated.  And I clearly remember that there was only one yellow sign, because I am always careful to check that there are not two, after being caught out by that only a couple of months ago.  However, since the CEO's photo shows two signs, I am speculating as to why only one was visible when I parked.

Still, it clearly comes down to my word against theirs, and they have a photo.

My question for the experienced folk on this forum - do I have any hope of winning this argument?

Thank you!

Here is GSV of the bay in question (you can see the parking sign is on a lamppost in front of No. 53) and also the photo I took of my car when I found the parking ticket, to prove that it was not in the space in front of No. 53 (at this point I did not realise they had also suspended 50-52).

Hi there,

I recently got a PCN for parking in a residential bay that had been suspended for a domestic removal.  I did park in the suspended bay, but immediately after parking

I checked the signage on the nearest lamppost and there was no indication that bay was suspended.  In the evidence photos on Camden's PCN page is this photo of a sign that does indicate a suspension - you will see that it is the lower of two signs on the lamppost and I believe that the upper sign had fallen down and covered the lower sign so that it was not visible when I checked.

https://ibb.co/bRC141t0
https://ibb.co/bjkRzLhD

I contested the PCN via Camden's online tool, this is what I wrote:

"At 9am on the morning of November 25th, when I came back from school drop-off, I checked the parking suspension notice on the lamppost and there was just one notice, which said that parking was suspended in front of 53-56 Gayton Road.  There was, categorically, only one yellow notice showing on the lamppost.  I am always very careful to check if there is more than one notice, and if so to read both, as I was caught out by this only a few months ago.  That is why I am certain that, when I checked, there was only one notice showing.  My car was parked in front of No. 56, and so I moved it and parked in front of No. 52.  I got out and checked the nearest lamppost again for signage, to make sure that this bay was not suspended - the only suspension advertised was of the bays outside 53-56.  I returned to the car to make sure that the back of my car did not intrude into the space in front of No. 53.  Later in the day I was given a PCN.  Included among the images is a photograph of a lamppost on which there are two signs, one of which is not visible (I assume that is the one giving notice of the suspension in front of 53-56) and below it, a second notice stating that parking is suspended in front of 50-52.  This second notice was absolutely definitely not visible when I checked the lamppost.  If it was actually on the lamppost at all (and not attached later in the day) then I can only imagine that the first notice must have fallen down and completely covered it, so that there appeared to be only one notice.

If I have parked illegally and receive a ticket for that, I understand that I have to pay.  But I should not have to pay a fine for a bay suspension that was not properly advertised, especially when I actually moved my car from its previous parking spot in order to comply with the properly advertised suspension.  It is gutting to have done the right thing and to have been careful to check the signage and then to get a penalty for something that wasn't signposted. I can also see from the enforcement officer's photographs that there is another car with VRN "R8 SAX" parked in front of No. 51, so I was not the only person who checked the signs and did not see any notice of the suspension of the bays in front of 50-52.  I think this is evidence that the sign was missing.

Putting aside the fact that a total of 7 bays were suspended for a domestic removal, which seems quite unreasonable, if the suspension notice had been visible I would have moved my car to another bay.  I should not be penalised in these circumstances."

This is the response I just received from Camden:

“I understand that you are contesting the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), but I have decided to enforce the Notice. The Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) observed your vehicle parked in a bay suspended for a Domestic Removal. You have stated you checked the parking suspension notice at approximately 9am and saw only one notice, which indicated suspension for bays outside of numbers 53-56 Gayton Road. You also state that you then relocated the vehicle, and had not seen any signage when parked. However, I have referred to the CEO’s notes that record your vehicle was parked a reasonable distance from a time plate that had the suspension details stated on a large yellow sign. This bay was suspended from Tuesday 25 November 2025 to Tuesday 25 November 2025 between 12:00 to 20:00. Additionally, the advance warning signage for this suspension was in place on 18 November 2025 at 22:15, which provided sufficient notification of the suspension. In addition to on-street notifications, we have an online register for parking suspensions where you can search by street name or Controlled Parking Zone. You can also sign up for our free courtesy email alert service for impending suspensions at camden.gov.uk/email-alerts-and-subscriptions. Bays are suspended from time to time, and it is important to keep the area clear to allow the activity it is suspended for to take place. Any vehicles parked within suspended bays may cause an obstruction which can result in further suspensions. As the suspension information was clear and your vehicle was parked in a suspended space, I am enforcing this PCN. Drivers are required to consult the relevant signage and to seek alternative parking arrangements to ensure the vehicle is parked without contravening any parking restrictions.

Given the above I am satisfied a contravention occurred. I have reset the discount charge for 14 days from the date of this letter and will accept payment of £80.00 in settlement if received during that time. After this period the charge will revert to £160.00.”

This response asserts, based on the CEO’s notes, that my vehicle “was parked a reasonable distance from a time plate that had the suspension details stated on a large yellow sign.”  Whereas I am saying that when I parked I went to the exact place the CEO claims that sign was displayed and either it was not there or it was hidden beneath the other sign (which I read).

Obviously I had no idea the bay I had parked in was suspended, so I did not take photographs of the signage or check the internet to see whether a suspension was in force.  On the facts I think it’s clear I could not reasonably have known the bay was suspended.

I can now appeal to the London Tribunal, but if I do that and I lose then I will have to pay £160 (and I can barely afford to pay £80).  My question for the experts here please is what chance do I have of winning under these circumstances?

Thanks for your help!