Free Traffic Legal Advice

yep i agree , i assumed i was allowed to check the sign , But the council disagree and are  Saying 02 contraventions allow 0 seconds grace .  and no grounds to drop the ticket .


they have sent a second letter also which i attach

https://postimg.cc/gallery/WtN2c1D


Lets see how fair the tribunal people are , worse case im extra £35 quid out of pocket .

would have been just before 9.15 , walked to sign , saw it said 9.15 so crossed over to shop

The reason we ask for copies of documents, rather than transcriptions, is that errors and omissions can creep into the transcription.

You have omitted a most important fact - the date of the rejection of your challenge. You have also omitted the PCN number and Reg.Mark. Please post a copy of all sides of the rejection letter.

That said, in the extract from the letter you have posted, there is no sign of their considering  of you leading and important challenge, the principle of de minimis.

That failure to consider and the principle of de minimis should win at Adjudication should it get that far, so your next step is to wait for the NtO.
If B'ham have the facility online, keep an eye on the status history of the PCN for the issue of the NtO, and post it here when it arrives.

https://postimg.cc/gallery/vxW3LZW

thats the redacted letter , i have removed the PCN /REG as people can access my account using them 2 details .

Please post both sides of the unredacted PCN, so that the 'small print' can be checked for any possible fatal errors, and also a GSV link to the location..

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4880213,-1.8430988,3a,75y,296.51h,88.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUtaBTn3W1Op_o_h0FfYWEQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D1.8413284326632748%26panoid%3DUtaBTn3W1Op_o_h0FfYWEQ%26yaw%3D296.50732480788554!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

https://ibb.co/60jxssmj
https://imgpile.com/p/eQdKojI
is this okay to challenge ....thanks


I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.

At this location, parking and loading restrictions apply from 07:45 to 09:15, after which parking is permitted. There are two separate signs governing the restriction, and from my driving position neither sign is legible. Alum rock road is extremely  busy, and it would have been unsafe to stop in the carriageway in order to read the signage.

For this reason, I stopped only momentarily and safely to read and understand the restrictions. I have attached photographs showing that the signs cannot reasonably be read from where I momentarily stopped.

The alleged contravention time is recorded as 09:14:45, which is 15 seconds before the restriction ended. Of the six photographs relied upon by the Civil Enforcement Officer, three are taken after 09:15, including the photograph of the sign itself, when parking was permitted. Evidence taken after the restriction had ended cannot establish that a contravention occurred at the time alleged.

Although I understand that Code 02 is a zero-time contravention, a PCN may only be issued once a contravention has actually occurred. Issuing a PCN while a driver is reasonably checking multiple, unreadable signs on a busy road, and relying on post-restriction evidence, is premature and procedurally improper.
In addition, Birmingham City Council’s own Civil Parking Enforcement Guidelines state:
“What is important about these guidelines is that they represent a foundation upon which fairness and discretion can be applied. The importance of flexibility in these matters has been recognised by the courts and, as a consequence, decisions made by councils must not be fettered by being unduly formulaic.”

In this case, no such discretion or flexibility appears to have been applied. The PCN was issued 15 seconds before the restriction ended, while I was momentarily and safely checking multiple,  signs on a busy road, and the authority now relies in part on post-restriction photographs to support a pre-restriction allegation.

A refusal to cancel the PCN in these circumstances would indicate a fettered and formulaic approach, contrary to the council’s own published guidance and the principles of fairness recognised by the courts.
Further, Birmingham City Council’s Civil Parking Enforcement Guidelines (MC25) state that although motorists may assume a period of grace, “it is expected that Civil Enforcement Officers will exercise discretion before issuing a Penalty Charge Notice in some cases, where there are compelling reasons or other specific mitigating circumstances requiring the case to be assessed on its individual merits.”

This case clearly involves such compelling and mitigating circumstances. I stopped only momentarily on a busy road to read multiple signs that are not legible from the driving position, in order to confirm that the restriction ended at 09:15. The PCN was issued at 09:14:45, just seconds before the restriction ended, and the authority relies in part on post-09:15 photographs to support the allegation.

In these circumstances, issuing a PCN without exercising discretion demonstrates a formulaic approach, contrary to the council’s own guidance, which requires flexibility, fairness, and individual assessment.

I therefore respectfully request that discretion be properly applied and that this PCN be cancelled.