Show Posts
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Haringey Council / Code 16 / Parked without permit
« on: March 09, 2026, 08:58:28 am »
Thanks for the responses.
To answer the questions directly:
I parked there at around 8:30-9:00am, before the restriction came into force at 10:00am. I did not manage to move the vehicle or display a permit before the restriction period began, and I was not aware the restriction had started by the time the PCN was issued at 10:46.
That said, my challenge is not based solely on the circumstances of parking. It is based on whether the Council has discharged its burden of proof with the evidence it has actually produced, and whether that evidence meets a reasonable standard of care.
The CEO took approximately 20 photographs. Of those, the only image purporting to show the restriction sign is blurred and entirely illegible. Not a single photograph clearly documents the restriction that is the entire basis of the PCN. When a CEO chooses to take 20 photographs, it is reasonable to expect that at least one of them clearly captures the sign that justifies the contravention. That is not a high bar, and it was not met here.
The Council then introduced a separate, clear photograph of the sign in its rejection letter, but this photograph carries none of the standard red timestamp overlay that authenticates every single CEO photograph (date, time, location). Every CEO photo is stamped "2026/02/06 10:46, Craven Park Road, STH TOT (ST) CPZ". The sign photo has nothing.
Weather records for Tottenham on 6 February 2026 confirm overcast and rainy conditions all morning, consistent with the grey, wet conditions visible in all CEO photos. The sign photograph in the rejection letter depicts bright sunshine with sharp shadows, conditions that were not present on the date of the contravention. The Council has not disclosed the source or date of this photograph.
To summarise: this is not primarily a case about whether the sign exists. It is about whether a Council that chose to produce 20 photographs, failed to include a single legible image of the very sign it relies upon, and then silently introduced an unauthenticated replacement photograph of unknown date and origin, has produced evidence that meets the standard expected of an enforcing authority. I would argue it has not.
Does that combination create enough doubt for an adjudicator, given the civil standard?
Thank you.
The link for GSV (I was parked just about where the car in the picture is parked, jsut faced the other way).
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TSLXxiqMU4zfTE4g6
To answer the questions directly:
I parked there at around 8:30-9:00am, before the restriction came into force at 10:00am. I did not manage to move the vehicle or display a permit before the restriction period began, and I was not aware the restriction had started by the time the PCN was issued at 10:46.
That said, my challenge is not based solely on the circumstances of parking. It is based on whether the Council has discharged its burden of proof with the evidence it has actually produced, and whether that evidence meets a reasonable standard of care.
The CEO took approximately 20 photographs. Of those, the only image purporting to show the restriction sign is blurred and entirely illegible. Not a single photograph clearly documents the restriction that is the entire basis of the PCN. When a CEO chooses to take 20 photographs, it is reasonable to expect that at least one of them clearly captures the sign that justifies the contravention. That is not a high bar, and it was not met here.
The Council then introduced a separate, clear photograph of the sign in its rejection letter, but this photograph carries none of the standard red timestamp overlay that authenticates every single CEO photograph (date, time, location). Every CEO photo is stamped "2026/02/06 10:46, Craven Park Road, STH TOT (ST) CPZ". The sign photo has nothing.
Weather records for Tottenham on 6 February 2026 confirm overcast and rainy conditions all morning, consistent with the grey, wet conditions visible in all CEO photos. The sign photograph in the rejection letter depicts bright sunshine with sharp shadows, conditions that were not present on the date of the contravention. The Council has not disclosed the source or date of this photograph.
To summarise: this is not primarily a case about whether the sign exists. It is about whether a Council that chose to produce 20 photographs, failed to include a single legible image of the very sign it relies upon, and then silently introduced an unauthenticated replacement photograph of unknown date and origin, has produced evidence that meets the standard expected of an enforcing authority. I would argue it has not.
Does that combination create enough doubt for an adjudicator, given the civil standard?
Thank you.
The link for GSV (I was parked just about where the car in the picture is parked, jsut faced the other way).
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TSLXxiqMU4zfTE4g6