Free Traffic Legal Advice

Great - thank you!

Thank you both so much!

From Stamfordman's timeline it looks like they did reject my representation on 27/1/26 but I wasn't notified (or the letter got lost?).

Hi again

Further to TFL's letter dated 14/1/26 requesting further evidence, I wrote to them on 20/1/26 explaining that I was collecting pre-ordered prescription goods and believed I was using the bay for its intended purpose.

No response to that letter and then today I received a charge certificate increasing my fine to £240 (which I definitely can't afford).

Here's a link to download my letter of 20/1/26 and the charge certificate: https://we.tl/t-RVkPuTaykd

Please would someone let me know if you have any advice.

THANK YOU!

Robin

I think I'll just pay this one unless anyone thinks I stand a chance of getting them to let me off?

I parked in Harben Parade NW3 at 1207 on Thursday 8/1/26 to deliver one pair of glasses and collect one other pair from Vision Express.

I assumed it was OK to park briefly because the red route sign said loading was permitted between 7am-4pm. I am now being asked for evidence which I don't have.

I might be able to get Vison Express to provide confirmation that I was delivering and collecting.

Here's the link to the images of the correspondence: https://we.tl/t-WGzWHMpVzA

Thank you in advance for your help!

Robin

27th November 2025
Case Reference: 2250397756
ROBIN CATTO
-v-
London Borough of Brent (the Enforcement Authority)



ROBIN CATTO appealed against liability for the payment of the Penalty Charge in respect of:
Vehicle Registration Number KX04BOC
Penalty Charge Notice BT24620378
Full PCN Amount £ 130.00
Contravention Date 28th February 2025
Contravention Time 07:17
Contravention Location Riffel Road
Contravention Parked in a suspended bay/space or part of bay/space


Adjudicator's Decision

The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has allowed the appeal.

The adjudicator directs London Borough of Brent to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.


Adjudicator's Reasons

An online hearing with Mr Catto took place today.

The issue in this case is the adequacy of the signing of the suspension.

The civil enforcement officer's photographs show the appellant's car parked at the end of a bay with the back of the car adjacent to a yellow line. The photographs show a suspension sign on a post a short distance in front of the appellant's car. The sign states that on Friday 28th February 2025 the parking bays outside 8-12 Riffel Road were suspended for the purposes of a domestic removal.

The appellant states that when he parked his car on the evening of 27th February he looked at the nearest sign to where the car was parked. The appellant has provided a photograph of a sign for the permit bay which is on a post to the right of the bay adjacent to the single yellow line. I am satisfied that this sign relates to the bay in which the appellant's car was parked as it clearly does not relate to the single yellow line. I do not accept the council's argument that the sign that states permit holders only does not relate to a parking bay. Further this was the post nearest to the appellant's car. Although there was a suspension sign on one of the posts for the bay in which Mr Catto parked his car there was no sign on the post nearest to the appellant's car. I find that the suspension was inadequately signed.

I allow this appeal.

At the appeal for the first time the appellant also argued that the Notice of Rejection had been issued
out of time. I make no finding on that point as I allow the appeal on the substantive issue.

Teresa Brennan
Adjudicator
26th November 2025
2250397756
BT24620378

Am I in a position to request some sort of financial compensation for all the time I've wasted on this when we win?

Thank you both again from the bottom of my heart for being so incredibly helpful!