Free Traffic Legal Advice

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

Thanks!

That sounds easy.

1 Do I wait for the tribunal or bring this up in advance?

2 Is there some official reference to this timing issue so that I can cite this if I'm challenged about it?

Thank you!

Thank you!

I have forwarded the email.

I can't seem to attach anything to this thread any more, so I have also sent you via email the relevant picture which has been sent to the tribunal with my appeal.

Astonishingly Brent are sticking to their guns.

This morning I received an email with a document attached, but I can't seem to figure out how to attach it here, so this is a paste of the important bit:

On 28/02/2025 at 07:17 hours, the vehicle with registration mark XXX was seen
in Riffel Road, outside Nos 8, use of which was suspended. Parking at the location on
Riffel Road was suspended between 28/02/2025 and 28/02/2025. The Brent (Parking
Places) (Zone MW) (No. 1) Order 2019.

The contemporaneous notes of the civil enforcement officer (CEO) that issued the
PCN state: parking suspension lo loading from Friday 28 February at any time Riffel
Road outside Nos. 8-12, reason domestic removal reference number BS/04025; all
windows of the vehicle were checked; no driver seen; no note seen; no
loading/unloading activity seen; no disability persons badge seen; no permit seen;
PCN attached to the vehicle and photographs taken.

The CEO concluded that the vehicle was parked in contravention of the parking
regulations and the completed PCN was issued on 28/02/2025 at 07:17 hours
accordingly and affixed to the vehicle.

From the details recorded, the council was able to contact the D.V.L.A. and ascertain
the registered owner/keeper of the vehicle. In this case, Mr Robin Leigh Catto was the
D.V.L.A registered owner/keeper of the vehicle at the time of the contravention and is
held liable for this PCN.

The Appellant Mr Robin Leigh Catto has appealed on the notice of appeal to the
Adjudicator on the ground: There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the
Enforcement Authority.

To summarise, the appellant has stated in the notice of appeal to the Adjudicator the
following information: the appellant states that the prohibited zone is outside houses
numbers 8- 12. Although the pictures supplied by Brent do not show the signpost I
checked, which is outside number 8 nearest to where my car was parked, my picture
clearly shows that this signpost has no yellow sign attached advising of any parking
restriction. Since I always check the signpost nearest to where I park, and this signpost
had no yellow sign attached advising of any parking restriction, I saw no reason that I
shouldn’t park there on the evening of 27/2/25. Therefore, this PCN should be
cancelled because the signage is evidently insufficient. It is unreasonable to expect
residents to look further than the nearest sign. In Brent's notice of rejection, dated
29/7/25, they state that "We have noted your comments that you followed to (sic) sign
to the rear of your vehicle. However, this does not provide a defence or exemption as
the signage is not within the confines of the bay in question." In my opinion this is
wholly unreasonable (and bordering on frivolous/vexatious) because if that sign
doesn't apply to the bay in question then (a) why is it there? (b) which bay does it apply
to? (c) it is very misleading. It is fairly obvious that the council attached the sign to that
lamppost because it is right next to the bay it applies to, and the council decided it was
unnecessary to add another post.

In response to the notice of appeal received: the parking spaces located outside Nos.
8-12 were suspended on 28/02/2025. Sign of the suspension was affixed to the
nearest post, located at the same location. The nearest suspension sign was
positioned in front of the appellants vehicle at the time of the contravention. Please
refer to evidence form C for the photographs of the contravention. For the Learned
Adjudicator’s perusal, please find enclosed the suspension record sheet (please see
evidence J). The suspension sign was placed as close to the road as possible to allow
it to be viewed more easily by motorists, and although the appellant states there was
a post close to where he had parked, this post was against the garden wall of a
property and not in full view for motorists to see the signage.

If there is a whole or part suspension of a parking bay the suspension notice would be
positioned on the nearest/appropriate street furniture. Motorists should check the
adjacent signs on the left and right of where the vehicle is parked to ensure that there
is not a part suspension of a parking place. In this instance as per the first photograph
taken by the CEO clearly shows the signage in front of the appellants vehicle.

Parking bays may be suspended for a range of different reasons. Suspensions are not
arranged to allow vehicles to park, but to allow essential access for activities such as
domestic or commercial moves, special events, highway repairs, utility company works
(gas, electricity, water, telephone), building work, tree pruning or cutting or
loading/unloading of heavy equipment etc.

The Council always endeavours to erect suspension signs 1 week prior to the start of
the suspension if possible. In this particular case, the suspension sign was erected on
26/02/2025, to give residents due notice of when the suspension will be enforced.
The suspension sign is of yellow colour and highly visible. In this particular case, the
suspension sign was located behind in front of the appellants vehicle. The sign
displays nationally recognised sign for ‘No Waiting’ and the date and time of the
suspension. Resident permits holders are not allowed to park in suspended bays. The
Council is satisfied that the suspension sign at the location was adequate. Every
motorist is expected to check the relevant signage every day for possible suspensions
and act accordingly. Motorists are required to park legally at all times.

I have enclosed a copy of the Traffic Management Order in respect of the location of
the contravention. Article 12 of the Order refers to the ‘power to suspend the use of a
parking place.’

The Council is satisfied that the contravention did occur and that an exemption does
not apply in this case. The Council is also satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued
and legally served. The Council has decided not to accept the mitigation put forward
in this case.

In conclusion, Brent Council wishes to contest the Appeal. No payment has been
received in respect of the PCN and the amount of £130 is outstanding.

SORRY!

2nd try...

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Hi again

As advised, when the NTO arrived I made the following representation on 5/6/25:

The prohibited zone is outside houses numbers 8-12. Although the pictures supplied by Brent do not show the signpost outside number 8 nearest to where my car was parked, my picture clearly shows that this signpost has no yellow sign attached advising of any parking restriction. Since I always check the signpost nearest to where I park, and this signpost had no yellow sign attached advising of any parking restriction, I saw no reason that I shouldn’t park there on the evening of 27/2/25. Therefore this PCN should be cancelled because the signage is evidently insufficient. It is unreasonable to expect residents to look further than the nearest sign.

Today (30/7/25) I received a Notice Of Rejection from Brent advising as follows:

We have noted your comments that you followed to (sic) sign to the rear of your vehicle. However, this does not provide a defence or exemption as the the (sic) signage followed is not within the confines of the bay in question. The signage within the confines of the bay that you were parked is in front of your vehicle as per the CEO images.

And later in the letter:

The point that needs to be addressed here is whether the suspension signs were clearly visible and did they supply sufficient information on them as not to mislead the motorist. Due consideration has been given to the circumstances described, however, Brent Council is satisfied that the science present were clear and that they provided sufficient information to motorist's (sic). 

If the sign to the rear of my vehicle isn't relevant, why is it there? Presumably when the bay was painted they decided to simply use the nearest lamppost for the bay advice rather than going to the trouble of installing another post within the confines of the bay?

Possibly also the sign used to be in the confines of the bay and subsequently the kerb was dropped for a driveway which shifted the boundary of the bay further down.

I'm not sure if it helps, but elsewhere in the letter, they have made an error by saying that"...signs for the suspension were displayed in advance at the location on 31/3/25..." although earlier in the letter they give 26/2/25 as the date the signs were posted.

I am now at a complete loss as to what to do. As Brent Council is probably hoping, I am getting close to simply paying the PCN just to end the matter. But something in me is still resisting.

I would be most grateful for any input.

Thank you all!

Robin

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Quote

When this arrives will I have the opportunity to challenge it again?

You will have the opportunity to submit a formal representation against the NtO. Hopefully, it will be considered by someone higher up the food chain who will see sense.

Signs only govern the side of the road on which they are placed.

Thank you, @John U.K.!