Free Traffic Legal Advice

I'm just returning to this as I had expected to receive something in the post by now. 3 months since I received the charge certificate from London borough of Havering and assumed an order for recovery would have been made by the court before now. Any ideas?

Your last paragraph is too confrontational. You want them to cancel, so make it easy for them. I suggest you substitute it with this: -

So in summary, I was engaged in unloading which you are well aware is an exemption to the yellow lines. I have described the goods that were being unloaded, and also supplied photographs of them, a total of 28 kilos. In addition to this, a passenger remained in the vehicle at all times to deal with any problems my parking might have been causing and the hazard warning lights were on. I consider this was enough to demonstrate to your passing CEO that an exempt activity was being undertaken. If in doubt, your CEO could have asked my passenger. I therefore request that the PCN be cancelled forthwith.

The replies you quote are the usual lies stated as facts in the hope that you believe them and pay up.
There is no obligation for the keeper to identify the driver, nor is there any validity in the assumption that the keeper is the driver. These are all lies.
I suggest that you just ignore this rubbish, and wait for them to try to intimidate you further by taking you to court.

Good day people,I have now received the operator's response and have been given the option to respond yet again or refer the matter for arbitration. My previous response was;

"The Operator acknowledges that I, the KEEPER, am not appealing against the contravention. This is not my duty to do so as I have clearly stated, I am the KEEPER of the vehicle, NOT the DRIVER. The Operator should be seeking to recover the parking charge from the DRIVER. I, as the KEEPER, am under no obligation to appeal against the contravention when I am not the liable party. The Operator is assuming liability and I am only engaging in this process in order to clear the matter up.
The Operator also acknowledges the transfer of liability window has passed, but then goes on to say that it remains valid as no evidence to prove otherwise has been submitted. This is legally incorrect, the onus is upon the Operator to provide evidence as to who was driving, which they have not. The person pictured in their CCTV evidence has not been identified and therefore the Operator is relying on assumption that it is the KEEPER. This is a commercial decision rather than a legal position.
These are the only points that matter here. All other comments related to the "contravention" are irrelevant."

To which they have replied;

"The Operator's position remains as follows: they are entitled to assume, on the balance of probabilities, that the registered keeper of the vehicle is also the driver, unless the keeper provides sufficient evidence to the contrary.

While the appellant have stated that they were not the driver, no evidence has been provided to support this claim. It is important to note that the burden of proof to show who was driving the vehicle does not rest solely with the Operator. In the absence of any alternative driver details from the keeper, the Operator is permitted, as per the legal framework governing parking charges, to hold the keeper liable for the contravention. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, the Operator is within their rights to continue to pursue the charge against you as the keeper of the vehicle.

The Operator is correct that the transfer of liability period has passed. However, this does not negate the Operator's right to pursue the keeper when no evidence is provided to establish that the keeper was not the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, you are under an obligation to provide details of the driver if you are claiming that you were not driving. Since this has not been done, the Operator is entitled to rely on the assumption that the registered keeper was the driver."

Is it time to go to arbitration or should I respond to this again? Another response would feel like a bit like banging my head against a wall.

TIA

I was puzzled to receive the PCN as it appeared I had parked in an unrestricted street. On further investigation I have found that the street is in a large permit parking area, but on retracing my steps I contend that the contravention did not occur owing to the entry signage on my approach being inadequate.

I entered Wellington Road from the High Street. The entry sign on the left-hand side of the carriageway has been rotated approximately 90 degrees, rendering it not visible to approaching drivers. I attach photographs of this sign in its rotated condition.

Sections of Wellington Road are marked with double yellow lines and single yellow lines with accompanying signage. I parked in a section with no road markings and no signage, reasonably concluding it was unrestricted. I attach photographs of my car parked in an unsigned and unmarked area.

The Department for Transport's Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, paragraph 13.10.2, states that permit parking areas designated by entry signs alone (without bay markings) are suitable for "a cul-de-sac or a small network of roads with little or no through traffic." Wellington Road is a through road with a mini roundabout. The application of entry-sign-only designation to this large, complex zone covering multiple through roads is inconsistent with this guidance, making it inherently difficult for unfamiliar drivers to identify the restriction.

I would also bring to the Council's attention a previous decision of the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators concerning this same entry point. In case 2250151042 (decided 23 May 2025, Adjudicator Philippa Alderson), an appeal was allowed for a vehicle parked on Wellington Road in the same permit parking area. The Adjudicator found that the left-hand entry sign from the High Street had been rotated approximately 90 degrees and was not sufficiently visible to drivers entering the road. The Adjudicator further found that the right-hand sign alone was not sufficient to indicate the restriction, and that a driver who missed the entry sign may reasonably conclude, in the absence of road markings, that the street is unrestricted. My circumstances are materially identical. The signage defect identified in that case has not been remedied, and the Council has been on notice of this issue since at least May 2025. I respectfully invite the Council to cancel this PCN without the need for a further tribunal hearing on the same point.

Image 1 - Entry sign at Wellington Road/High Street junction showing sign rotated ~90 degrees


Image 2 - Car clearly parked outside double and single yellow line areas.


Image 3 - Map of the permit parking zone and extract from DfT Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, Section 13.10


I have cited the case you kindly found and shared. Is this suitable for the official appeal stage? Any other suggestions?

Thanks very much