DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 111256--------------------------------------------------
Temporary traffic order - blank sign Haringey
DIR By: Giorgio
Date: February 26, 2026, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi there,
Would be grateful for some help with this PCN.
The driver received a ticket for parking in a suspended bay, but
the suspension sign next to the bay was completely blank — no
dates, no times, no location details.
The CEO has taken a close‑up photo of a different
suspension sign further down the road on the opposite side,
which has all the details on it. This makes it look as though he
ignored a clear sign. However, if you look carefully at the
CEO’s wider photos, you can see the blank sign in the background
on the same side of the road where the car was parked (I’ve
circled in red) and uploaded a photo of the blank sign up close.
My understanding is that a driver is not expected to go
searching for other signs across the road if the sign directly
next to the bay is blank and contains no operative information.
I’d really appreciate guidance on the correct rulings so we can
put together a solid appeal.
Thanks in advance.
HTML https://ibb.co/VfkmRvq
HTML https://ibb.co/1fYBv76B
HTML https://ibb.co/SDcwFQcp
HTML https://ibb.co/R47jhP7p
HTML https://ibb.co/NdP2BhSn
HTML https://ibb.co/F4h2QM8y
HTML https://ibb.co/PsGXtr13
HTML https://ibb.co/YzyWXCJ
HTML https://ibb.co/B5pctrWj
HTML https://ibb.co/3yf5zBKQ
HTML https://ibb.co/Gq6WZ1L
Google map location:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/mMFzHnUHTG6mnNhg9
#Post#: 111294--------------------------------------------------
Re: Temporary traffic order - blank sign Haringey
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 26, 2026, 5:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The sign on the opposite side of the road cannot apply to the
side where you parked, it only bars parking from the centre of
the road to the property line on that side. There must be a
separate suspension sign for your side, and your photos shows
what seems to be a vandalised sign, with the paper containing
the suspension details covered over with white paint.
You should submit an informal challenge based on the sign for
your side being vandalised and are surprise that the CEO,
instead of reporting the vandalism and not serving PCNs to cars
on that side, erroneously took a photo of the sign on the
opposite side of the street, which they well know does not apply
to the opposite side. You therefore request that the PCN be
cancelled. Your reps will be rejected, but post your reps and
their response here.
In a case like this, you absolutely MUST be prepared to stand
your ground and forego the discount. If you just fold and
cough-up, the council is encouraged to carry on acting
unlawfully.
#Post#: 113179--------------------------------------------------
Re: Temporary traffic order - blank sign Haringey
DIR By: Giorgio
Date: March 13, 2026, 2:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Rejection letter received today. See images below and the
initial (lengthy) challenge sent.
HTML https://ibb.co/MDqxCg4d
HTML https://ibb.co/cSp53Gnp
HTML https://ibb.co/9mztX1LT
I am challenging this PCN because the suspension was not
properly signed.
The only suspension sign visible on the side of the road where
the vehicle was parked had its entire information panel blanked
out. It displayed no dates, times, location details, or extent
of the suspension. A sign without operative information cannot
convey a restriction.
I am attaching a photograph of the blank sign that was directly
next to the vehicle and was the only visible sign when parking.
The detailed suspension sign photographed by the CEO was located
on the opposite side of the road. A suspension sign only applies
to the side of the street on which it is placed; it cannot apply
across the road. The sign governing the side where the vehicle
was parked was the blank, vandalised sign, which displayed no
operative information. A motorist is entitled to rely on the
signage on their side of the road and is not required to cross
the street to check unrelated signs.
In the CEO’s wider‑angle photograph showing the rear of
the vehicle, the blank sign is visible in the background
directly in front of the vehicle on the same side of the road.
This confirms that the sign governing this side had been
vandalised. I am surprised that the correct procedure was not
followed. Where a suspension sign has been vandalised, the CEO
should report the damaged sign and refrain from issuing PCNs on
that side until clear signage is restored. Instead, the CEO
photographed the sign on the opposite side of the road, which
cannot apply to the opposite side where the vehicle was parked.
As the restriction was not clearly or adequately communicated at
the location of the vehicle, the alleged contravention did not
occur. I request that the PCN be cancelled.
Any idea what happens next? Do we stand our ground as
aforementioned or is it a possibility we may be rejected again
and have to pay up?
Thanks for the help.
#Post#: 113462--------------------------------------------------
Re: Temporary traffic order - blank sign Haringey
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 16, 2026, 3:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The rejection looks like nonsense. They cannot rely on a sign
across the road.
#Post#: 115841--------------------------------------------------
Re: Temporary traffic order - blank sign Haringey
DIR By: Giorgio
Date: April 14, 2026, 7:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please excuse the lengthy post as I’ve had to reattach all
previous images.
Notice to Owner has now been received. Never done this before so
consulted AI and it came up with a lengthy response- but wanted
to check here first if this is okay. We want to avoid having to
go to a tribunal so have tried to create a strong argument but
am guessing they will most likely reject whatever we write…

I am making a formal representation against this Notice to Owner
on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.
The restriction was not properly conveyed because the suspension
sign on the side of the road where the vehicle was parked was
vandalised, blank and unreadable. This is clearly visible in the
CEO’s own photographs.
The only legible suspension sign was located on the opposite
side of the road, which does not apply to the bay in which the
vehicle was parked. A motorist is not required to check signage
across the road, nor can a restriction be enforced using a sign
that governs a different bay.
1. The council failed in its statutory duty to adequately sign
the restriction
Under Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders
(Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, the authority
must ensure that:
“adequate information as to the effect of the order is made
available to persons using the road.”
A blank, vandalised suspension sign cannot satisfy this legal
requirement.
The council’s own photographs confirm:
• the sign next to the vehicle was blank
• the sign with the suspension details was on the opposite side
of the road
• no readable sign existed governing the bay where the vehicle
was parked
Therefore, the restriction was not adequately conveyed, and the
PCN is unenforceable.
2. Established adjudicator case law confirms motorists are NOT
required to check signs across the road
London Tribunals has repeatedly ruled that:
A motorist is only required to check signage on their side of
the road
A sign on the opposite side does not apply to the bay they are
parked in
A damaged, missing or unreadable sign makes the restriction
unenforceable
Relevant cases include:
• Campbell v Camden (Case 2070377291)
The adjudicator held that a motorist is not required to cross
the road to inspect signage and that restrictions must be clear
from the side where the vehicle is parked.
• Al’s Bar & Restaurant v Wandsworth (Case 2020106430)
The adjudicator ruled that where signage is unclear or not
properly maintained, the restriction cannot be enforced.
• London Borough of Hounslow v Mr M (Case 2180194309)
The adjudicator cancelled the PCN because the sign nearest the
vehicle was damaged, even though a correct sign existed
elsewhere.
These cases directly mirror the circumstances here.
3. The council’s reliance on a sign on the opposite side is
legally irrelevant
The council’s rejection letter relied on a sign across the road,
even highlighting it with a red rectangle.
This actually supports my case:
• It confirms the council has no readable sign on my side
• It confirms the sign they rely on governs a different bay
• It confirms the CEO did not photograph any valid sign adjacent
to the vehicle
A restriction cannot be enforced using signage that does not
apply to the bay in question.
4. The contravention did not occur
Because:
• the sign governing the bay was blank/vandalised
• the council failed to maintain adequate signage
• the only readable sign was on the opposite side, which does
not apply
• adjudicator case law confirms motorists are not required to
check across the road
• the restriction was not properly conveyed
The alleged contravention did not occur, and the PCN must be
cancelled.
For the reasons above, I request that the Notice to Owner be
cancelled.
Thanks again for everyone’s help.
HTML https://ibb.co/hFWCLcBJ
HTML https://ibb.co/VWwL3pv2
HTML https://ibb.co/chjGPxty
HTML https://ibb.co/50tR7pZ
HTML https://ibb.co/XkrtrFvm
HTML https://ibb.co/mVF4mtDB
HTML https://ibb.co/gZhVmNdM
HTML https://ibb.co/N6prkFdH
HTML https://ibb.co/FbRtZsjm
HTML https://ibb.co/9mw6mTFp
HTML https://ibb.co/4njV86Qh
HTML https://ibb.co/tSCX9nZ
HTML https://ibb.co/CpJdR6VX
HTML https://ibb.co/FLtq4K6R
HTML https://ibb.co/hRRxnhrg
HTML https://ibb.co/qF4mDqtm
#Post#: 115846--------------------------------------------------
Re: Temporary traffic order - blank sign Haringey
DIR By: Giorgio
Date: April 14, 2026, 7:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry one more point- the rejection letter says the signs were
installed on the 11th Feb giving drivers enough notice. They
have an image with a location stamp of Waldergrove Road and it
is on a black pole with a square sign above it. The pole next to
the parked car was grey and the black pole opposite had a round
sign. Can we add this to our argument that it doesn’t prove
signs were put up in advance or is it not relevant?
Thanks again.
#Post#: 116328--------------------------------------------------
Re: Temporary traffic order - blank sign Haringey
DIR By: Giorgio
Date: April 19, 2026, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to post yet again but I don’t think the images uploaded
properly. Trying to reattach again.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/F4c1QmhH/IMG-3130.jpg
HTML https://imgbb.com/
HTML https://i.ibb.co/271QFyNv/IMG-3131.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/mCVwRG89
HTML https://i.ibb.co/bjfQjH3Y/A6496-E7-A-A5-F4-4737-B4-C5-15-BEEC2305-A9.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/Y4rP4DWJ
HTML https://i.ibb.co/TBqD3fjJ/IMG-3167.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/MD5y0vwK
HTML https://i.ibb.co/PsTJBJN1/IMG-3168.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/GfsGgG0C
HTML https://i.ibb.co/GvZP71JK/IMG-3380.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/Z6QTdwJn
HTML https://i.ibb.co/hJpwvRC0/IMG-3381.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/39tQHykK
HTML https://i.ibb.co/r27QPp8C/IMG-4192.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/VYjLyCn7
HTML https://i.ibb.co/bgjSqgw7/IMG-4193.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/nsqHZsdR
HTML https://i.ibb.co/BHMCD4JV/IMG-4194.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/7xm1cgDJ
#Post#: 117018--------------------------------------------------
Re: Temporary traffic order - blank sign Haringey
DIR By: Giorgio
Date: April 25, 2026, 1:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi is there anyone that can advise if the response for the
notice to owner is ok?
I’ve tried going back to delete/edit as my posts have become a
bit of a mess but I don’t know how to do it. I finally uploaded
the pictures now and the response for the NTO is the post dated
April 14, 2026, 01:08:46 pm. I think I need to reply to them
before the 28th so date fast approaching. Many thanks.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1