DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 112401--------------------------------------------------
Haringey Council / Code 16 / Parked without permit
By: Avrumy Date: March 7, 2026, 7:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello all,
I'm at a decision point: pay £80 now (discount period ends 20
March) or proceed to formal representation and adjudication. I
believe I have a reasonable case but want experienced eyes
before committing. Full details and photographs below.
---
**PCN details**
- Authority: Haringey Council
- PCN number: ZN20147713
- Contravention date: 06 February 2026 (Friday), 10:46
- Location: Craven Park Road, STH TOT (ST) CPZ
- Vehicle: LA61DHX
- Contravention: Parked in a permit holders only bay without a
valid permit
- Penalty: £160 full / £80 discount (expires 20 March 2026)
---
**Background**
The bay is signed "Permit holders only, MonFri, 10amNoon"
(time plate at nos. 42 & 44 per the Council's letter). The CEO
observed the vehicle for 8 minutes and 8 seconds (stated period:
10:3710:46) before issuing the PCN. I did not hold a resident's
permit for this zone.
---
**Informal challenge grounds raised**
1. The CEO's photographs of the restriction sign were blurred
and entirely illegible insufficient to prove a compliant sign
was visible at the material time (Reg. 18, LA Traffic Orders
Procedure Regs 1996).
2. Internal inconsistency: stated observation period is
10:3710:46, yet all photographs are timestamped 10:4610:47
only.
3. Of approximately 20 CEO photographs, not one clearly shows
the restriction sign.
---
**Council's rejection (25 February 2026)**
- Signage said to be compliant with TSRGD 2016.
- On the timing point, the Council responded: "The time-stamped
on the photos taken does not invalid this PCN, because the
vehicle was parked illegally" which does not address the
inconsistency raised.
- CEO observed vehicle for 8 mins 8 secs, no driver seen, no
loading/unloading.
---
**The key issue photographs**
Every one of the CEO's authenticated photographs carries a
standard red timestamp overlay: "2026/02/06 10:46 / Craven Park
Road, STH TOT (ST) CPZ". The sign photograph included in the
rejection letter has no timestamp overlay, no date, and no
location reference and the only CEO photograph that attempts
to show the sign is blurred and entirely illegible.
The Council has introduced an undated, unauthenticated sign
photograph at the rejection stage that was not part of the
original CEO evidence pack, without disclosing its source or
provenance.
**Weather corroboration:**
Weather records for Tottenham on 6 February 2026 confirm
overcast, grey and rainy conditions throughout the morning
consistent with all CEO photographs, which show dull, wet
conditions. The sign photograph in the rejection letter depicts
bright sunshine with sharp, clearly visible shadows: conditions
that were not present on the date of the contravention. This
suggests the photograph was taken on a different day entirely
and confirms it is not original CEO evidence.
---
**My question**
I'm weighing two options:
**Option A Pay £80 now.** Safe, certain, closes the matter.
**Option B Proceed to formal representation and if rejected,
appeal to London Tribunals.** If successful, the PCN is
cancelled entirely.
Do you think the signage evidence point is strong enough to take
to an adjudicator? And has anyone seen cases where a council has
introduced Street View-type imagery at the rejection stage and
how adjudicators have treated that?
Thank you.
Link for the photo and rejection letter.
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UGYB1npp_cLv3wZke0sbzf1vn6XJT5he?usp=sharing
Ling for google street view.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/HbubUUJwDmVhEqEa7
#Post#: 112422--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey Council / Code 16 / Parked without permit
By: stamfordman Date: March 8, 2026, 9:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Pictures aren't needed to enforce parking contraventions but you
can win appeals if you put doubt in the adjudicator's mind that
the signage was sufficiently clear on the day.
What did you see or not see? Why did you park there?
#Post#: 112474--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey Council / Code 16 / Parked without permit
By: fraser.mitchell Date: March 8, 2026, 5:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you please post a GSV view of the exact place you parked
your car.
As SFSM says, they don't need to provide any photos at all. If
it came to adjudication, it is who the adjudicator believes
using the civil test of "on the balance of probabilities".
#Post#: 112497--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey Council / Code 16 / Parked without permit
By: Avrumy Date: March 9, 2026, 3:58 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).
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/TSLXxiqMU4zfTE4g6
#Post#: 112542--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey Council / Code 16 / Parked without permit
By: fraser.mitchell Date: March 9, 2026, 8:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Does that combination create enough doubt for an
adjudicator, given the civil standard?[/quote]
It may do. Trouble is you have to risk the full PCN penalty to
find out, and in my view, the adjudicator will agree with the
council, but see what others say before committing yourself.
*****************************************************