DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 129652--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Harrow - PCN Code 01 - Faded/Broken single
yellow line - Cunningham Park
DIR By: GavelSmash
Date: September 5, 2026, 8:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> Just a template rejection.
>
> I would go on with this and wait for the notice to owner.
>
> Who is the registered keeper and is the logbook address
correct.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes it appears so. I am the registered keeper and I finally
received the notice to owner earlier this week. I will use the
same appeal letter and evidence from the informal appeal I
already sent and wait for the notice of rejection.
#Post#: 129661--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Harrow - PCN Code 01 - Faded/Broken single
yellow line - Cunningham Park
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: September 5, 2026, 12:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: GavelSmash link ---
>
> [quote author=stamfordman link=topic=10905.msg125295#msg125295
date=1784647407]
> Just a template rejection.
>
> I would go on with this and wait for the notice to owner.
>
> Who is the registered keeper and is the logbook address
correct.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes it appears so. I am the registered keeper and I finally
received the notice to owner earlier this week. I will use the
same appeal letter and evidence from the informal appeal I
already sent and wait for the notice of rejection.
[/quote]
template rejection = Fob-Off
#Post#: 129712--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Harrow - PCN Code 01 - Faded/Broken single
yellow line - Cunningham Park
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 6, 2026, 8:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, you would do yourself no favours simply resubmitting your
initial reps.
'However, the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) observed your
vehicle and saw no loading or unloading taking place.
The rule applies during the times shown on the sign. The signs
governing single yellow lines are not always nearby. Inside a
Controlled Zone, the information may be on Controlled Zone signs
instead. Controlled Zone signs are like border-crossing signs:
you will have passed one as you entered the zone.'
Not just tosh, it's incomprehensible as regards the reason why
they rejected your reps.
Are they saying that the line was clear and therefore the
'information' was on the 'Controlled zone..border-crossing signs
[which] you will have passed as you entered the zone', or
That the restriction was conveyed on 'signs governing single
yellow lines[which are not always nearby]'.
IMO, the issue here, apart from the nonsense reply, is that if
you were in a CPZ(which their reply implies) then if the yellow
line(which you did not see) carried a restriction different from
the border-crossing then they were OBLIGED to place such a sign
at the point where the varied restriction commenced.
In years past it appears they had, but not now.
#Post#: 131128--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Harrow - PCN Code 01 - Faded/Broken single
yellow line - Cunningham Park
DIR By: GavelSmash
Date: September 21, 2026, 5:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> IMO, the issue here, apart from the nonsense reply, is that if
you were in a CPZ(which their reply implies) then if the yellow
line(which you did not see) carried a restriction different from
the border-crossing then they were OBLIGED to place such a sign
at the point where the varied restriction commenced.
>
> In years past it appears they had, but not now.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for this nugget I have included it in my appeal.
Here is the final appeal, please review before I send it off:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Harrow Council,
>
> I am writing to make formal representations against the above
Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the statutory ground that the
alleged contravention did not occur. This representation is made
in response to the Notice to Owner and in light of your letter
dated [insert date of rejection letter], which I find to be
contradictory and legally flawed.
>
> 1. The Council's Rejection Letter is Internally Contradictory
>
> Your letter of rejection states:
>
> "The rule applies during the times shown on the sign. The
signs governing single yellow lines are not always nearby.
Inside a Controlled Zone, the information may be on Controlled
Zone signs instead. Controlled Zone signs are like
border-crossing signs: you will have passed one as you entered
the zone."
>
> This passage is fundamentally incoherent. It simultaneously
claims that the restriction is conveyed by:
> a) "signs governing single yellow lines" (which are "not
always nearby"), and
> b) "Controlled Zone signs" (which serve as "border-crossing
signs").
>
> These are two mutually exclusive methods of conveying a
restriction. The council cannot rely on both. The legal
framework is clear: either the single yellow line operates
during the standard Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) hours and is
conveyed by zone entry signs, or it operates during different
hours and must be accompanied by its own timeplate.
>
> 2. Legal Framework: The Requirement for a Timeplate
>
> The law is well-established. Under the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD) and confirmed by
government guidance:
>
> a) A single yellow line must be accompanied by a timeplate
indicating the hours during which the restriction applies.
>
> b) An exception exists only where the single yellow line
operates during the same hours as the CPZ in which it is
located. In that case, a timeplate is not required, and the
restriction is conveyed by the CPZ entry signs.
>
> c) Critically, if a particular section of yellow line has
different hours of restriction from the CPZ hours, then a sign
will be placed to show the alternative times of restriction.
>
> This principle was expressly endorsed in the parking
adjudication case of Ross v Enfield (Case No. 1950094429). The
adjudicator held that where the time restriction denoted by the
yellow line "clearly varies from the Controlled Zone time," a
nearby timeplate is required.
>
> 3. Application to This Case
>
> Your letter implies that the location is within a CPZ and that
I should have relied on CPZ entry signs. However:
>
> a) The nearby timeplate was missing. My evidence shows that a
timeplate previously existed close to where I parked (confirmed
by historical Google Street View imagery) but was absent on the
date of the alleged contravention. If the single yellow line at
this location operated during different hours from the CPZ
(which the historical presence of a timeplate strongly
suggests), then a timeplate was legally required. Its absence
means the restriction was not properly conveyed.
>
> b) The CPZ entry sign was not a viable alternative. Your
letter states, "you will have passed one as you entered the
zone." However, I did not pass a valid CPZ entry sign on my
route to this location. Furthermore, even if a CPZ entry sign
existed elsewhere, it cannot substitute for a required timeplate
where the restriction varies from the zone's standard hours.
>
> c) The road markings were defective. As detailed in my initial
representations, the single yellow line was so severely
deteriorated that it no longer conveyed any restriction. There
was no visible line beneath or behind my vehicle. Small
fragments ahead were obscured by a parked van. In wet
conditions, these fragments were even less apparent. An
independent local resident left a handwritten note on my vehicle
stating: "Dear Owner, I'm a resident on this road. Please appeal
+ take a photo of the yellow line. It needs repainting! Good
Luck!" This is compelling third-party evidence that the marking
was defective.
>
> Your letter claims "our records and the Civil Enforcement
Officer's evidence confirm that the restriction was sufficiently
visible". I put the council to strict proof of this assertion. A
CEO's subjective opinion cannot override the photographic and
eyewitness evidence demonstrating the line was worn away.
>
> 4. The CEO's Observation on Loading
>
> Your letter states the CEO "saw no loading or unloading taking
place". This is irrelevant to my primary defence. My case is not
that I was loading or unloading, but that the restriction itself
was not adequately conveyed due to defective road markings and
the absence of a legally required timeplate. The CEO's
observation does not cure these defects.
>
> 5. Request for Evidence
>
> I formally request that the council provide the following:
>
> a) A copy of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for Cunningham
Park, specifying the exact hours of the single yellow line
restriction at the location in question.
>
> b) Confirmation of whether the restriction hours for this
specific single yellow line are the same as or different from
the CPZ hours.
>
> c) The CEO's contemporaneous notes and any photographs taken
at the time of the alleged contravention.
>
> d) Evidence that a valid CPZ entry sign was situated on the
route I would have taken to access this location.
>
> Conclusion
>
> For the reasons set out above, the alleged contravention did
not occur. The restriction was not properly conveyed due to:
>
> a) The absence of a legally required timeplate;
>
> b) The severely deteriorated road marking; and
>
> c) The council's failure to establish that the restriction
hours matched the CPZ hours (and were therefore exempt from the
timeplate requirement).
>
> I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be
cancelled.
>
> Yours faithfully,
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page