DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 122804--------------------------------------------------
Redbridge, code 23(2), parked in a parking place or area not
designed for that class of vehicle, Chadwick Road
DIR By: sammiefields2512
Date: June 24, 2026, 4:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I am the registered keeper of this vehicle. The driver parked in
a parking bay for a short while, it was night time, so they
expected it was free.
There was a tree in the way of the signage, though the driver
admits that if they looked harder they would have seen it.
I wonder if I could argue the following:
1. Obscured Signage
The signage is positioned directly behind a thick tree trunk and
obscured by its lower leafy canopy. At 10:00 PM in the dark, it
is practically invisible to an arriving driver. The CEO's own
image of the signage is blurry.
2. Inadequate Consideration Time
The PCN states the vehicle was observed only from 22:01 to
22:03.
Because the sign was hidden behind a tree, a driver would need
more than 120 seconds just to locate the pole in the dark and
process the dual-restriction text on the signage (which switches
rules at 5:30 PM). The driver was ticketed before they had a
fair chance to read the obscured rules and leave.
(Sorry, can't get Google Drive images to show for some reason,
please follow the links to view the images on Google Drive)
My Images:
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Xic5YvKb2-ljJEJuRsqMQISjUhrOdtaF?usp=drive_link
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Xic5YvKb2-ljJEJuRsqMQISjUhrOdtaF?usp=drive_link
Parking Officer's images:
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ANqGLSN_NpByNcCvOYp1uikgvl63R_Bs?usp=drive_link
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ANqGLSN_NpByNcCvOYp1uikgvl63R_Bs?usp=drive_link
Google Streetview Link:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZNHgzxGP19xzceSa8
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZNHgzxGP19xzceSa8
#Post#: 122806--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 23(2), parked in a parking place or area not
designed for that class of vehicle, Chadwick Road
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 24, 2026, 4:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please post a GSV link to the exact location, please.
#Post#: 122807--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 23(2), parked in a parking place or area not
designed for that class of vehicle, Chadwick Road
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 24, 2026, 4:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The post on which the sign hangs is placed at the back of the
footway, IMO clearly visible if you are standing on the footway
and even if just paying lip service to a driver's obligations to
look for a sign.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/AdF1vgxz2vi3CDww7
But the restriction is new(post August 2025), so can you get
clear photos of the parking place markings(which trigger a
driver's obligation) and whether this is a stand-alone bay or
adjoins others. A view from the Royal Mail side giving a
landscape view would be useful.
And the 14-day risk-free period for submitting reps ends on
26th.
#Post#: 122809--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 23(2), parked in a parking place or area not
designed for that class of vehicle, Chadwick Road
DIR By: sammiefields2512
Date: June 24, 2026, 5:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> Please post a GSV link to the exact location, please.
>
--- End Quote ---
Google Streetview Link:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZNHgzxGP19xzceSa8
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZNHgzxGP19xzceSa8
The signage and bays were not present when the Streetview pics
were taken. My car was parked next to the drawing on the bicycle
on the black wall to the right.
#Post#: 122810--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 23(2), parked in a parking place or area not
designed for that class of vehicle, Chadwick Road
DIR By: sammiefields2512
Date: June 24, 2026, 5:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> The post on which the sign hangs is placed at the back of the
footway, IMO clearly visible if you are standing on the footway
and even if just paying lip service to a driver's obligations to
look for a sign.
>
>
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/AdF1vgxz2vi3CDww7
>
> But the restriction is new(post August 2025), so can you get
clear photos of the parking place markings(which trigger a
driver's obligation) and whether this is a stand-alone bay or
adjoins others. A view from the Royal Mail side giving a
landscape view would be useful.
>
> And the 14-day risk-free period for submitting reps ends on
26th.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for your response. It is not a stand-alone bay, there
are at least 3 joined bays, my car was parked in the middle bay.
I live about a 20 minute drive away from the area, I'm not sure
I'll be able to make it there to take more pics before the
deadline on the 26th, but I'll try.
#Post#: 122832--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 23(2), parked in a parking place or area not
designed for that class of vehicle, Chadwick Road
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 24, 2026, 8:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not that urgent because there's a glaring procedural error with
the PCN, which states:
'Parked in a parking place or area not designed for that class
of vehicle'
The mandated contravention description is:
Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class
of vehicle
Higher Suffix required to fully describe contravention
Setting aside for one moment that they've used the term
'designed' for 'designated', you might wonder why a motorist is
entitled to know the suffix in order to fully describe the
contravention.
The answer is that there is a smorgasbord of bays which may be
designated as being reserved for specific classes of vehicle.
Here are some with their suffix letter/number:
a) permit holder only electric vehicle charging bay
c) buses only
g) motorcycle bay
k) ambulance bay
w) e-scooter bay
y) electric solo motorcycle bay
0) local buses / trams only
1) electric vehicles bay
2) goods vehicle loading bays
3) bicycle bay
7) taxis only
8) zero emission capable taxis only
9) electric vehicle car club bay
I would make representations on the basis that there has been a
procedural impropriety on the part of the authority. This arises
because the PCN does not state correct grounds, contrary to the
requirements of para. 2(c) of Schedule 2 to the General
Regulations, which require a PCN to state:
c)the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer issuing the
notice believes that a penalty charge is payable,
I refer you to the PCN which gives the following contravention
description:
'Parked in a parking place or area not designed for that class
of vehicle'
I have highlighted the terminological error which you will no
doubt report to your IT colleagues.
The other material defect is that the description omits the
'higher suffix' which as you will know is required in order to,
as the London Councils' published list of contraventions states,
'fully describe ]the] contravention'.
These are objective facts which cannot be finessed or denied by
the authority.
The PCN fails to comply with mandatory requirements and
therefore must be cancelled.
#Post#: 122853--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 23(2), parked in a parking place or area not
designed for that class of vehicle, Chadwick Road
DIR By: sammiefields2512
Date: June 24, 2026, 10:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
tincombe, thanks for spotting that, looks like a powerful
argument. I managed to go there today and take some more
pictures and a couple videos:
Images:
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1N_QDLCRbd8Kt4hgXV3UClfAfbl6H9LC2?usp=drive_link
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1N_QDLCRbd8Kt4hgXV3UClfAfbl6H9LC2?usp=drive_link
Videos:
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1h4xmvOa6fxa8ow3uyQMwGmPo869jI01x?usp=sharing
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1h4xmvOa6fxa8ow3uyQMwGmPo869jI01x?usp=sharing
#Post#: 122884--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 23(2), parked in a parking place or area not
designed for that class of vehicle, Chadwick Road
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 24, 2026, 5:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Be that as it may, what I see is a fairly short bay, clearly
marked out with a clear sign. So a driver parking there would be
under notice to look for the sign, whidh seems reasonably
prominent. My view is that an adjudicator will major on that,
before looking at semantics.
#Post#: 124330--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 23(2), parked in a parking place or area not
designed for that class of vehicle, Chadwick Road
DIR By: sammiefields2512
Date: July 10, 2026, 1:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the challenge I sent:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ywzk7z4HYOFY7FB5iG2WzgjiYSQxHLv1/view?usp=sharing
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ywzk7z4HYOFY7FB5iG2WzgjiYSQxHLv1/view?usp=sharing
I received the following reply from Redbridge:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IX9B0lZSNYutw_RuC1B7ipVN9PRpbrI_/view?usp=sharing
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IX9B0lZSNYutw_RuC1B7ipVN9PRpbrI_/view?usp=sharing
Should I wait for the Notice to Owner and challenge it?
Or should I pay the reduced fee of £80?
#Post#: 124563--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 23(2), parked in a parking place or area not
designed for that class of vehicle, Chadwick Road
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 13, 2026, 4:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They have not addressed the main points i.e. wrong contravention
description and lack of specificity by omitting the suffix.
It's disgraceful IMO.
I don't see how a motorist should be expected to just accept
that their substantive reps have been ignored, it brings the
procedure into disrepute.
I would continue...
But:
Are you the registered keeper with current DVLA details?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page