DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 123423--------------------------------------------------
PCN for suspended bay - Kensington & Chelsea rejected my
main argument. Worth taking to London Tribunals?
DIR By: helloiamaz
Date: June 30, 2026, 4:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm looking for some advice on whether it's worth appealing this
PCN to London Tribunals. I received a PCN from the Royal Borough
of Kensington and Chelsea for allegedly parking in a suspended
pay-by-phone bay.
The suspension sign stated that the suspension applied to the
"two pay by phone bays nearest to the junction." My issue is
that there were no markings on the road showing where one bay
ended and the next began, so it wasn't clear which two bays the
sign referred to. I genuinely believed I was parked outside the
suspended area.
I challenged the PCN on the basis that the restriction wasn't
adequately conveyed. I also pointed out that the vehicles
immediately in front of and behind mine were not issued PCNs,
therefore being ambiguous and unclear to the ticket officer.
The council rejected my challenge. Their response basically
says:
the sign was visible; the arrow pointed towards the junction; I
was in the second suspended bay; and the fact that other
vehicles weren't ticketed is irrelevant because each case is
considered independently.
However, they haven't really addressed my main point, which is
that without bay markings it wasn't possible to identify exactly
which two bays were suspended. They also haven't explained why
the adjacent vehicles weren't ticketed, despite appearing to be
within the same area.
I'm aware that "other cars didn't get tickets" isn't a defence
on its own. My argument is that the inconsistent enforcement
supports my position that the suspension wasn't clearly
identifiable.
Do I have reasonable grounds to take this to London Tribunals,
or are adjudicators likely to side with the council if the
suspension sign itself was present?
Has anyone won (or lost) a similar appeal involving suspended
bays and unclear bay identification?
#Post#: 123428--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for suspended bay - Kensington & Chelsea rejected my
main argument. Worth taking to London Tribunals?
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 30, 2026, 6:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but need more information. Appeals at LT have been won re
suspended parking due to ambiguous location details on the
suspension notice.
So please read this and update your thread accordingly: -
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
Sight of the enforcement documents is essential, as is a photo
of the suspension sign. A GSV link to the location is usually
also helpful
#Post#: 123556--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for suspended bay - Kensington & Chelsea rejected my
main argument. Worth taking to London Tribunals?
DIR By: Thor
Date: July 2, 2026, 4:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I had a somehow similar case, where parking bays weren't clearly
marked. I took it to the tribunal and won:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/13-parking-bays-but-no-parking-bays/msg105353
Good luck!
#Post#: 123621--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for suspended bay - Kensington & Chelsea rejected my
main argument. Worth taking to London Tribunals?
DIR By: helloiamaz
Date: July 2, 2026, 12:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've updated the post as I was not sure how to add pictures/GSV
Kensington Chelsea Council
Parked on suspended bay
Phillimore Gardens (opposite road from megan's on the high
street)
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/U1orY7voHDcVc74g8
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/WLbGoT8_xl.png
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/nOhPeJJ_xl.png
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/isvrxO4_xl.pnghttps://cdn.imgpile.com/f/OIATIvW_xl.png
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/UeMdQGw_xl.png
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/JgbkdBt_xl.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/BxyPlPV_xl.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/kg4Gjw7_xl.jpg
#Post#: 123623--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for suspended bay - Kensington & Chelsea rejected my
main argument. Worth taking to London Tribunals?
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 2, 2026, 1:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand your argument.
There are only 2 bays between the sign and the junction and your
photo shows the front of your car slap bang in the first of
these with transverse markings under the car. So, 'no markings
on the road showing where one bay ended and the next began' is
evidentially incorrect. GSV shows that the council have
actually placed a transverse line to mark the end of the second
bay, but IMO they need not have bothered because the kerb line
serves this purpose just as well.
Having seen the suspension sign, your photos and GSV, IMO you
don't have a chance at adjudication on your argument. I make it
that the reduced penalty is on offer until 6 July.
Procedurally, why have they replied mid-June to your challenge
in respect of a March PCN? When did you submit your challenge,
who is the registered keeper and are their DVLA details current?
Only the RK may make formal reps.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1