DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 124438--------------------------------------------------
Enfield, code 01 parked in a restricted street, The Ride EN3
DIR By: elucidate
Date: July 12, 2026, 10:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello everyone,
This particular single yellow line (GSV
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6509991,-0.0466389,3a,75y,148.79h,75.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sM-G1rFOjpe_QVfj9tlHrNg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D14.984751867084114%26panoid%3DM-G1rFOjpe_QVfj9tlHrNg%26yaw%3D148.78826154983088!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDcwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)<br
/>is somewhere where I've found myself inadvertently being
issued
with a PCN a couple of times due to forgetting the car was there
overnight, and hitherto I've been able to get them cancelled by
referring to a London Tribunal case I won a few years ago (case
reference 2230394052) in respect to the same location (the road
name mentioned in the case is incorrect). The upshot of the case
was that the council said the yellow line was governed by a
yellow timeplate as shown in the CEO photos, whereas I argued
that that same yellow line is actually governed by white PCZ
signage, and therefore there has been a procedural impropriety
on the part of the CEO in citing my contravention. The
adjudicator said that, whilst it's perfectly possible for a
yellow timeplate to override a CPZ timeplate, which one applied
in my case was unclear and therefore he ordered the cancellation
of the PCN.
I've had one final instance of this alleged contravention (I say
"final" because they've since converted the line from single to
double). This time, the Council rejected both my informal and
formal challenges, in the latter of which they've flipped the
script, essentially telling me they agree with me that the
yellow line is governed by the white CPZ timings,
notwithstanding the CEO citing the yellow timeplate which is
"classed as secondary evidence and do not invalidate the
Notice". And, as my car was in contravention of the timings,
they say the PCN is valid.
So, as you can see, it's a bit of a hodge-podge of different
arguments. Any advice would be appreciated.
According to my count, the rejection letter is deemed to have
been served on 16/06/2026 and therefore the appeals deadline is
13/07/2026.
Link
HTML https://1drv.ms/f/c/f11da62e0ed95d12/IgARQk8y_ZRZQ5D9yHCgGS_6AfNmD3568uI0fUBvRe9jv2k?e=fUy9ye<br
/>to council correspondences, legacy Tribunal case and CEO
photos.
#Post#: 124442--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield, code 01 parked in a restricted street, The Ride EN3
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 12, 2026, 12:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There's no ambiguity as regards the regs.
A part-time waiting restriction (AKA SYL) must be signed.
Exceptionally, the adjacent upright signs may be dispensed with
in a CPZ. But they don't have to be. We normally see this where
there's a different restriction within a CPZ. However, when this
is the case the limits of any excepted area must be clearly
marked. These markings are simple transverse yellow lines,
effectively termination of the CPZ restriction coming into the
excepted length of street and the same when exiting.
Your photos?
Were you parked on DYL which don't need upright signs?
#Post#: 124443--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield, code 01 parked in a restricted street, The Ride EN3
DIR By: elucidate
Date: July 12, 2026, 1:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Photos are now in the linked folder.
I was parked on SYL.
#Post#: 124446--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield, code 01 parked in a restricted street, The Ride EN3
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 12, 2026, 1:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can't make out anything from the photos and GSV is of no help.
You were parked in line with the traffic lane, therefore nothing
ahead of you has effect, it's what's behind you. There's a sign
posted in isolation. This is co-located with a no waiting on
verge or footway sign(whose purpose escapes me as Enfield is
wholly within Greater London).
#Post#: 124544--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield, code 01 parked in a restricted street, The Ride EN3
DIR By: elucidate
Date: July 13, 2026, 12:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully this provides a bit of clarity:
HTML https://photos.app.goo.gl/CcK4UFJNPHDdxW3u5
On the extreme left of the image is the yellow timeplate photoed
by the CEO. Further westward is the white CPZ entry sign. My car
was parked fully on the SYL where the silver car is on the
linked image.
#Post#: 124548--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield, code 01 parked in a restricted street, The Ride EN3
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 13, 2026, 12:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The line and the CPZ sign differ by the latter not including
Saturday and starting at 9am not 8am but 29 Jan was a Thursday
and the contravention time was in the afternoon so covered by
either sign?
The rejection says the CPZ sign applies and that's what we'd
argue given where it's placed but maybe there's something to
argue about the TMO.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/qFPZxzNS/Screenshot-2026-07-13-at-18-19-57.png
--------
HTML https://i.ibb.co/WNH97W0G/en3.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/s9G61JVF/en2.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/nNs7HL2B/en1.jpg
#Post#: 124557--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield, code 01 parked in a restricted street, The Ride EN3
DIR By: elucidate
Date: July 13, 2026, 2:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you to everyone for your inputs so far. As the deadline
for escalation to the adjudicator is tonight, the following is
the draft I'm sitting on right now; I will be keeping an eye on
this thread in case of any points I need to add, replace or
delete.
--- Quote ---
> Grounds: The alleged contravention did not occur due to
defective, confusing, and non-compliant signage.
>
> 1. Direct Precedent and Consistency of Adjudication
>
> The Appellant relies upon the fundamental principle of
consistency in tribunal adjudication, pointing directly to a
previous successful appeal at this exact location involving the
same layout and the same Appellant: Mohammed Khairul Islam v.
London Borough of Enfield (Case Ref: 2230394052).
>
> In that binding decision, Adjudicator Edward Houghton
explicitly ruled that the conflicting setup of yellow lines and
zone hours at this location "caused confusion and rendered the
signage less clear than it should be," specifically failing to
follow Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) recommendations. The physical
topography and signage confusion of the site remain materially
unchanged since that determination.
>
> 2. Failure to Discharge the Heavy Evidential Burden
>
> As established by Adjudicator Houghton, a failure to follow
the clear layout recommendations of the TSM places a "fairly
heavy evidential burden" on the Council to demonstrate that the
signage is sufficiently clear. The Council has failed to
discharge this burden.
>
> In their Notice of Rejection dated 12/06/2026, the Council
attempts to dismiss the Civil Enforcement Officer’s (CEO)
incorrect photography of local signs by stating that
"Photographs are classed as secondary evidence and do not
invalidate the Notice."
>
> While photographs may be secondary evidence of a vehicle’s
physical presence, the CEO’s confusion regarding which sign to
photograph serves as contemporaneous primary evidence of signage
ambiguity. If a trained, professional Civil Enforcement Officer
cannot intuitively identify which restriction or zone plate
applies to this specific single yellow line, it is legally
impossible to argue that the restriction is "clear and
intelligible" to an ordinary motorist on the street.
>
> 3. Zone Boundary Ambiguity
>
> The Council notes in their rejection that "The 'zone end' sign
was behind your vehicle which means that said zone terminates
after that sign." This admission highlights that the vehicle was
parked precisely on a boundary margin where the Enfield College
CPZ terminates.
>
> Parking a vehicle immediately adjacent to a zone
boundary—where localized yellow timeplates and white zone plates
conflict—creates an impermissible visual trap. Per TSM
guidelines previously upheld by this Tribunal, restrictions near
zone entry/exit points must not create confusion. The presence
of a zone termination marker immediately behind the vehicle,
combined with the CEO's documented confusion over the relevant
timeplates, proves the restriction was fundamentally unclear.
>
> 4. Rebuttal to the Council's Assertion Regarding Overlapping
Timings
>
> The Enforcement Authority implies that because the time of the
alleged contravention (15:49) falls within the operational hours
of both the local yellow timeplate and the white CPZ entry
signs, the confusion regarding which sign applies is irrelevant.
The Appellant strongly rejects this assertion.
>
> Signage clarity is a condition precedent to lawful
enforcement. If a signage layout is contradictory, confusing, or
fails to follow TSM guidelines - as this Tribunal has already
ruled is the case at this exact location - the restriction is
fundamentally defective and legally unenforceable. The Council
cannot argue that a restriction is "half-enforceable" or that a
motorist should guess which sign takes precedence simply because
the timings happen to overlap on that particular day. Because
the signage layout fails the legal test of clarity, no lawful
restriction was in place at 15:49, and therefore no
contravention could have occurred.
>
> 5. Conclusion
>
> The Enforcement Authority has been fully aware since October
2023 that the signage layout at this location is misleading,
non-compliant with the TSM, and legally unenforceable. Rather
than rectifying the signage to make it clear to the public, they
have continued to issue defective penalties. Based on the
precedent of Case 2230394052, the evidential confusion of the
CEO, and the acknowledged proximity to the zone boundary, the
Appellant respectfully requests that this appeal be allowed and
the PCN cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 124564--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield, code 01 parked in a restricted street, The Ride EN3
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 13, 2026, 4:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have NO idea what timings apply because you have not shown the
yellow transverse lines. For all I know, there was a prior set
of timings before the stand-alone sign and if the stand-alone
sign does not have a transverse marking then it has no effect.
The CPZ restriction DOES NOT APPLY where you were parked
because the SYL is continuous and whatever was in effect before
the CPZ sign continues until terminated, in this case by the DYL
and transverse marking.
I want to see transverse markings.
#Post#: 124565--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield, code 01 parked in a restricted street, The Ride EN3
DIR By: elucidate
Date: July 13, 2026, 4:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> I have NO idea what timings apply because you have not shown
the yellow transverse lines. For all I know, there was a prior
set of timings before the stand-alone sign and if the
stand-alone sign does not have a transverse marking then it has
no effect.
>
> The CPZ restriction DOES NOT APPLY where you were parked
because the SYL is continuous and whatever was in effect before
the CPZ sign continues until terminated, in this case by the DYL
and transverse marking.
>
> I want to see transverse markings.
>
--- End Quote ---
- Transverse marking at eastern end of the SYL:
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6510798,-0.045954,3a,48.3y,234.36h,78.95t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sazaSvj-wK8YJZfDqOExkbA!2e0!5s20180401T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D11.053335870668391%26panoid%3DazaSvj-wK8YJZfDqOExkbA%26yaw%3D234.35564225084568!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDcwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3Dclick<br
/>here
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6510798,-0.045954,3a,48.3y,234.36h,78.95t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sazaSvj-wK8YJZfDqOExkbA!2e0!5s20180401T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D11.049999999999997%26panoid%3DazaSvj-wK8YJZfDqOExkbA%26yaw%3D234.36!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDcwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
- Transverse marking at western end of the SYL: click here
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6509748,-0.0466871,3a,90y,135.81h,62.76t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sBDnIcIpUTPxhb5BX7OSoIA!2e0!5s20180401T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D27.242451447705434%26panoid%3DBDnIcIpUTPxhb5BX7OSoIA%26yaw%3D135.80858201727045!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDcwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
There were no transverse markings in between those two.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1