DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 125372--------------------------------------------------
Trafford, code 02, parked in restricted street, Victoria Place,
Stretford
DIR By: SteveB
Date: July 22, 2026, 5:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I parked on the evening of 06/03/2026 at 21:53 in what I
believed to be a recessed area off the carriageway of Victoria
Place, Stretford, directly in front of a gated and bollarded
entrance to an unoccupied office development. A valid disabled
blue badge was displayed.
I received a PCN for code 02 - parked or loading/unloading in a
restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading
restrictions are in force.
I challenged at every stage:
Informal challenge - rejected with boilerplate response
Formal representations following NTO - rejected, again without
addressing substantive arguments
Traffic Penalty Tribunal appeal - dismissed
Review application - refused
My photo showing the vehicle parked in the recess:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Ly5ud3X_xl.jpeg
The council's own enforcement photograph showing the yellow
lines curving and stopping short of the parking position:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/3UNektL_xl.jpg
Current Google Street View dated August 2025 showing the lines
ending at the corner, the no loading sign obscured by
vegetation, and another vehicle parked in the same location:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/BRRrYk9_xl.png
The adjudicator's decision contains what I consider to be
material errors:
The decision states the double yellow lines extend into the
recess. They partially do, but stop well short of the actual
parking position. The area in front of the bollards where the
vehicle was parked has no yellow markings.
The decision states I argued that other vehicles parking without
penalty indicated parking was permitted. I never made this
argument. The actual argument was that multiple vehicles parking
there demonstrated the location was not reasonably understood to
be restricted - a point about adequacy of signage.
The decision fails entirely to address several substantive
grounds including the council's own use of the word "can" in
their rejection letter (conceding some recessed areas are not
restricted), the no loading sign being obscured by vegetation,
and the absence of any obstruction as the road was closed to
traffic at both ends.
The case is now at the post-adjudicator stage. No Charge
Certificate has yet been received. I am considering my options
including whether a witness statement at the Order for Recovery
stage is viable on the ground that representations were made
that were not considered.
I can provide all documentation including PCN, NTO, council
rejection letters, tribunal appeal, adjudicator's decision, and
photographs.
Thank you in advance for any assistance you are able to provide.
#Post#: 125373--------------------------------------------------
Re: Trafford, code 02, parked in restricted street, Victoria
Place, Stretford
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 22, 2026, 6:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You've come to the absolute end of the enforcement process. Pity
you didn't come on this forum months ago when we could have
helped with your representations. The only place you can go now
is Judicial Review, and this costs real money, like into 4
figures and beyond. There is nothing we can offer you on this
forum at the stage you have reached.
HTML https://www.judiciary.uk/how-the-law-works/judicial-review/
My advice is to pay the PCN now before you get a Charge
Certificate, and put this down as a learning opportunity
#Post#: 125375--------------------------------------------------
Re: Trafford, code 02, parked in restricted street, Victoria
Place, Stretford
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 22, 2026, 6:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
+1, crossed with this:
IMO, you are wrong on every count as far as I can see.
1. Signs present
Double yellow which convey no waiting 24/7; double kerb blips
which convey no loading 24/7. Neither the lines nor kerb blips
needs an upright plate but these may be sited(often as legacies
of pre-regulatory changes).
2. Scope of restrictions
At right angles to the lines. Therefore substantial parts of
both cars in your photo are in contravention.
3. Options should you be served with an OfR
Witness Statement
Where an Order for Recovery has been made, liability for the
penalty can then only be challenged in the following
circumstances:
[i]You did not receive the postal Penalty Charge Notice or
Notice to Owner in question; THIS IS NOT AVAILABLE TO YOU(you
were deemed to have received and acted as if you had received
the NTO otherwise you couldn't/wouldn't have made
representations), or
You made representations about the Penalty Charge Notice to the
enforcement authority concerned but did not receive a Notice of
Rejection from that authority; THIS IS NOT AVAILABLE TO YOU(you
made unsuccessful representations), or
You appealed to the adjudicator against the rejection by the
enforcement authority of your representations but had no
response to the appeal; or
You had paid the penalty charge in full. THIS IS NOT AVAILABLE
TO YOU(you appealed, were heard, rejected and sought a review).
If, and only if, one of these applies, you may make a witness
statement.[/i]
A d even if you did make a false statement in a WS(on ground 3)
this would only get you back to the adjudicator who would
certainly refuse to register the matter as an appeal and issue
you with Directions to pay whatever sum was outstanding.
IMO, your only legal options are either to apply for a second
review or seek leave to have the adjudicator's decision
Judicially Reviewed(£££££££££).
#Post#: 125379--------------------------------------------------
Re: Trafford, code 02, parked in restricted street, Victoria
Place, Stretford
DIR By: SteveB
Date: July 22, 2026, 6:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't see how it's right that they fail to address most of my
points and even reject an argument that I didn't even make! It
doesn't feel like the adjudictor even read my appeal. No one is
ever going to convince me that the markings and signage were
adequate, when the markings stop part way round a bend and are
clearly historical when that recess was not a recess but an
actual road that is now gated off and I'm not even parked on the
road causing any obstruction at all. But I a now acting like a
dog with a bone that refuses to give up! Because it just feels
wrong on every level.
#Post#: 125389--------------------------------------------------
Re: Trafford, code 02, parked in restricted street, Victoria
Place, Stretford
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 22, 2026, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Any reason you didn't come on this forum when preparing your
original representations ?
#Post#: 125395--------------------------------------------------
Re: Trafford, code 02, parked in restricted street, Victoria
Place, Stretford
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 22, 2026, 9:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's possible we could have found something to go on but that
ship has sailed.
I note tactile paving for a crossing there by the way.
It's £70. You should pay it now.
#Post#: 125409--------------------------------------------------
Re: Trafford, code 02, parked in restricted street, Victoria
Place, Stretford
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 22, 2026, 11:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO,
The decision states the double yellow lines extend into the
recess. They partially do, but stop well short of the actual
parking position.
The DYL extend enough into the recess that your car was in
contravention for reasons I set out earlier.
The area in front of the bollards where the vehicle was parked
has no yellow markings.
None are needed because they operate perpendicular to the
markings.
The decision states I argued that other vehicles parking without
penalty indicated parking was permitted. I never made this
argument. The actual argument was that multiple vehicles parking
there demonstrated the location was not reasonably understood to
be restricted - a point about adequacy of signage.
What other motorists do and whether they were penalised are
immaterial to an adjudicator's consideration. This is less a
point about 'adequacy of signage' than a lack of knowledge among
motorists NB. knowledge which are presumed to have by virtue of
holding a driving licence.
Nothing you have posted gets anywhere near a defence, let alone
a reason for continuing to dispute the adjudicator's decision -
as you've posted it NB. we haven't seen the decision and
reasons.
#Post#: 125571--------------------------------------------------
Re: Trafford, code 02, parked in restricted street, Victoria
Place, Stretford
DIR By: SteveB
Date: July 24, 2026, 4:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> Any reason you didn't come on this forum when preparing your
original representations ?
>
--- End Quote ---
Only just discovered it.
#Post#: 125572--------------------------------------------------
Re: Trafford, code 02, parked in restricted street, Victoria
Place, Stretford
DIR By: SteveB
Date: July 24, 2026, 4:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> +1, crossed with this:
>
> IMO, you are wrong on every count as far as I can see.
>
> 1. Signs present
> Double yellow which convey no waiting 24/7; double kerb blips
which convey no loading 24/7. Neither the lines nor kerb blips
needs an upright plate but these may be sited(often as legacies
of pre-regulatory changes).
>
> 2. Scope of restrictions
> At right angles to the lines. Therefore substantial parts of
both cars in your photo are in contravention.
>
> 3. Options should you be served with an OfR
>
> Witness Statement
> Where an Order for Recovery has been made, liability for the
penalty can then only be challenged in the following
circumstances:
>
> [i]You did not receive the postal Penalty Charge Notice or
Notice to Owner in question; THIS IS NOT AVAILABLE TO YOU(you
were deemed to have received and acted as if you had received
the NTO otherwise you couldn't/wouldn't have made
representations), or
>
> You made representations about the Penalty Charge Notice to
the enforcement authority concerned but did not receive a Notice
of Rejection from that authority; THIS IS NOT AVAILABLE TO
YOU(you made unsuccessful representations), or
>
> You appealed to the adjudicator against the rejection by the
enforcement authority of your representations but had no
response to the appeal; or
> You had paid the penalty charge in full. THIS IS NOT AVAILABLE
TO YOU(you appealed, were heard, rejected and sought a review).
>
> If, and only if, one of these applies, you may make a witness
statement.[/i]
>
> A d even if you did make a false statement in a WS(on ground
3) this would only get you back to the adjudicator who would
certainly refuse to register the matter as an appeal and issue
you with Directions to pay whatever sum was outstanding.
>
> IMO, your only legal options are either to apply for a second
review or seek leave to have the adjudicator's decision
Judicially Reviewed(£££££££££).
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't see how it's right that they fail to address most of my
points and even reject an argument that I didn't even make! It
doesn't feel like the adjudictor even read my appeal. No one is
ever going to convince me that the markings and signage were
adequate, when the markings stop part way round a bend and are
clearly historical when that recess was not a recess but an
actual road that is now gated off and I'm not even parked on the
road causing any obstruction at all. But I a now acting like a
dog with a bone that refuses to give up! Because it just feels
wrong on every level.But with regard to point 2 had I been able
to parallel park that would not have been true. So that would
have been OK?? That doesn't seem logical to me, but logic
doesn't seem to be relevant in the whole process anyway.
#Post#: 125574--------------------------------------------------
Re: Trafford, code 02, parked in restricted street, Victoria
Place, Stretford
DIR By: SteveB
Date: July 24, 2026, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> IMO,
>
> The decision states the double yellow lines extend into the
recess. They partially do, but stop well short of the actual
parking position.
>
> The DYL extend enough into the recess that your car was in
contravention for reasons I set out earlier.
>
>
> The area in front of the bollards where the vehicle was parked
has no yellow markings.
>
> None are needed because they operate perpendicular to the
markings.
>
>
> The decision states I argued that other vehicles parking
without penalty indicated parking was permitted. I never made
this argument. The actual argument was that multiple vehicles
parking there demonstrated the location was not reasonably
understood to be restricted - a point about adequacy of signage.
>
> What other motorists do and whether they were penalised are
immaterial to an adjudicator's consideration. This is less a
point about 'adequacy of signage' than a lack of knowledge among
motorists NB. knowledge which are presumed to have by virtue of
holding a driving licence.
>
> Nothing you have posted gets anywhere near a defence, let
alone a reason for continuing to dispute the adjudicator's
decision - as you've posted it NB. we haven't seen the decision
and reasons.
>
--- End Quote ---
This was the defence, which has far more detail:
Grounds: The alleged contravention did not occur / Other grounds
The vehicle was not parked on a restricted street. It was parked
entirely within a recessed area off the carriageway of Victoria
Place, which constitutes what was formerly the entrance to
Trafford Wharf Road before that junction was permanently closed
with bollards. The recess is delineated from the carriageway by
white lines, as is clearly visible in both my own photographs
and in the council's own enforcement photographs. The vehicle
was not on the carriageway at any point.
The double yellow lines do not extend to the location of parking
The double yellow lines on Victoria Place curve around the
corner towards the former junction but visibly end before the
recess in which the vehicle was parked. The vehicle was
therefore not parked on or adjacent to any active yellow line
markings.
The markings are historical and have not been updated following
road closure
Historical Google Street View imagery of this location shows
that the double yellow lines previously extended further into
this area when it formed an active road junction. Following the
permanent closure of the junction with bollards, the road layout
changed materially but the markings were not updated to reflect
this. The historical street view makes clear that the markings
were placed in the context of an open junction that no longer
exists. To enforce those markings against a vehicle parked in
what is now effectively a closed-off recess is unreasonable and
the council should ensure its markings accurately reflect the
current highway layout.
No kerb markings indicating a loading restriction at the point
of parking
Whilst the council's evidence includes a photograph of a no
loading at any time sign on a lamppost, there are no kerb
markings at or adjacent to the recess where the vehicle was
parked. The absence of kerb markings at the location is a
further indication that no enforceable loading restriction
applies there.
No obstruction caused
At the time of the alleged contravention, Victoria Place was
closed to through traffic at both ends, with access permitted
only by prior arrangement due to the blue badge held. The
vehicle could not have caused any obstruction to other vehicles
or pedestrians in these circumstances. The purpose of waiting
and loading restrictions — to prevent obstruction — was entirely
absent.
Blue badge
A valid disabled blue badge was displayed on the vehicle. Whilst
I acknowledge that a blue badge does not of itself exempt a
vehicle from all loading restrictions, it is a relevant
contextual factor, particularly given the closed nature of the
road at the time.
Multiple vehicles parked in the same location
As is visible in the photographs, the vehicle was one of several
parked in the same recess. This demonstrates that the location
is reasonably understood by members of the public not to be
subject to parking restrictions, and is a further indication
that the signage and markings in the area are inadequate and
misleading.
Supporting evidence submitted:
Photograph taken at the time showing YB21*** and a second
vehicle parked in the recess, off the carriageway
Council enforcement photograph confirming the same
Historical Google Street View screenshot showing the double
yellow lines in the context of the former open junction,
demonstrating the markings pre-date the road closure and have
not been updated
I respectfully request that this Notice to Owner be cancelled.
If representations are rejected I reserve the right to appeal to
the independent adjudicator.
Council response:
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above Penalty
Charge Notice (PCN).
In accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004, your
correspondence can at this stage, will be treated as a Formal
Representation.
The PCN was issued to the above vehicle for parking in a
restricted street during prescribed hours. After reviewing the
images and the notes taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer
(CEO), I can confirm that the PCN was correctly served. The
double yellow lines at this location are clearly visible,
indicating that waiting is prohibited at all times (24 hours a
day, 7 days a week).
Following a further review, we acknowledge your explanation.
While you have stated that the vehicle was parked within a
recessed area and believed this to be outside of the
restriction, we must advise that such areas can still form part
of the public highway.
The presence of double yellow lines at the entrance to the area,
together with the associated loading restriction signage,
applies to the full extent of the highway, including any
adjoining recessed areas, unless clearly indicated otherwise.
In addition, Blue Badge holders are not exempt from restrictions
at locations where loading restrictions are in force, as
indicated by the relevant signage.
It remains the responsibility of the driver to ensure that their
vehicle is parked in accordance with all restrictions in place
and to correctly interpret both road markings and signage.
For your reference, I have enclosed images captured by the Civil
Enforcement Officer, which serve as evidence that the alleged
offence took place.
While I understand that this may not be the outcome you were
seeking, I trust that I have adequately explained the reasons
for my decision not to cancel the above PCN.
Then to the adjudicator:
1. The council's own rejection letter concedes that recessed
areas do not automatically form part of the restricted highway
The council's Notice of Rejection states that recessed areas
"can still form part of the public highway." The use of the word
"can" is significant and fatal to their case. It is an explicit
acknowledgment that some recessed areas do, and some do not,
fall within a restriction. The council provides no criteria
whatsoever by which a motorist could determine which category
applies in any given case. In the absence of clear markings or
signage at the specific location of parking, a motorist cannot
reasonably be expected to know that this particular recess falls
within the restriction. The burden of establishing that a
contravention occurred rests with the council, and their own
language demonstrates that this burden has not been discharged.
2. The double yellow lines do not extend to the location of
parking
The vehicle was parked entirely within the recess, off the
carriageway. The double yellow lines on Victoria Place curve
around the corner towards the former junction but visibly end
before the recess. The vehicle was not parked on or adjacent to
any active yellow line markings. The council states that the
lines are "clearly visible" but does not assert, because it
cannot, that they extend to the precise location where the
vehicle was parked.
3. The markings are historical and have not been updated
following permanent road closure
Historical Google Street View imagery of this location shows
that the double yellow lines were placed when this area formed
an active road junction. The junction has since been permanently
closed with bollards, fundamentally altering the road layout.
The markings have never been updated to reflect this change. It
is unreasonable to enforce markings that predate a material
change in the highway layout and which no longer accurately
reflect the current situation on the ground. The council has a
responsibility to ensure that road markings are kept up to date
and accurately reflect enforceable restrictions.
4. The no loading signage is not established as visible from or
proximate to the parking location
The council's evidence includes a photograph of a no loading at
any time sign on a lamppost. However this photograph is entirely
isolated - it shows only the sign and its immediate surroundings
with no contextual reference establishing where that lamppost is
relative to the recess where the vehicle was parked. It cannot
be determined from this photograph that the sign was visible
from, or applicable to, the parking location. Furthermore, and
critically, there are no kerb markings at or adjacent to the
recess. Kerb markings are the primary means by which a loading
restriction is communicated to a motorist at the point of
parking. Their absence at this location is a material failure of
adequate notification.
5. The historical markings point and the no loading sign point
were not addressed in the rejection
The council's rejection letter does not engage with either the
historical markings argument or the absence of kerb markings at
the recess. A motorist who has raised specific and substantive
grounds is entitled to expect those grounds to be addressed. The
failure to do so is itself a procedural failing and suggests the
rejection was not a genuine consideration of the representations
made.
6. No obstruction was caused - the purpose of the restriction
was entirely absent
At the time of the alleged contravention on 06/03/2026, Victoria
Place was closed to through traffic at both ends. Access was
permitted only by prior arrangement due to the disabled blue
badge held. The vehicle could not have caused any obstruction to
other vehicles or pedestrians in these circumstances. The
purpose of waiting and loading restrictions is to prevent
obstruction of the highway. In a traffic-free zone, that purpose
was entirely absent. It would be disproportionate to enforce a
restriction in circumstances where no harm of any kind could
result.
7. Multiple vehicles parked in the same location
The photographs - including the council's own evidence
photographs - show at least one other vehicle parked in the same
recess at the same time. This demonstrates that the location is
not reasonably understood by members of the public to be subject
to a parking restriction, and is further evidence that the
markings and signage in the area are inadequate and misleading.
8. Blue badge displayed
A valid disabled blue badge was clearly displayed in the
vehicle, as is visible in the council's own evidence
photographs. Whilst a blue badge does not exempt a vehicle from
all loading restrictions, it is a relevant contextual factor,
particularly in circumstances where the road was closed and
access was by prior arrangement due to disablement.
Summary
The council has not established that a contravention occurred.
Their own rejection letter concedes ambiguity as to whether
recessed areas fall within a restriction. The markings at this
location are historical, do not extend to the parking position,
and have not been updated following permanent changes to the
highway layout. The no loading signage has not been established
as visible from or applicable to the parking location, and there
are no kerb markings at the recess. No obstruction was caused. I
respectfully request that the appeal be allowed and the penalty
charge cancelled.
And finally adjudictor response:
Mr X appeals on behalf of the appellant company. The appellant
states that his car was parked at a location that is not subject
to parking enforcement. The appellant also argues that the no
loading sign was not clear.
The civil enforcement officer's photographs show the appellant's
car parked facing locked gates in what the appellant refers to
as a recess. There was a disabled badge in the car. The civil
enforcement officer's photographs and the appellant's evidence
at 20 shows that there is a double yellow line that extends from
the carriageway into the recessed area. The double yellow line
restriction applies from the kerb to the centre of the
recess/vehicle cross over. The civil enforcement officer's
photographs show the appellant's car parked with the front of
the car close to the gate and the back of the car extending
beyond the end of the double yellow line. The civil enforcement
officer's photographs also show that there are two kerb marks
that are inside the line that delineates the edge of the
carriageway. Two kerb marks indicate that there is a loading
restriction at all times. Disabled badge holder may not park at
a location where there is a loading restriction. The civil
enforcement officer's evidence also shows a no loading sign. I
find that this was not obscured and that it was a short distance
from the appellant's car.
I find that the appellant's car was parked in part of Victoria
Place that is restricted by the Traffic Regulation Order. It may
be that other cars have parked at the location and not received
Penalty Charge Notices but this does not indicate that parking
is permitted. Mr Blackmore states that the road is closed and
that access is only permitted due to prior arrangement. I have
seen no evidence that the council has suspended parking
enforcement as a consequence of any road closure.
I find that the evidence shows that the contravention occurred.
I dismiss this appeal.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page