DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 99759--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: November 25, 2025, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Any assistance with the appeal would be appreciated
#Post#: 99763--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 25, 2025, 11:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This links to files I cannot open.
#Post#: 99777--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: November 25, 2025, 12:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> This links to files I cannot open.
>
--- End Quote ---
Nor me !
#Post#: 99790--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: November 25, 2025, 1:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How about now?
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Csh8y2wn3pbT2G2gJjpp1UJ6wJeUWcRN/view?usp=drivesdk
If you unzip the file, all the pdf evidences will be there.
#Post#: 99999--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: November 27, 2025, 2:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Did anyone have a chance to look at the evidence?
#Post#: 100005--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 27, 2025, 3:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
All I get when I tap a file is the message 'Copy File'. Nothing
opens.
#Post#: 100052--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: November 27, 2025, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So weird. When I click the link using private browser it all
shows. Anyway, here’s a new Dropbox link
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/qmi329sctq0yqm9l94b8z/AM-7FkzxoXSSBuPL4THDdVs?rlkey=0jdh7c6phe0efjbr30jwsxzfd&st=ju892end&dl=0
#Post#: 100089--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 27, 2025, 11:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The TMO looks OK based upon their map.
IMO, you've only got the issue of discretion.
..I appealed on the same grounds in both stages of
representation and was dismayed, disappointed and surprised when
the council did not exercise discretion despite my strong
grounds. After receiving the Notice of Rejection I decided to
examine their policy for exercising discretion and found that
this dates from 2017, a fact which was confirmed by the council,
see attached.
I decided to pursue this issue and found that the Secretary of
State's Statutory Guidance was reissued in October 2022. My
understanding of the duty imposed on councils under the Traffic
Management Act 2004 is that they must have regard to this
guidance whose wording as regards my circumstances suggests to
me that discretion would more likely than not have been
exercised had the council had regard to this guidance. I submit
that it is axiomatic that a policy dated 2017 fails in this
regard.
I therefore request the adjudicator to allow my appeal on the
grounds of Procedural Impropriety by virtue of the council's
failure to have regard to a duty imposed on it by virtue of s87
of the Traffic Management Act 2004.
Is the best I can come up with.
Make sure you present their reply(ies) in support.
#Post#: 100364--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: November 29, 2025, 7:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just recieved my decision from LT appeal and sadly it’s been
refused. :'(
Adjudicator's Reasons
1. The penalty charge notice (PCN) in this case was issued on
the basis that the Appellant's vehicle
was parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours at
Brady Street on 26 February 2025 at
19:27.
2. The appeal was decided following a video hearing attended by
the Appellant, Mohammed Khan.
The appellant relies upon the ground of appeal that there was
procedural impropriety on the part of
the Enforcement Authority (EA).
3. The Appellant does not dispute the facts of the
contravention, but raises a number of issues
regarding the contravention circumstances and whether it should
be enforced. The Appellant states
that he parked his vehicle at approximately 18:32 at which time
the parking bay was subject to a pay
by phone requirement. However, the Appellant was transporting a
family member who had a Blue
Badge. This was displayed in the vehicle upon parking and so no
payment was made to park.
4. The Appellant states that, at the time he parked, Blue Badge
holders could park without restriction.
He therefore did not display the parking clock. However, he
acknowledges that after 19:00 the bay
becomes restricted for parking or waiting and then a Blue Badge
holder may only park for up to 3
hours and is required to display the parking clock showing when
they began parking. The Appellant
was unaware at the time of the transition between restrictions.
He returned to his vehicle around
20:00 by which time the PCN had already been issued.
5. The Appellant submits that the signage was confusing and
inadequate. It primarily highlighted the
pay to park obligation, with only a smaller sign showing the
restrictions between 19:30 and 07:30. The
signs make no reference to Blue Badge holders nor the
requirement to display a parking clock after
19:00. Where signage fails to specify a condition, it is
unenforceable (Moses v Barnet LBC [2005]
EWHC 1900 (Admin)). He submits that a reasonable person would
understand from this that
displaying just the Blue Badge is sufficient. In oral evidence,
the Appellant stated that in all his years
of driving he had never seen signs, such as are at this
location, where restrictions change from pay to
park to single yellow line restrictions.
6. Further, he submits that failure to display the parking clock
is purely a minor technical oversight
which should not lead to a PCN. He refers to similar cases where
this position was upheld
(2110072817 & 2250128346). He also submits that any breach was
"de minimis" as the restriction did
not commence until 19:00 and the PCN was issued at 19:27.
7. The Appellant emphasised in his oral submissions that, even
without the parking clock being
displayed, the maximum amount of time that his vehicle could
have been parked while the single
yellow line restriction was in force was 27 minutes when the PCN
was issued. This is well within the
three hours allowed to Blue Badge holders and this would have
been evident to the CEO whether the
clock was displayed or not. This is similar to the circumstances
in case no. 2250128346.
8. Finally, and the Appellant emphasised that this is his main
point of challenge, the Appellant has
made two Freedom of Information requests to the EA which
establish that the EA's policy on
cancellation of PCNs dates from 2017 and that the EA fail to
show that they have reviewed the policy
in light of guidance issued in October 2022 by the Secretary of
State under s.87 of the Traffic
Management Act 2004 (TMA). The Appellant submits that there is a
duty on the EA under the TMA to
have regard to this guidance and that their failure to do so
amounts to procedural impropriety.
9. The Appellant also expressed his belief that the
circumstances of this case are such that the EA
could and should have exercised discretion under part 6) of the
section headed "Compelling
Reasons/Mitigating Circumstances" of their cancellation policy.
The Appellant acknowledged his
understanding that adjudicators do not have discretion and
cannot compel EA's to exercise discretion.
10. The EA have provided photographs taken by a Civil
Enforcement Officer (CEO) showing the
contravention, including the Appellant's vehicle parked on a
marked single yellow line next to a
signpost showing signs relating to "Pay to park" and that "No
waiting" restrictions apply "Mon-Sat
between Midnight - 7am and 7pm - Midnight". They submit that it
is a driver's responsibility to check
all sign plates and road markings when they park.
11. The EA submits that Blue Badges are not valid for parking in
areas where loading restrictions or
waiting restrictions are in force. Also, that all actions
pertaining to the PCN have been dealt with in
accordance with the TMA. A copy of the relevant Traffic
Management Order for the restrictions on
Brady Street is produced.
12. I am satisfied from the evidence, which is not disputed,
that, as a matter of fact, the Appellant's
vehicle was parked on Brady Street on 26 February 2025 at 19:27
when there was a single yellow line
waiting restriction in place which operated from 7pm until 7am.
I find that the Appellant's vehicle
displayed a Blue Badge while parked. I accept the Appellant's
evidence that he was entitled to use the
Blue Badge in his vehicle as it belonged to a family member who
he had been transporting at the time
he parked.
13. I find that the signage at the location was clear and
compliant. The times and dates when pay to
park applied and when the single yellow line no waiting
restrictions applied are clearly set out on signs
immediately above one another and are displayed immediately
adjacent to the parking bay. I accept
the EA's submission that it is incumbent upon a driver to check
all restrictions that apply when they
park.
14. The use of a Blue Badge is governed by its own legislation
which sets out the terms of use of the
Blue Badge. The responsibility is upon the holder of a Blue
Badge, or those people who use their
vehicle to transport a holder of a Blue Badge, to know and
understand the relevant terms of use. I am
satisfied that there was no obligation on the EA to include
within its signage reference to either Blue
Badge holders generally or the need to display a parking clock
if parking on a single yellow line during
restricted hours. These are general matters covered by the terms
of Blue Badge use which do not
require any separate signage.
15. I find that, in order to be allowed to park for up to three
hours on a single yellow line during
restricted hours, it is a requirement that both the front of the
Blue Badge and a parking clock, showing
the time that parking commenced, are displayed. The Appellant
did not display a parking clock as
required. I do not accept that this is purely a technical
breach. The clock is essential to fix the time
that the three hours allowed runs from.
16. I have considered the two cases referred to by the
Appellant. Although I am not bound by the
decisions of other adjudicators and all cases are decided upon
their own facts and merits, cases can
sometimes provide persuasive support for a case advanced.
17. Case no. 2110072817 does not appear relevant to any of the
matters raised by the Appellant. It
primarily deals with the wording of a Notice of Rejection.
18. Case no. 2250128346 is a recent appeal where the appeal was
allowed as the adjudicator found
that the absence of a parking clock with a Blue Badge was not
necessary as the restricted time only
lasted two and a half hours, therefore a Blue Badge holder could
never exceed the three hours
parking allowed in such a restricted area. The current appeal
differs significantly due to the fact that
the Appellant was parked in an area where the restriction lasted
for 12 hours. It is essential that a
parking clock is displayed in order to establish when the three
hour parking period commenced. While
the PCN was issued only 27 minutes into the restricted time
period, the requirement for the parking
clock was an essential element of the Blue Badge parking
concession at that location and the PCN
was therefore validly issued. I do not accept that 27 minutes
out of a twelve hour period is a "de
minimis" period of time.
19. Finally, in respect of the issues raised regarding the EA's
policy on cancelling PCNs, I accept the
Appellant's evidence that the Secretary of State issued guidance
in October 2022 under s.87 of the
TMA. However, that guidance is headed "Statutory guidance for
local authorities outside London on
civil enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic
contraventions". Whether the EA considered 2022
guidance issued for local authorities outside London and
relating to moving traffic and bus lane
contraventions can have no relevance, and cannot amount to a
procedural irregularity, in the current
appeal which relates to a parking contravention occurring within
London.
20. The matters raised by the Appellant regarding the use of the
Blue Badge amount to mitigation
only. They have been considered by the EA who have declined to
exercise their discretion.
Adjudicators have no discretion to consider mitigation, as
confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Walmsley v Transport for
London [2005] EWCA Civ 1540. Adjudicators also have no
jurisdiction to
review the manner in which EA's exercise their discretion.
Adjudicators are limited to considering the
legislative grounds for appeal against a PCN.
21. The Appellant has not established a ground of appeal. The
appeal is refused. The Appellant
must pay the penalty of £130.00 within 28 days of the date of
this letter.
Graeme Wallington
Adjudicator
29th November 2025
2250368543
TT58827100
I even emphasised the point that while they cannot apply
discretion at this stage they can recommend the EA to cancel the
PCN. They didn’t even recommend that. Sad
#Post#: 100368--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 30, 2025, 3:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
However, that guidance is headed "Statutory guidance for local
authorities outside London on civil enforcement of bus lane and
moving traffic contraventions". Whether the EA considered 2022
guidance issued for local authorities outside London and
relating to moving traffic and bus lane
contraventions can have no relevance, and cannot amount to a
procedural irregularity, in the current appeal which relates to
a parking contravention occurring within London.
What nonsense.
Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil
enforcement of parking contraventions
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions#introduction-and-legal-basis
I'd request a review in the interests of justice. No adjudicator
acting reasonably and knowledgeably could have made such a
mistake.
From the Introduction:
Local authorities will be expected to explain any decision not
to implement the terms of the guidance, and adjudicators may
consider it to be a procedural impropriety, sufficient to allow
an appeal if no sufficient explanation is provided.
*****************************************************
Page 8 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page