DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97944--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston- 24 not parked correctly
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 13, 2025, 4:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday: Havering case. 2250396006
#Post#: 113550--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston- 24 not parked correctly
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 17, 2026, 2:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> I would challenge asking for discretion as the primary point
but there are cases allowed at the tribunal on no signage about
parking within bay markings being present so you could put them
on notice about this and we can look at the traffic order..
>
> -----------
>
> Case reference 2240374029
> Appellant Neel Bacheta
> Authority London Borough of Havering
> VRM N333ELB
>
> PCN Details
> PCN HG21326104
> Contravention date 13 Nov 2023
> Contravention time 18:04:00
> Contravention location High Street
> Penalty amount GBP 80.00
> Contravention Not parked correctly within markings of
bay/space
>
> Referral date -
>
> Decision Date 13 Nov 2024
> Adjudicator Alastair Mcfarlane
> Appeal decision Appeal allowed
> Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to
Owner.
> Reasons This case comes before me following the making of a
witness statement and I therefore consider the merits afresh.
> The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was not
parked correctly within the markings of the bay in Romford High
Street on 13 November 2023. A penalty charge notice was issued
at 1804.
> The Appellant states that there was no error with his parking
and that he did park within the bay provided and explained the
difficulties were caused by a lorry in front of him and a car
behind him. He refers to front tyre being out of the bay.
> The Council rely upon the evidence of its civil enforcement
officer. Whilst these are dark, it can be seen that the entire
front wheel of the Appellant's vehicle is within the adjacent
loading only bay.
> However there is no evidence before me any condition to park
fully within the bay has been communicated to the motorist. The
Council describe the bay as a parking bay and that the vehicle
was straddling into a loading bay. However it is a requirement
for delegated legislation that the obligation to park fully
within the bay must be communicated.
> As there is no evidence before me as to how this was done for
the bay in question, the appeal must be allowed.
>
> ---------
>
> Case reference 2240567623
> Appellant Sabah Sirajuddin
> Authority London Borough of Bromley
> VRM LX70GDY
>
> PCN Details
> PCN BY24142851
> Contravention date 04 Aug 2024
> Contravention time 16:45:00
> Contravention location Elmfield Road
> Penalty amount GBP 80.00
> Contravention Not parked correctly within markings of
bay/space
>
> Referral date -
>
> Decision Date 12 Feb 2025
> Adjudicator Edward Houghton
> Appeal decision Appeal allowed
> Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to
Owner.
> Reasons I heard this appeal by telephone speaking to the
driver Mr Rafique.
> His case is essentially that he parked in good faith and that
there was no notice requiring him to park within the bay
markings.
> It is certainly, in my view, common sense that if a parking
place is divided into parking places by white lines within the
bay the motorist is expected to park within those lines. What
else, after all, are they there to indicate? However the issue
is whether the lines of themselves indicate that they are there
not merely for guidance but that it is a legal requirement that
vehicles park within them. Although it is not uncommon it is
(and I speak from experience) by no means universally the case
that Traffic Management Orders create such a legal requirement
and it seems to me the motorist is entitled to be put on notice
in a case where the particular TMO imposes such a requirement.
In the circumstances I am not satisfied that it can be said the
restriction relied on was sufficiently clearly indicated and the
Appel is therefore allowed.
>
--- End Quote ---
I will be using these tomorrow.
#Post#: 113615--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston- 24 not parked correctly
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 18, 2026, 9:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Won on the bay markings. ;D
#Post#: 113617--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston- 24 not parked correctly
DIR By: Vada_nevada
Date: March 18, 2026, 9:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Congratulations once again, Phillip :)
#Post#: 113643--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston- 24 not parked correctly
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 18, 2026, 2:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=2745]Vada_nevada[/member] My pleasure as ever; but, you
submitted excellent representations and, even though I
apologised for not adducing a skeleton argument, it was not
necessary. I did not need to go heavy on the TMA 2004 Section 87
re their failure to consider at the informal stage. It was a
good hearing. My third of the day. I also mentioned LATOR and
maintenance. This is how hearings should be: a conversation.
Please call me re the other one as all is not lost.
#Post#: 114085--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston- 24 not parked correctly
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: March 23, 2026, 7:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Outcome
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CW17Ev5oS6IdKWai6rBHyRi9Spjf5sEM/view.
*****************************************************
Page 8 of 8
DIR Previous Page