DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 84016--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 12s Parked in a residents or shared use
parking place without permit
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 4, 2025, 6:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK so two live PCNs?
I see now the NTO you posted is for the second rejection you
posted.
Only one NTO so far?
Reps must be made for each on the same basic point but points in
the rejections can be picked up.
#Post#: 84022--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 12s Parked in a residents or shared use
parking place without permit
DIR By: ipswichfan2
Date: August 4, 2025, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
yes 2x live pcn
I've had 2x nto but theyre both the same. The car didn't move
between receiving the first and second pcn.
Attached photo of the other one here
HTML https://i.imgur.com/sQDXvwW.jpeg
#Post#: 84047--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 12s Parked in a residents or shared use
parking place without permit
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 4, 2025, 9:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It should be a simple matter that a designated parking place in
a controlled parking zone must have a parking sign showing the
times of operation and who is allowed to park there.
Occasionally a rogue adjudicator has to be reeled in as our Mr
Mustard did in the appealed case below.
---------------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
within 28 days.
1.
today in a hearing that was heard between 2.45pm - 3.15pm.
2.
3.
owner of PF18UJB, the Appellant had parked in Holbrook Road at
08.43 on 14/1/25 in the London Borough of Newham.
4.
other decisions reached by colleagues in fact specific cases. He
accepted at the outset that every decision is fact specific and
at best persuasive. Not withstanding that, in a rolled up
submission, he contends that there has been no contravention and
procedural impropriety.
5.
within a controlled parking zone ('CPZ') and that there was
signage as submitted by the Authority to that effect. He
accepted that on 14/1/25, West Ham were playing Fulham as
advertised in the time plates and that vehicles in the CPZ were
subject to 'match day' restrictions..
6.
place but makes a somewhat novel submission that the parking bay
that the Appellant's car was in, did not have a time plate as
per the TSDGR 2016 regulations and was therefore a 'free bay'
and not subject to the CPZ restrictions.
7.
even if similar, I disagree with their reasoning. In discussion,
Mr Dishman agreed that the CPZ time plates would mean that if a
motorist were to park on a yellow line, the onus would be on
them to seek out a time plate. However, he says that this does
not refer to parking bays. I disagree with that line of
reasoning.
8.
that submission, but this was in a delineated area with the
clearest compliant signage at either end of every entry and exit
point. In those circumstances I find that the onus is on the
motorist in the same way had he parked on a yellow line in a CPZ
to make themselves aware of any restrictions. Accordingly, I
find there to be a contravention.
9.
has established that there was a procedural impropriety and so
am bound to find for the Authority in this appeal.
10.
within 28 days of 4/6/25. This amount will increase by 50%
thereafter with the Authority then being able to pursue
enforcement thereafter.
11.
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Previous decision
Appeal decision
Direction
Owner.
1.
Appellant for review of the decision of my learned colleague Mr
Mohabir refusing the Appeal in the following terms:-
1. Mr DISHMAN appeared on behalf of the Appellant, xxxxx today
in a hearing that was heard between 2.45pm - 3.15pm.
2. The Authority were unrepresented and did not appear.
3. There is no submission to the contrary that as the registered
owner of PF18UJB, the Appellant had parked in Holbrook Road at
08.43 on 14/1/25 in the London Borough of Newham.
4. Mr Dishman has submitted a skeleton argument with a number of
other decisions reached by colleagues in fact specific cases. He
accepted at the outset that every decision is fact specific and
at best persuasive. Not withstanding that, in a rolled up
submission, he contends that there has been no contravention and
procedural impropriety.
5. During our discussions, he agreed that that Holbrook Road was
within a controlled parking zone ('CPZ') and that there was
signage as submitted by the Authority to that effect. He
accepted that on 14/1/25, West Ham were playing Fulham as
advertised in the time plates and that vehicles in the CPZ were
subject to 'match day' restrictions..
6. He further agreed that the TMOs of 2010 and 2017 were in
place but makes a somewhat novel submission that the parking bay
that the Appellant's car was in, did not have a time plate as
per the TSDGR 2016 regulations and was therefore a 'free bay'
and not subject to the CPZ restrictions.
7. I was referred to the individual decisions but have to say,
even if similar, I disagree with their reasoning. In discussion,
Mr Dishman agreed that the CPZ time plates would mean that if a
motorist were to park on a yellow line, the onus would be on
them to seek out a time plate. However, he says that this does
not refer to parking bays. I disagree with that line of
reasoning.
8. Were this bay not within a CPZ, there would be some force in
that submission, but this was in a delineated area with the
clearest compliant signage at either end of every entry and exit
point. In those circumstances I find that the onus is on the
motorist in the same way had he parked on a yellow line in a CPZ
to make themselves aware of any restrictions. Accordingly, I
find there to be a contravention.
9. I cannot find to the requisite standard that the Appellant
has established that there was a procedural impropriety and so
am bound to find for the Authority in this appeal.
10. 10. I understand that the amount owing is £130 if received
within 28 days of 4/6/25. This amount will increase by 50%
thereafter with the Authority then being able to pursue
enforcement thereafter.
The grounds on which review is sought are as follows:-
2.
Wednesbury Unreasonable. It is a 'brave' adjudicator indeed who
ignores the combined intellectual and experienced might of three
adjudicators, Houghton, Brennan and Walsh, who have all found
that a cpz entry sign does not apply to a bay. This is not a
point the principle of which I have had to argue since I started
being a pro bono representative in 2013. It is in the interests
of justice that this patently incorrect decision be reviewed. It
is paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 which contain the meat of the illogical
decision. What was novel was not my argument, founded upon the
decisions of at least 3 experienced adjudicators, but that I was
asked to explain, on the hoof, why a cpz entry sign does not
apply to a marked out bay”
Mr Dishman then goes into further detail on the basis of “The
traffic Signs Manual ,logic and the decision in Herron”
3.
correct that the vehicle was parked “in a delineated area with
the clearest compliant signage at either end of every entry and
exit point”. However CPZ signage does not apply to an area as a
whole; what it applies to is the yellow lines indicating the
waiting restrictions within the area ( which is why it bears the
No Waiting rondel), and has no application at all to designated
parking places (where the restrictions themselves will always,
and the operational hours will very often, be entirely
different.) To the best of my knowledge it has never been
suggested that a designated parking place can be signed by a CPZ
sign any more than it could be signed by a yellow No Waiting
time plate, (save, as I am bound to add for the sake of
completeness, those comparatively rare instances where permitted
variants such as Pay and Display Zone or Permit Zone are used –
and even in these instances the CPZ sign only operates to apply
the operational hours shown on it to the type of bay mentioned
on the signs).
4.
days shown on the sign the operational hours of every single
yellow line until further notice were as specified on the sign.
The signs , authorised by the Secretary of State also operated (
as Adjudicators have accepted over many years) as a general
notice to motorists of when the event days were ; however in the
case of designated parking places the designation must provide
for a restriction which actually applies on on an event day and
that restriction must be signed accordingly . The Zone sign
stating a day to be an event day is of no effect in a designated
parking place unless there is a sign for that parking place
(supported by a TMO) to say that parking on event days is
actually prohibited. In the absence of any sign for the
designated parking place itself it could perfectly well be a
type of bay which had no event day relevance.
References
5.
6.
defines a Controlled Parking Zone ( of this type ) as
(a)
an area-
(i)
in which every part of every road is subject to a prohibition
indicated by single or double yellow lines or single or double
yellow kerb markings (except where parking spaces have been
provided, where entrance to or exit from the road is made, where
there is a prohibition or restriction on waiting, stopping,
loading or unloading indicated by a different sign or where
there is a crossing) whether or not an upright sign to indicate
the same prohibition is placed in conjunction with the line or
kerb marking; and
(ii)
into which each entrance for vehicular traffic has been
indicated by the sign provided for at item 1 or 3 of the sign
table in Part 3 of Schedule 5;
7.
8.
9.
10.
which show the times that waiting is prohibited. For a type (a)
CPZ, these times may be the same as the operational period of
the on street parking places within the zone. This is always the
case for voucher parking zones and other CPZs where the type of
parking is indicated on the entry sign. Signing within a type
(a) CPZ will generally be in accordance with section 13 for
waiting and loading prohibitions and for parking places
11.
loading bays within a type (a) CPZ, other than parking meter
bays, need to be signed in accordance with section 13. The times
of operation, where not continuous, are always shown on the
sign, even where they are the same as those shown on the zone
entry sign
As there was no evidence from which the Adjudicator could find
that the restriction relied on was correctly signed I find that
it is in the interest s of justice that the decision be reviewed
and I substitute a decision allowing the Appeal .
#Post#: 84078--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 12s Parked in a residents or shared use
parking place without permit
DIR By: ipswichfan2
Date: August 4, 2025, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How does this sound?
I am writing to formally challenge the PCN FR65684022 for my
vehicle registration number WX17XTA
The contravention alleges that I parked in a permit holders only
bay without a valid permit, however the bay in question had no
visible sign indicating a restriction. While other bays along
the same road display permit holder only signs, this one does
not. Your wardens own photographs confirm no sign was present.
My initial appeal was rejected as they stated that Controlled
parking zone entry signs tell you when the parking rules apply
in the zone, however these do not apply to marked bays, only to
single yellow lines. With no sign on the bay, the PCN is not
valid.
The CEO has also failed in their duty under Regulation 18 of The
Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and
Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR) to maintain the signs. In
addition, the duties of their CEOs demand that they report
missing signs and not serve PCNs to any cars parked therein.
#Post#: 84085--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 12s Parked in a residents or shared use
parking place without permit
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 4, 2025, 12:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My representations are that the contravention did not occur as
the parking bay where my car was had no parking sign. While
other bays on the same road have parking signs, this one did
not. Your CEO's photographs confirm no sign was present in this
bay.
You rejected my initial challenge on the grounds that the
controlled parking zone entry signs say when parking rules apply
in the zone. But as you must know, CPZ entry signs apply only to
single yellow lines, not to designated parking places, which can
have widely different restrictions to the CPZ.
With no sign in the bay to show the bay was a restricted bay of
any sort, the contravention stated on the PCN cannot have
occurred.
I trust you will now cancel this PCN and look forward to your
early confirmation.
#Post#: 89908--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 12s Parked in a residents or shared use
parking place without permit
DIR By: ipswichfan2
Date: September 14, 2025, 12:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello again,
I have had my appeals back from Waltham Forest council and
unfortunately they have doubled down on their reasoning for the
pcn saying that the controlled zone signs are sufficient
Is it worth taking this to the tribunal as I believe my defence
is solid?
Thanks!
HTML https://imgur.com/a/IPPkf8K
#Post#: 89910--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 12s Parked in a residents or shared use
parking place without permit
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 14, 2025, 12:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Did you use my draft? They just seem to have repeated the
initial rejection.
They are talking nonsense and I can only think their officer is
untrained.
I would register a tribunal appeal and if they contest apply for
costs.
They have reoffered the discount. Their letter has XXX instead
of times observed which is just lazy.
To be clear, a controlled parking zone entry sign specifies only
restrictions on single yellow lines. Parking bays can have
number of parking signs that specify who can park and when. No
sign = no restriction.
I think whoever wrote this is confusing a CPZ with a permit
parking area, which Newham also does.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/Q270PMw/VD2am4h.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/k22ggDvn/b00YrAa.jpg
#Post#: 90018--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 12s Parked in a residents or shared use
parking place without permit
DIR By: ipswichfan2
Date: September 15, 2025, 8:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes I used your response - is there anything to change when
appealing to the tribunal?
Thanks!
#Post#: 97473--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 12s Parked in a residents or shared use
parking place without permit
DIR By: user334232
Date: November 9, 2025, 10:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What was the outcome of this?
#Post#: 97475--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 12s Parked in a residents or shared use
parking place without permit
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: November 9, 2025, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The OP has no doubt taken it to the tribunal but the hearing
hasn't happened yet.
Hopefully we'll get an update. The council may not bother
contesting this.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page