DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 89632--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN received in "club parking" bay
DIR By: gettingbetter
Date: September 12, 2025, 7:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Stamfordman,
Many thanks for your response. Yes, letter has my name and
address which has been blurred. Image can be viewed here -
HTML https://imgur.com/a/G7fBZ9A
#Post#: 89637--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN received in "club parking" bay
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 12, 2025, 7:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, don't get distracted by something upon which, in this case,
the council is not relying i.e. a Permit Holders only sign.
IMO, review and then demolish their evidence.
The authority is relying upon a PCN citing the contravention of
'Parked in a car park or area not designated for that class of
vehicle'. The code descriptor '91' has also been used and
therefore the authority's claim is that a penalty at the level
mandated by the Mayor of London and London Councils is payable
for parking at the location.
The authority's 6 photos show my car parked adjacent to the
markings 'Club Parking' and this is not in dispute.
As the authority evidentially concedes that the location is not
on a road, then even if the markings were prescribed under
Regulations for on-road use only, they would have no effect in a
car park. In this case 'Club Parking' is not a prescribed
marking in any event(para. 1 of Part 5 to Schedule 7 to the
Traffic Signs etc. Regulations refers).
It therefore follows that the authority is offering no evidence
that parking at the location without permission would leave the
'owner' liable to the penalty being demanded.
It is clear from the authority's evidence and the Signs
Regulations that their claim to a penalty is meritless and that
the PCN must be cancelled.
#Post#: 89648--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN received in "club parking" bay
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 12, 2025, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think the point about there being no car park terms must be
mentioned as per the decision:
Furthermore, the sign does not suggest that that the area
subject to enforcement is in fact an off street car park. On a
highway, all motorists must know the signs prescribed by the
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
(TSRGD).This does not apply to an off street car park. There is
no evidence of signage such as a board, informing motorists that
they are in fact in a car park subject to specific conditions
and statutory controls.
#Post#: 89700--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN received in "club parking" bay
DIR By: gettingbetter
Date: September 12, 2025, 11:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
H C Andersen & Stamfordman,
Thank you both for taking the time to provide a response and the
wording for my NTO. I will consolidate both your responses into
my appeal and send this off.
Once I hear back (hopefully news that the PCN has been
cancelled), then I will update this thread.
Thanks again and have a good weekend.
#Post#: 89702--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN received in "club parking" bay
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 12, 2025, 12:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Post a draft here first.
#Post#: 91118--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN received in "club parking" bay
DIR By: gettingbetter
Date: September 23, 2025, 10:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good afternoon, Stamfordman/H C Andersen... Apologies for the
late response. I have been away for a week due other
commitments. Please see my response to the council below, albeit
a little longwinded.
To whom it may concern,
I make formal representations against PCN no. JK16745018, citing
contravention 91: “Parked in a car park or area not designated
for that class of vehicle.”
Southwark Councils case is that a penalty charge is payable for
parking at the location. I argue that the PCN is not valid
because the alleged contravention did not occur, and because the
council has failed to establish that the bay is lawfully
designated for “Car Club” use. My appeal is as follows:
1. Location and Contravention:
The councils own photographs show my vehicle adjacent to the
carriageway marking “Club Parking.” I do not dispute this.
However:
* “Club Parking” is not a prescribed traffic legend under The
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD
2016).
* Paragraph 1 of Part 5 to Schedule 7 to the TSRGD confirms that
only the prescribed markings may be used to indicate parking
restrictions. In this case 'Club Parking' is not a prescribed
marking in any event.
Therefore, even if this were an on-street bay, the road marking
relied upon by the council carries no legal effect. It therefore
follows that the council is offering no evidence that parking at
the location without permission would leave the 'owner' liable
to the penalty being demanded.
2. On-Street vs Off-Street:
The contravention cited, Code 91, applies to car parks and
off-street areas. By issuing a PCN under this code, Southwark
Council effectively concedes that the location is not part of
the public highway but rather an off-street car park.
If so, then:
* The TSRGD markings cannot apply in law to off-street areas.
* An off-street car park requires a proper entrance sign or
conditions board, making it clear to motorists that they are
entering a regulated car park and subject to statutory
enforcement. No such signage exists at this location.
Accordingly, there is no evidence before the adjudicator showing
signage such as a board, informing motorists that they are in
fact in a car park subject to specific conditions and statutory
controls indicating that this location was designated or
regulated as an off-street car park in which a contravention 91
could occur.
3. Lack of Designation:
For a contravention 91 to be enforceable, the council/authority
must demonstrate that:
* The land is lawfully designated for car club use, and
* This designation is clearly conveyed by prescribed signage.
The authority has provided no evidence of any such designation,
Traffic Order, or lawful signage. Instead, it relies solely on
photographs of my vehicle next to the ambiguous wording “Club
Parking,” which is meaningless in law.
4. Conclusion:
Southwark Council has not discharged its burden of proof. There
is:
* No prescribed road marking,
* No upright sign,
* No evidence that the land is an off-street car park subject to
enforceable conditions,
* No Traffic Order or other legal instrument establishing the
bay as reserved for car club use.
Therefore, it is clear from the councils evidence and the Signs
Regulations that their claim to a penalty is meritless and that
the PCN is not payable and must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 91124--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN received in "club parking" bay
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 23, 2025, 10:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
'This designation is clearly conveyed by prescribed signage.'
There is no prescribed signage for off-street car parks, so this
is incorrect.
(for info, the enabling legislation here is the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984 under which there are enabling powers given
to the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing
signage for use on and off-street. The SoS has only availed
himself of the on-street power - in the form of the Traffic
Signs etc. Regs- but not those applicable to off-street, which
is therefore subject to councils conveying their terms of use
using other means e.g. noticeboards etc.)
#Post#: 91128--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN received in "club parking" bay
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 23, 2025, 11:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Far too long and we said to forget about on-street stuff...
This is simple - the council have not displayed any terms for
parking in this off-street car park and an unsigned space marked
club parking is meaningless.
As the adjudicator remarked in case 224053735A:
There is no evidence of signage such as a board, informing
motorists that they are in fact in a car park subject to
specific conditions and statutory controls.
#Post#: 91134--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN received in "club parking" bay
DIR By: gettingbetter
Date: September 23, 2025, 11:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi H C Andersen and Stamfordman,
Thank you very much for a speedy response. I have reduced the
long-winded appeal into a shorter one here:
To whom it may concern,
I make formal representations against PCN JK16745018, citing
contravention 91: “Parked in a car park or area not designated
for that class of vehicle.”
Southwark Council’s case is that the location was an off-street
car park subject to restrictions. However, the Council has
provided no evidence of any terms and conditions being displayed
at the site.
The only marking visible is the wording “Club Parking” painted
on the surface. This is meaningless in law and does not, on its
own, convey any restriction. In an off-street car park,
restrictions must be clearly set out on signage or a
noticeboard, typically placed at the entrance, so that motorists
are aware they are in a regulated car park and subject to
statutory enforcement. No such signage exists at this location.
This exact point has been upheld before London Tribunals. In
case 224053735A, the adjudicator observed:
“There is no evidence of signage such as a board, informing
motorists that they are in fact in a car park subject to
specific conditions and statutory controls.”
The situation here is identical. Southwark Council’s evidence
does not demonstrate that the site was subject to enforceable
restrictions, nor that those restrictions were adequately
conveyed.
Accordingly, the alleged contravention did not occur, and the
PCN must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
ALTERNATIVELY: I have consolidated both your responses from
September 12th, which reads as follows:
To whom it may concern,
I make formal representations against PCN JK16745018, citing
contravention 91: “Parked in a car park or area not designated
for that class of vehicle.”
The authority is relying upon a PCN citing the contravention of
'Parked in a car park or area not designated for that class of
vehicle'. The code descriptor '91' has also been used and
therefore the authority's claim is that a penalty at the level
mandated by the Mayor of London and London Councils is payable
for parking at the location.
The authority's 6 photos show my car parked adjacent to the
markings 'Club Parking' and this is not in dispute.
As the authority evidentially concedes that the location is not
on a road, then even if the markings were prescribed under
Regulations for on-road use only, they would have no effect in a
car park. In this case 'Club Parking' is not a prescribed
marking in any event(para. 1 of Part 5 to Schedule 7 to the
Traffic Signs etc. Regulations refers).
It therefore follows that the authority is offering no evidence
that parking at the location without permission would leave the
'owner' liable to the penalty being demanded.
Furthermore, the sign does not suggest that that the area
subject to enforcement is in fact an off street car park. On a
highway, all motorists must know the signs prescribed by the
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
(TSRGD).This does not apply to an off street car park. There is
no evidence of signage such as a board, informing motorists that
they are in fact in a car park subject to specific conditions
and statutory controls.
It is clear from the authority's evidence and the Signs
Regulations that their claim to a penalty is meritless and that
the PCN must be cancelled.
Happy to go with which you think is best. Many thanks again.
#Post#: 91137--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN received in "club parking" bay
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 23, 2025, 11:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Did you have an estate permit for this car?
I wouldn't worry too much as this is only round 2 of the
challenge and they said nothing in the first rejection.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page