DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 121343--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 10, 2026, 3:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Edit.
#Post#: 121385--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: ILoveCats123
Date: June 10, 2026, 1:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone know the process of inviting observers to the
tribunal?
edit: i think it might be too late now anyway
#Post#: 121402--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 10, 2026, 5:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As far as I know, you are entitled to be accompanied by a friend
at the adjudication, but this friend is there to observe only.
However, I'm not totally up-to-speed on this aspect so wait a
bit for others to chime in.
#Post#: 121447--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: ILoveCats123
Date: June 11, 2026, 6:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Council said they'd turn up but didn't.
I explained my appeal grounds to the best of my ability.
Should get a decision next week.
#Post#: 121470--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: ILoveCats123
Date: June 11, 2026, 9:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I had a look at the appeals register for the same location out
of curiosity.
There are only two cases, and it seems as though one adjudicator
believes it to be an off-street car park, whereas the other
doesn't.
The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked in a
permit bay in an off-street car park without clearly displaying
a valid permit.
I have looked at the CEO's images. These show that Ms Delgado's
car was parked on double yellow lines on the carriageway and not
in a car park. Whilst the road may be part of the estate, it is
not a car park.
I don't think it matters in any case though, does it, as if the
adjudicator does interpret the area as off-street, then there
was still no Terms & Conditions present, and if the adjudicator
interprets it as on-street, then the PCN is void as the alleged
contravention is an off-street contravention?
#Post#: 122043--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: ILoveCats123
Date: June 16, 2026, 7:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
APPEAL ALLOWED - 2250680032
HTML https://londontribunals.org.uk/ords/pwslive/f?p=14952:70::INITIALISE::70:P70_CAS_REFNO,P70_PCN_REFNO,P70_RETURN_PAGE,P70_AST_CODE:1729311,3144625,60,APPEAL&cs=35b5xl36bbLGvsauJ-lYJWYqZ6r3Rm1KZfAH6QNzhX1Im_N3vvG2eTONI3XmYphOXBH77rpnkPFsKHGOA62DYpQ
Massive thanks to @Incandescent
[member=2249]stamfordman[/member] [member=7970]tincombe[/member]
and [member=428]H C Andersen[/member] (Although he seems to have
vanished)
While I was checking the register every day for an update, I
didn't expect it to pop in my email inbox at 01:00.
I'll reserve my thoughts on the adjudicator's thoughts.
Though I'd be interested to hear from you regarding it.
#Post#: 122049--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: MrChips
Date: June 17, 2026, 1:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think HCAnderson may have been reincarnated;)
#Post#: 122051--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: ILoveCats123
Date: June 17, 2026, 1:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Haha. I did have my suspicions regarding that
#Post#: 122064--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: June 17, 2026, 4:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=7970]tincombe[/member] may be able to shed light on the
regs for off-street parking. The adjudicator seems to have
arrived at the conclusion that there was no relevant signage for
the contravention but not that the PPA sign is an on-street sign
(or at least is used on-street).
------------
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
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
Introduction
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued
for being parked causing an obstruction (Code 92).
2. This appeal was scheduled as an online hearing at which the
Appellant and the Enforcement Authority (EA) were due to attend
in person. The Appellant attended on time, as scheduled.
However, the EA did not attend at 12.15, as scheduled. The
Adjudicator and Appellant waited for ten minutes. However, in
the absence of the EA representative, and without any contact
being made with the Tribunal, the hearing commenced with the
Adjudicator and Appellant in attendance.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is set out as, ‘1. Contravention did not
occur: The alleged contravention is off-street but there are no
terms conditions posted there that establish the area as an
off-street carpark. The only sign is an entry sign for an
on-street permit parking area, and Southwark in its notice of
rejection says parking rules that apply to the road apply to the
off-road area and that it was a contravention of the Highway
Code. This cannot possibly be the case for the alleged
off-street contravention, which has not been established by any
signage and terms. 2. Procedural impropriety. Southwark's notice
of rejection does not have these mandatory items in the Appeals
regulation: It does not describe the form and manner in which an
appeal to an adjudicator must be made It does not include that
an appeal can be made within such longer period as the
adjudicator may allow.
4. The Appellant confirmed in the hearing that he has a resident
parking permit and showed this in evidence.
5. The Appellant confirmed he was not causing an obstruction. He
parked with care next to the van in the photograph. The van had
more than enough room to exit. There was enough room for every
garage owner to leave and enter the garage and their spaces. The
Appellant confirmed he is a resident on the estate and would
never park in a way that caused an obstruction for other
vehicles.
6. In these circumstances the Appellant asks for the PCN to be
cancelled.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
7. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on photographic evidence
to show the contravention occurred. A plan and photographs of
the signage has been provided. The EA says this shows the
restriction is signed and clear, and, further, enforceable under
a valid Traffic Management Order (TMO), a copy of which is
provided.
8. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations. The EA
state, ‘...the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) observed the
vehicle parked in ST SAVIOUR ESTATE parked causing an
obstruction, in the context, upon an entrance into the estate
itself as well as in front of garages, which is not permissible.
The photographic evidence is self-explanatory to prove the
contravention.’
9. The EA add, ‘Where there is a car park area within the estate
car park, drivers are required to park within the designated
area. Vehicles are only allowed to park in a marked parking
space in the car park.’
10. The EA further state, ‘In response to the appellant’s
comments that the only sign is an entry sign for an on street
permit parking area, we can confirm that this is not the case,
the vehicle entered and was parked within the confines of an
estate and the photographic evidence clearly demonstrate that
said location whereby the vehicle would have past the signage.
For your ready reference, we have added additional evidence
(type J) to substantiate the signage relates to an estate and
bears no relevance to an entry sign for on-street parking.’
11. The EA state there has been no procedural impropriety, and
they have observed all relevant requirements imposed.
12. The EA does not wish to exercise their discretion.
13. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
14. I have considered all materials presented by both parties.
Although each piece of evidence is not specifically referred to,
it has contributed to, and informed, the decision I have made.
15. I found the Appellant to be credible and measured in this
evidence.
16. Based on the photographic evidence footage provided, and
additional evidential materials from the EA, I am satisfied the
Appellant’s vehicle was parked in the relevant location, at the
relevant time. This is not in dispute.
17. I am further satisfied that if a contravention has occurred,
it is enforceable by way of a valid Traffic Management Order,
which I have seen.
18. The Appellant referred to an off-street carpark requiring
particular signage and terms and conditions of parking, although
was unable to direct me to any regulation or legislation on
which he relied. In fact, off street carpark signs do not have
to comply with any specific rule or regulation, or to convey
‘terms and conditions.’ It is necessary only for the signage to
convey the correct information and not mislead, so the question
is whether the signage at the relevant location is substantially
compliant, clear and adequate.
19. In this respect I have consider the signage in place at the
relevant location. In the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO)
photographs I am able to see a partial sign to the right
(looking at the screen) of the entrance to the garage ‘Permit
holders parking only past this point.’ A photograph of the full
sign is provided by the EA at Evidence J, and what is omitted in
the CEO photograph is ‘P E-SS’.
20. The Appellant accepted in the hearing, that the full sign in
the additional EA evidence is the signage at the relevant
location. The Appellant confirmed he has an E.SS permit, which I
accepted to be true.
21. Although the EA state the contravention is evident in the
photographs, on balance, I do not accept this to be the case. On
balance, I accept there is sufficient room for the van next to
the Appellant’s vehicle to move, and for vehicles to enter and
exit from the garages. I accepted the Appellant’s evidence as
credible in this respect, and his knowledge of the garages and
the space required to manoeuvre.
22. Further, the EA has set out that a motorist on the estate
must park in marked bays only. The EA has provided a number of
photographs of places on the estate with marked bays. However,
the CEO photographs shows a carpark without marked bays. There
is no reference on the signage to parking in marked bays only.
The signage states ‘permit holder parking only’ beyond this
point. The Appellant is a permit holder, and so, based on the
signage, entitle to park beyond that point, as he did. The
Adjudicator is unsure if the EA is intending that it is only
those permit holders who have garages that the sign is intended
for. However, this is not what the sign says.
23. The EA go on to state that there is signage the Appellant
would have had to pass, and that the car park within the
confines of an estate. However, I am unable to satisfy myself of
the relevance of this to the CEO photograph and the location at
which the Appellant was parked. There has been no evidence
presented as to any other sign the Appellant would have parked,
or how any other signage would undermine the clarity of the
signage at the point of entry to the space in which the
Appellant parked.
24. Therefore, I find, on balance, that the Appellant was
entitled as a permit holder to pass the relevant point, and
park. I further find, based on the CEO photographic evidence,
and the credibility of the Appellant’s evidence in the hearing,
that no obstruction was caused, or would be caused by parking as
the Appellant did.
25. Because of my decision, it is not necessary for me to
consider whether there has been any procedural impropriety.
26. For the reasons outlined I find a contravention did not
occur and the PCN has not been validly issued.
Decision
27. The appeal is allowed.
#Post#: 122095--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 17, 2026, 8:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Given that the on-street regulatory standard is only '..the
placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such
positions as the order making authority may consider requisite
for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the
order is made available to persons using the road;', then I
don't see the distinction which the adjudicator made regarding
an unregulated standard of 'It is necessary only for the signage
to convey the correct information and not mislead'.
'adequate information as to the effect of ..' v 'signage to
convey the correct information and not mislead'
I say tomato, you say tomato!
*****************************************************
Page 11 of 12
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page