DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 119710--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: tincombe
Date: May 25, 2026, 2:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Also, is there any of way of knowing/seeing any evidence the
council has or has not submitted?
Stamfordman has replied, but why are you concerned? IMO, the
signage does NOT create the conditions whereby this PCN may be
issued, and the signage is not at issue. They cannot whistle-up
pictures of signs which are not there or backtrack on their
ludicrous statement about 'parking rules'.
Your formal reps are already in evidence.
#Post#: 119723--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: ILoveCats123
Date: May 25, 2026, 7:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> Also, is there any of way of knowing/seeing any evidence the
council has or has not submitted?
>
> Stamfordman has replied, but why are you concerned? IMO, the
signage does NOT create the conditions whereby this PCN may be
issued, and the signage is not at issue. They cannot whistle-up
pictures of signs which are not there or backtrack on their
ludicrous statement about 'parking rules'.
>
> Your formal reps are already in evidence.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm not concerned that they will bring substantial evidence,
just curious with regard to the process.
So you don't think I need to submit any additional evidence?
#Post#: 119727--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: tincombe
Date: May 26, 2026, 3:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, adjudicators appreciate appellants who get to the point(s)
at issue as succinctly as possible.
Sir/Madam,
As can be seen from my representations and the council's
rejections*, it is a matter of record that the council relies
wholly upon the display of a traffic sign, as defined, as a
means of conveying the 'parking rules'(as referred to in the
NOR) which they wish to apply to the location. They do not argue
the contrary, but instead state that 'the parking rules that
apply to the road also apply to the off-road area'. Consequently
they do not display further terms and conditions of use.
I respectfully submit that their interpretation is incorrect,
that the sign has no legal effect in the absence of further
terms and conditions clearly displayed which reference the sign
and its purpose and consequences of breaches and that
consequently penalties may not be demanded for failure to comply
with conditions which are unknown to a motorist and therefore
the PCN should be cancelled.
*- you can direct the adjudicator to where these are in the
council's evidence pack later once received.
#Post#: 119730--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 26, 2026, 4:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would word it in more simple language.
-----------
I draw attention to two grounds.
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
car park.
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.
#Post#: 119884--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: ILoveCats123
Date: May 28, 2026, 5:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've uploaded this to the evidence pack
#Post#: 120633--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: ILoveCats123
Date: June 3, 2026, 12:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi.
Southwark has sent me their evidence pack.
Must you see all correspondence from it?
#Post#: 120668--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: June 4, 2026, 4:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Post their summary section where they make their case. Section B
I think.
#Post#: 120700--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: ILoveCats123
Date: June 4, 2026, 7:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant has appealed on the grounds that “There has been a
procedural
impropriety on behalf of the authority and that the
contravention did not occur.”
The appellant further states that the alleged contravention did
not occur because the
only sign is an entry sign for an on-street permit parking area,
as well as there are no
terms conditions posted to establish the area as an off-street
car park. Further
referring to the Notice of Rejection (NoR).
The appellant further states that the NoR does not have
mandatory items in the
Appeals regulation as does it not describe the form and the
manner in which an
appeal to an adjudicator must be made or does not include that
an appeal can be
made within such longer period as the adjudicator may allow and
hence, is of the
opinion that there has been a procedural impropriety .
Alleged Contravention
On 27 September 2025 at 12:19, A PCN was issued and affixed to
the vehicle as 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.
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.
Our Reasons for Rejecting the Appellant’s Appeal
Southwark Council rejected the appellant’s appeal because
parking in such a manner
is not permitted in an estate and it is imperative that drivers
park within marked
designated parking bays. Furthermore, the appellant being
resident of the relevant
estate should be aware that parking must be within the white
demarcated bays.
In response to the claim made by the appellant in regards to a
procedural impropriety,
Southwark Council can confirm that a procedural impropriety is a
failure by the
enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed upon it
by the Traffic
Management Act 2004, the Civil Enforcement of Parking
contraventions (England)
Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 and the Civil
Enforcement of Parking
Contravention (England) General Regulations 2007 in relation to
the imposition or
recovery of a penalty charge or other sum. Southwark Council
therefore, contend that
there has been no procedural impropriety.
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.
Please be advised that the appellant was given the opportunity
to pay the reduced
amount of £80.00 via our informal rejection notice as well as
the formal rejection notice
(evidence type C). However, the appellant chose to appeal the
decision in our Notice
of Rejection, therefore, the full cost of the PCN is enforced.
The enclosed photographic evidence substantiates the PCN affixed
to the vehicle at
the time of the contravention (evidence type C).
Therefore, we conclude that as the vehicle was observed as it
was, in contravention,
it cannot be said the PCN was issued anything other than
lawfully.
It is thus our submission that in respect of this PCN issued for
this contravention on
this specific date, the photographic evidence supplied is of
itself good and legally
sufficient primary evidence of the contravention.
Conclusion
Southwark Council, therefore, continues to contend that a
contravention occurred and
the PCN was validly issued in accordance with the Traffic
Management Act 2004.
The penalty charge outstanding is £160.00
A copy of the Adjudicator’s pack has been sent to the Appellant
via email this date 3 June 2026
#Post#: 120716--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: June 4, 2026, 8:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This looks like a load of nonsense.
What is the signage/evidence they include in section J.
Tincombe will hopefully address the procedural issues.
#Post#: 120800--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: ILoveCats123
Date: June 4, 2026, 5:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> This looks like a load of nonsense.
>
> What is the signage/evidence they include in section J.
>
> Tincombe will hopefully address the procedural issues.
>
--- End Quote ---
What is the signage/evidence they include in section J.
It's literally just a picture of the garage area where my
vehicle was parked showing the on-street permit holders only
sign, along with pictures for "evidence" of the marked bays.
Tincombe will hopefully address the procedural issues.
I'm not sure what there is to address TBH because Southwark have
just outlined what a "procedural impropriety" is, whether they
were correct or not, IDK, but then proceed to say "therefore,
Southwark contends that there has been no procedural
impropriety" as if somehow stating what a procedural impropriety
is an argument that one was not committed.
*****************************************************
Page 9 of 12
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page