DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 130147--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
DIR By: ThriftyParker
Date: September 11, 2026, 4:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My Informal Challenge (November ‘25 pre-advice):
I believe this PCN has been issued in error. As you will see
from your own images, there are no road markings or bays where I
was parked, and no yellow lines restricting parking on that side
of the road. No signs are in place on that side of the road
either, and is in sharp contrast to the other side of the road
the road where clear bays are marked. I and many others have
parked down this side of the road for many years - myself for
over 6 years whilst working in the city - and have never had
parking restrictions enforced.
If parking restrictions are to be enforced on both sides of the
road there needs to be clear signage and road markings
indicating this.
Their Response (November ‘25):
I refer to your informal challenge (stage 1) made in connection
with the issue
of the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) No. LV18607642.
The City Council has considered all information available at
this stage,
however, your challenge has been rejected. You now have two
options: -
1. Pay the PCN within 14 days of the date of this letter at the
discounted
rate. After 14 days the PCN can still be paid but it will be at
the full
original amount. See Section 1 below.
2. Do not pay and a Notice to Owner (NtO) will be served to the
registered owner/keeper of the vehicle after a minimum of 28
days
which will allow a formal representation (stage 2) to be
submitted. See
Section 2 below.
Reason(s) for rejection:
A PCN was issued to the above vehicle because it was 30-Parked
for longer
than permitted in LOVE LANE - L3 on the 27/10/2025. The vehicle
was
observed between 11:44 and 16:15 and the Notice was issued at
16:15.
We acknowledge your representations in respect of this PCN.
Our CEO (Civil Enforcement Officer) carried out all relevant
checks on your
vehicle and found no evidence of a valid permit etc on display.
The issuing
officer further inspected the vehicle and there was nothing else
displayed that
entitled your vehicle to be parked at the stated time/ location.
At the time of contravention the bays in situ allow parking for
up to 4 hours
with no return within one hour. According to the Officers notes,
your vehicle
was first observed parked at the location at 11:44, and on
returning later on in
the afternoon after which over 4 hours had elapsed, found your
vehicle still
parked in the same location Since the vehicle was still parked
past the
allowed period parking time, the vehicle has incurred the above
PCN.
I note your comments regarding signage at the location.
In some areas where it has been deemed appropriate to put a
permit parking
scheme in place, there may not be enough space on the highway to
mark out
resident bays. These areas will be classed as ‘Permitted Parking
Areas’
(PPA) and instead of bay markings the entrance(s) to the PPA
will have a
time plate on both sides of the street stating ‘Permit Holders
Only Past This
Point’, there will also be a boundary markings at each entrance.
Residents/ permit holders may park anywhere past this boundary
and within
the PPA (provided they do not obstruct pavement or other
properties)
provided that a valid permit is clearly displayed. There will be
repeater signs
within the PPA reminding motorists they are within a permit
area, and any
visitors must also display a valid ‘visitor permit’ (which can
be sought from the
resident they are visiting). As with all time plates, if there
are no days/hours on
the plates, the PPA applies “at any time”.
I would respectfully remind you that it is the responsibility of
the driver to
observe and adhere to all relevant restrictions prior to leaving
the vehicle
parked.
Based on the evidence available to me at this time and the
details of your
incoming representations I would advise that the circumstances
of this case
do not warrant exercise of discretion favourably, consequently
the penalty
charge remains payable.
My Formal Challenge (July ‘26):
To whom it may concern,
I find it necessary to challenge PCN LV18607642 and outline 3
arguments as to why I believe this warrants cancellation:
1. None of the photographs provided with said PCN include a
traffic sign alluding to the contravention. Said photos
therefore prove only that the vehicle was stationary in the
road.
2. It is my understanding that there exists no such thing as a
“Permitted Parking Area” (PPA), as referred to in your response
to my informal challenge of 12 November 2025.
3. The signage on several of the roads leading into the “PPA”
are inadequate in size and visibility and could not knowingly be
sighted en route to parking in said area. I have taken images
and video of the entrances and note that some are obscured on
entrance, several are small and side-on to the driver, placed
poorly to ensure visibility on entry, and the signs at the foot
of several roads are at the front on the far side of a one-way
entrance, making them easily missed on turning into the area in
question. Ironically, these signs would otherwise be not just
the biggest, but the most visible of the lot. It is also worth
highlighting that many of the signs are poorly illuminated.
I would be happy to provide my video examining the roads and
their signage on request (filmed on 21 November 2025).
I trust that you will find my points valid and cancel the demand
for payment at your earliest opportunity.
Their Formal Rejection (August ‘26):
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/dITkZde
I hope this all makes sense. Do let me know if you need to see
anything else.
Many thanks.
#Post#: 130151--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 11, 2026, 5:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We need to see all pages to see if their decision notice
complies with procedural regulations. IMO, given that their
rationale is c**p there's a fair chance the notice would be to
the same high standard!
Procedural impropriety is a ground of appeal in its own right,
ittespective of the merits of the substantive issue.
#Post#: 130203--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
DIR By: ThriftyParker
Date: September 11, 2026, 11:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In that case, here’s the full decision notice:
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/8vyZc3b
If you want to see any of the previous documents in full let me
know.
#Post#: 130210--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 11, 2026, 1:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. I haven't the time to read in detail tonight, but their
reference to the '..Representations and Appeals Regs 2007'
suggests that the rest will yield a few c**k-ups given that 'The
Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England)
Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007(1) are revoked.' in
2022!!!
You couldn't make it up, could you?
#Post#: 130500--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
DIR By: ThriftyParker
Date: September 15, 2026, 11:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Curious. I never imagined procedural impropriety might be a
winning strategy.
I believe I have until next Tuesday to get my appeal in with the
TPT, but I’d prefer to get it in before the end of this week to
be on the safe side. Can you please provide any further advice
and/or wording for said appeal?
Many thanks.
#Post#: 130509--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 15, 2026, 1:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO,
Don't overcomplicate matters.
Your main argument is that the contravention did not occur for
reasons you've already set out in your reps.
Add procedural impropriety, to be developed later with further
representations having considered the NOR in detail.
#Post#: 130638--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
DIR By: ThriftyParker
Date: September 16, 2026, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Advice noted with thanks.
So I will maintain the other 3 points pretty much as-is (maybe
include a link to my video evidence?) and add something
approximate to…
4. I also assert that Liverpool City Council’s Notice of
Rejection is invalid, as per my understanding that The Civil
Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations
and Appeals Regulation 2007 were revoked in 2022. As such, their
claim should be struck out on the basis of procedural
impropriety.
Good to go?
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page