DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 111953--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wanstead, Redbridge PCN issued for car parked on a section o
f the road with no obvious parking restrictions
By: stamfordman Date: March 3, 2026, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You also have the case I found to cite on the same entry to
zone?
#Post#: 112351--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wanstead, Redbridge PCN issued for car parked on a section o
f the road with no obvious parking restrictions
By: Chr1s100 Date: March 7, 2026, 5:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I was puzzled to receive the PCN as it appeared I had parked in
an unrestricted street. On further investigation I have found
that the street is in a large permit parking area, but on
retracing my steps I contend that the contravention did not
occur owing to the entry signage on my approach being
inadequate.
I entered Wellington Road from the High Street. The entry sign
on the left-hand side of the carriageway has been rotated
approximately 90 degrees, rendering it not visible to
approaching drivers. I attach photographs of this sign in its
rotated condition.
Sections of Wellington Road are marked with double yellow lines
and single yellow lines with accompanying signage. I parked in a
section with no road markings and no signage, reasonably
concluding it was unrestricted. I attach photographs of my car
parked in an unsigned and unmarked area.
The Department for Transport's Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3,
paragraph 13.10.2, states that permit parking areas designated
by entry signs alone (without bay markings) are suitable for "a
cul-de-sac or a small network of roads with little or no through
traffic." Wellington Road is a through road with a mini
roundabout. The application of entry-sign-only designation to
this large, complex zone covering multiple through roads is
inconsistent with this guidance, making it inherently difficult
for unfamiliar drivers to identify the restriction.
I would also bring to the Council's attention a previous
decision of the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators concerning
this same entry point. In case 2250151042 (decided 23 May 2025,
Adjudicator Philippa Alderson), an appeal was allowed for a
vehicle parked on Wellington Road in the same permit parking
area. The Adjudicator found that the left-hand entry sign from
the High Street had been rotated approximately 90 degrees and
was not sufficiently visible to drivers entering the road. The
Adjudicator further found that the right-hand sign alone was not
sufficient to indicate the restriction, and that a driver who
missed the entry sign may reasonably conclude, in the absence of
road markings, that the street is unrestricted. My circumstances
are materially identical. The signage defect identified in that
case has not been remedied, and the Council has been on notice
of this issue since at least May 2025. I respectfully invite the
Council to cancel this PCN without the need for a further
tribunal hearing on the same point.
Image 1 - Entry sign at Wellington Road/High Street junction
showing sign rotated ~90 degrees
[img width=800
height=531]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/viFCaMD_xl.jpg[/img]
Image 2 - Car clearly parked outside double and single yellow
line areas.
[img width=800
height=531]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/UcQbdFN_xl.jpg[/img]
Image 3 - Map of the permit parking zone and extract from DfT
Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, Section 13.10
[img width=800
height=436]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Nfz8CTp_xl.jpeg[/img]
I have cited the case you kindly found and shared. Is this
suitable for the official appeal stage? Any other suggestions?
Thanks very much
#Post#: 112378--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wanstead, Redbridge PCN issued for car parked on a section o
f the road with no obvious parking restrictions
By: stamfordman Date: March 7, 2026, 11:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's thorough - I don't think you can better. They will probably
reject of course.
#Post#: 112489--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wanstead, Redbridge PCN issued for car parked on a section o
f the road with no obvious parking restrictions
By: Chr1s100 Date: March 9, 2026, 2:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks very much,
I will submit this representation.
#Post#: 112505--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wanstead, Redbridge PCN issued for car parked on a section o
f the road with no obvious parking restrictions
By: tincombe Date: March 9, 2026, 5:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As you've put a lot of effort into this and they're likely to
reject your reps anyway I would go with what you've got.
If subsequently you are then faced with pay or appeal then IMO I
suggest you consider the following, drawing upon the points in
the cited decision and their evidence photos:
1. There were no parking place road markings therefore the
presence or otherwise of a parking place sign is not relevant to
their case;
2. If a NOR reiterates their reliance upon this sign as
supporting the PPA then you have a very, very strong argument
because repeater signs are NOT material IF the mandatory PPA
entrance sign does not meet the standard, all it represents is a
restriction which applies to an unmarked area of carriageway!
And as the PPA entrance sign isn't in evidence, it could be on
the moon.
#Post#: 114007--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wanstead, Redbridge PCN issued for car parked on a section o
f the road with no obvious parking restrictions
By: Chr1s100 Date: March 22, 2026, 9:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks very much,
Rejection received as expected:
[img width=800
height=1062]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/IuPrmSD_xl.jpg[/img]
[img width=800
height=1062]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Of9qvA6_xl.jpg[/img]
[img width=800
height=1062]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Qla1ArK_xl.jpg[/img]
[img width=800
height=1062]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/g48P1vX_xl.jpg[/img]
[img width=800
height=1062]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/kTL9Jxa_xl.jpg[/img]
[img width=800
height=1062]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/MFuEYCw_xl.jpg[/img]
[img width=800
height=1062]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/JOXK46j_xl.jpg[/img]
Based on the response and my original appeal, I have created a
first draft for a tribunal submission.
I have incorporated comments from toncombe about repeater sign
being irrelevant if entry sign unsuitable.
I would really appreciate assistance with determining if this is
suitable for a tribunal submission, any areas which need
amending, as well as anything which might need adding or
removing. Explanantions for any suggestions would be greatly
appreciated:
I am appealing on the grounds that the contravention did not
occur due to defective entry signage, and that there has been a
procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority.
The factual case
On the date of the alleged contravention I entered Wellington
Road from the High Street, turning left. The Controlled Parking
Zone entry sign on the left-hand side of the carriageway was
rotated approximately 90 degrees, rendering it not visible to
approaching drivers. Photographic evidence of this sign in its
rotated condition is provided at image 1.
As the council itself acknowledges in its Notice of Rejection, a
Controlled Parking Zone is legally required to have a pair of
visible entry signs, one placed on each side of the road, at
every entry point. This requirement exists to ensure that
drivers are able to see the sign before entering the zone. A
rotated sign does not meet this requirement. A single sign on
the far side of the carriageway for a driver turning left does
not fulfil that requirement. For example, a single sign on the
opposite carriageway is easily obscured by any large vehicle
going in the other direction.
Having passed the entry point I drove approximately 150 metres
along Wellington Road, passing through a mini roundabout, before
parking. Wellington Road contains sections with double yellow
lines and single yellow lines with accompanying signage. I
parked in a section with none of these markings. Both the
presence of these lines and the absence of markings where I
parked are shown in image 2. I reasonably concluded that this
section of road was unrestricted.
The council's Civil Enforcement Officer photographs do not
include a photograph of the entry sign as it appeared at the
time of the contravention. The only sign shown in their evidence
is a zone repeater which is not clearly visible in the wider
photographs of the vehicle, on a lamppost within the road. This
repeater sign is positioned adjacent to a single yellow line
restriction which stops before the section where I parked, shown
in image 2. A driver encountering it would reasonably interpret
it as relating to that yellow line restriction, not as a
zone-wide restriction applying to the carriageway beyond it.
Furthermore, a repeater sign cannot substitute for a defective
mandatory entry sign — it is supplementary to it, not a
replacement for it. The council has not evidenced that the
mandatory entry sign was compliant on the day.
Previous adjudicator decision
This specific entry point and signage defect has already been
the subject of an adjudicator decision. In case 2250151042
(Adjudicator Philippa Alderson, 23 May 2025), an appeal was
allowed for a vehicle parked on Wellington Road in materially
identical circumstances. The adjudicator found the left-hand
entry sign rotated approximately 90 degrees and not sufficiently
visible to drivers entering the road. Having considered the
council's own photographic evidence, she found the right-hand
sign alone insufficient to indicate the restriction, noting it
was on the opposite side of the road and that it would be
reasonable for a driver not to see it. As Adjudicator Alderson
found in case 2250151042, a driver who missed the entry sign may
reasonably conclude, in the absence of road markings, that the
street is unrestricted. The full decision is provided at
document 1.
The council's Notice of Rejection dated 10 March 2026, provided
at document 2, attempts to distinguish that decision by
asserting the right-hand sign was upright and visible at the
time of my alleged contravention and that the circumstances
therefore differ. This misrepresents Adjudicator Alderson's
findings. She had both signs in evidence and still found the
right-hand sign insufficient on identical approach geometry — a
driver turning left from the High Street for whom the right-hand
sign is on the far side of the carriageway. The council's
distinguishing argument fails on the face of the decision, which
is available on the statutory register.
The signage defect has not been remedied since May 2025. The
council has defended a second PCN at the same location on a
point already decided against it, while misrepresenting that
decision in its rejection letter. I respectfully invite the
adjudicator to consider whether this conduct amounts to wholly
unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Enforcement Authority.
Suitability of restrictions
The Department for Transport's Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3,
paragraph 13.10.2, image 3, states that permit parking areas
designated by entry signs without bay markings are suitable for
"a cul-de-sac or a small network of roads with little or no
through traffic."
Wellington Road is a through road with a mini roundabout and
forms part of a large, complex permit parking zone covering
multiple through roads. The application of this approach to
parking restrictions in this case is inconsistent with the
guidance, making it inherently difficult for unfamiliar drivers
to identify the restrictions.
I request the adjudicator to allow this appeal and direct that
the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
Image 1 - Entry sign at Wellington Road/High Street junction
showing sign rotated ~90 degrees
[img width=800
height=531]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/viFCaMD_xl.jpg[/img]
Image 2 - Car clearly parked outside double and single yellow
line areas.
[img width=800
height=531]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/UcQbdFN_xl.jpg[/img]
Image 3 - Map of the permit parking zone and extract from DfT
Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, Section 13.10
[img width=800
height=436]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Nfz8CTp_xl.jpeg[/img]
Document 1:
Will attach case: 2250151042 from tribunal website
Document 2 (will convert to single pdf for submission):
will be council's rejection
#Post#: 114031--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wanstead, Redbridge PCN issued for car parked on a section o
f the road with no obvious parking restrictions
By: tincombe Date: March 22, 2026, 1:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
May I suggest you shorten and focus your 'further
representations'.
The facts:
You parked on an UNMARKED length of highway;
The authority claim that this was a parking place reserved to
permit holders;
In support they refer to Controlled Parking Zones as
establishing parking place restrictions.
etc..
In law, IMO the only issues are:
Was the length of highway marked? No it wasn't as shown in
their evidence.
Were the required signs, indicating a Permit Parking Area,
placed as required and visible at the point you entered the
alleged PPA zone?
IMO, focus on the second aspect because the first can be dealt
with in short order because it's their evidence.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page