DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 106665--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 86 parked incorrectly within the markings
of a bay - Stocksfield Road Estate E1
DIR By: tommytbone
Date: January 20, 2026, 8:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully the above helps add more local detail
#Post#: 106703--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 86 parked incorrectly within the markings
of a bay - Stocksfield Road Estate E17
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: January 20, 2026, 11:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So no council car park terms.
Draft a challenge - make two points.
Contravention did not occur. For an off-street contravention the
terms of the car park must be displayed including what can be
penalised and no such terms are posted at the location.
The alleged contravention is at the end of the bay and parking
places used to be set out diagonally. As a resident here for x
years I simply made a trivial mistake on autopilot according to
the old layout and did not take any space in an adjoining bay.
#Post#: 106729--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 86 parked incorrectly within the markings
of a bay - Stocksfield Road Estate E17
DIR By: tommytbone
Date: January 20, 2026, 3:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> So no council car park terms.
>
> Draft a challenge - make two points.
>
> Contravention did not occur. For an off-street contravention
the terms of the car park must be displayed including what can
be penalised and no such terms are posted at the location.
>
> The alleged contravention is at the end of the bay and parking
places used to be set out diagonally. As a resident here for x
years I simply made a trivial mistake on autopilot according to
the old layout and did not take any space in an adjoining bay.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks so much for your help here
[member=2249]stamfordman[/member]. Does this sound ok? Used ai
as not my forte
I wish to challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice on the
ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.
1. Contravention did not occur – inadequate signage and unclear
terms
The alleged contravention is an off-street parking contravention
under Code 86: “Not parked correctly within the markings of a
bay or space.”
For an off-street car park, the terms and conditions of use —
including what constitutes a contravention and what may be
enforced by way of a penalty — must be clearly displayed at the
location. At this site, there is no signage setting out the
parking terms or explaining how bays must be used or what
constitutes incorrect parking for the purposes of enforcement.
In the absence of clearly displayed terms and conditions
governing the use of parking bays, the authority has not
properly conveyed the restriction, and therefore the alleged
contravention cannot be said to have occurred.
2. Trivial deviation / de minimis
The allegation relates to parking at the end of a bay.
Historically, parking bays at this location were marked
diagonally. As a resident of approximately [X] years, I parked
out of habit in accordance with the former layout.
Any deviation from the current bay markings was minimal and
entirely unintentional. Crucially, my vehicle did not encroach
into or prevent the use of any adjoining bay, nor did it cause
obstruction or inconvenience. The vehicle was parked wholly
within the available parking area.
Given the trivial nature of the deviation, the principle of de
minimis applies, and enforcement under Code 86 in these
circumstances is disproportionate.
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that the Penalty
Charge Notice be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 106744--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 86 parked incorrectly within the markings
of a bay - Stocksfield Road Estate E17
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: January 20, 2026, 5:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
1. Contravention did not occur – inadequate signage and unclear
terms
Change to:
1. Contravention did not occur – no car park terms and
conditions at location
The orders you posted refer to a parent order - I can't find
that, but it probably contains the requirement to park in bay
markings. If this goes to the tribunal they would have to
produce that but in our off-street cases we have long noted that
the order itself must be cited at the location along with
contraventions that can give rise to penalties as per the order.
#Post#: 106777--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 86 parked incorrectly within the markings
of a bay - Stocksfield Road Estate E17
DIR By: tommytbone
Date: January 21, 2026, 3:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> 1. Contravention did not occur – inadequate signage and
unclear terms
>
> Change to:
>
> 1. Contravention did not occur – no car park terms and
conditions at location
>
> The orders you posted refer to a parent order - I can't find
that, but it probably contains the requirement to park in bay
markings. If this goes to the tribunal they would have to
produce that but in our off-street cases we have long noted that
the order itself must be cited at the location along with
contraventions that can give rise to penalties as per the order.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's great. thanks so much for this once again. I'll get it
submitted now. I cant find that order too, but happy to go
further in the challenge if needed.
I'll update thread with their response.
#Post#: 107549--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 86 parked incorrectly within the markings
of a bay - Stocksfield Road Estate E17
DIR By: tommytbone
Date: January 27, 2026, 12:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> 1. Contravention did not occur – inadequate signage and
unclear terms
>
> Change to:
>
> 1. Contravention did not occur – no car park terms and
conditions at location
>
> The orders you posted refer to a parent order - I can't find
that, but it probably contains the requirement to park in bay
markings. If this goes to the tribunal they would have to
produce that but in our off-street cases we have long noted that
the order itself must be cited at the location along with
contraventions that can give rise to penalties as per the order.
>
>
>
--- End Quote ---
They rejected the challenge
#Post#: 107551--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 86 parked incorrectly within the markings
of a bay - Stocksfield Road Estate E17
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: January 27, 2026, 12:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That was quick - please post up a copy of the rejection.
#Post#: 107552--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 86 parked incorrectly within the markings
of a bay - Stocksfield Road Estate E17
DIR By: tommytbone
Date: January 27, 2026, 12:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They rejected the challenge. Didnt even acknowledge the lack of
signage for off street terms.
Wonder what your thoughts are regarding taking further?
Thanks in advance
Pics below:
[img
width=600]
HTML https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AP1GczNow6sP-Z7eXiQnVXesnfFRKQzWM-GM6vxPA2u6yyreTMyzKWAbTEwoIWgwgQEkuTm2yPeb3kHftuSxTd5MIeeq6mAPOUlIrc3AvCIZ0mnKCI_ETzJYhcZo8Kg_a-SKoEUhc_IxVcsRpcfHaxSiXW40NQ=w632-h1370-s-no-gm?authuser=0[/img]
[img
width=600]
HTML https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AP1GczM2HJbkjE9-ETCIHDui1nWWcfPD3KqWB6EF4MNajfdyTml82UytI86CkLvHqBfbkSoQTtoUiqkTI8kss3i9vXkqJJtB0nhMWuiPdCIMcRv7OP3YPNPMEeI-g31-4dXch0O-VtJui4-klHScYywXuNx5Pw=w632-h1370-s-no-gm?authuser=0[/img]
#Post#: 107554--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 86 parked incorrectly within the markings
of a bay - Stocksfield Road Estate E17
DIR By: tommytbone
Date: January 27, 2026, 12:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
>
> That was quick - please post up a copy of the rejection.
>
--- End Quote ---
I know, at 5.45pm too .. working late grinding their grift
#Post#: 107563--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 86 parked incorrectly within the markings
of a bay - Stocksfield Road Estate E17
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: January 27, 2026, 1:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There's no car park management purpose to enforcing this and
there is no off-street car park signage.
Ask them for the off-street order.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 8
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page