URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 112181--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's L
       ane
       By: Hiram Date: March 5, 2026, 12:32 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi all,
       Any advice out there, would be much appreciated!
       #Post#: 112192--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's L
       ane
       By: fraser.mitchell Date: March 5, 2026, 1:42 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote]Any advice out there, would be much appreciated![/quote]
       Clearly, with no re-offer of the discount, it is a complete no
       brainer to take them to London Tribunals and make them do some
       work for their ill-gotten gains for a change ! The penalty
       remains the same at London Tribunals and there are no additional
       costs. If you win you pay nothing, and if you lose you pay the
       £90. If you don't take them to London Tribunals you'll have to
       pay the £90 anyway.
       I am surprised to see Havering mentioning the discount, because
       they made a decision early last year to no re-offer the discount
       in any circumstances. We reckoned this foolish decision would
       come back to bite them, as it meant that it immediately became a
       no-brainer to take them all the way through the process to
       adjudication !! Maybe they have changed their mind.
       #Post#: 112290--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's L
       ane
       By: Hiram Date: March 6, 2026, 11:07 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Ok so per their letter and your advice I'll be making a
       representation. Which item should I tick on the fourth page
       under MAKING REPRESENTATIONS? Bearing in mind my argument is
       that it is not clearly sign posted that you have to park within
       the marked bays and I have photo evidence.
       Thanks again
       #Post#: 112296--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's L
       ane
       By: stamfordman Date: March 6, 2026, 12:04 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Just go with contravention did not occur.
       Draft reps here first.
       #Post#: 112684--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's L
       ane
       By: Hiram Date: March 10, 2026, 7:37 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Here's a draft letter:
       Dear Sir or Madam,
       I am writing to make a formal representation against the above
       Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that the alleged
       contravention did not occur.
       In your response to my initial challenge, you stated that
       vehicles are only permitted to park within clearly marked bays
       along this road. However, this restriction is not clearly
       conveyed by the signage present at the location.
       On 28 January, I revisited the location and took photographs of
       the signs along the road. These photographs demonstrate that the
       signage does not clearly indicate that parking is restricted
       solely to marked bays. As such, the restriction relied upon in
       your response is not adequately communicated to motorists.
       For a parking restriction to be enforceable, it must be clearly
       indicated by appropriate signs and road markings so that a
       reasonably diligent motorist can understand the restriction. In
       this case, the signage along the road fails to clearly convey
       the requirement that vehicles must park only within marked bays.
       Given the lack of clear signage indicating this restriction, I
       believe the alleged contravention did not occur and that the
       Penalty Charge Notice has been issued incorrectly.
       I therefore request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
       Please find attached the photographs taken on 28 January which
       show the signage present along the road at the time.
       I look forward to your confirmation that this notice has been
       cancelled.
       #Post#: 112715--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's L
       ane
       By: tincombe Date: March 10, 2026, 10:36 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I want to get to the bottom of the cones. Who placed them etc?
       Are they still there?
       Scenario 1
       The council placed or condones the placement of these cones(the
       latter is unlikely as it's a highways matter i.e. you cannot
       just place barriers on the carriageway willy-nilly.
       The contravention occurred because you were parked 'partially
       outside white markings', so it's nothing to do with the next
       bay, it's all about where you were. So, was the length of what
       remained of your bay 4.5m in length(this being the minimum
       mandated length of a bay of this type)? If not, then IMO the
       placing of cones by or with the condonation of the council was
       not correct in the first place: they should have coned off the
       whole bay. And then you have the under whose authority and with
       what lawful authority arguments.
       Scenario 2
       The cones were placed by a third party without the council's
       permission. This is an offence under the Highways Act and IMO
       the CEO should have removed them(after establishing the
       situation) and invited you to move back, not issue a PCN which
       would IMO have the effect of unlawfully enriching the council!
       #Post#: 113151--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's L
       ane
       By: Hiram Date: March 13, 2026, 10:59 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I don't know who put the cones out unfortunately.
       Would love feedback on the draft representation I've made please
       - thanks in advance!
       #Post#: 113163--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's L
       ane
       By: stamfordman Date: March 13, 2026, 12:34 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       You must address the cones - I would say you considered it an
       invitation to park within them, before saying there is nothing
       about parking in bay markings anyway on the signage (a few
       adjudicators are persuaded by this).
       They will reject anyway so best to get down now all that you
       will discuss with the adjudicator.
       #Post#: 113378--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's L
       ane
       By: Hiram Date: March 16, 2026, 6:30 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       How does this sound:
       Dear Sir or Madam,
       I am writing to make a formal representation against the above
       Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that the alleged
       contravention did not occur.
       At the location where my vehicle was parked, a number of traffic
       cones had been placed in a manner that reasonably gave the
       impression that parking within that area was permitted. The
       cones were arranged in such a way that they appeared to define
       or mark a space in which a vehicle could park. I therefore
       reasonably interpreted their placement as an indication or
       invitation that parking within that coned area was acceptable.
       In your response to my initial challenge, you stated that
       vehicles are only permitted to park within clearly marked bays
       along this road. However, this restriction is not clearly
       conveyed by the signage present at the location.
       On 28 January, I revisited the location and took photographs of
       the signs along the road. These photographs demonstrate that the
       signage does not clearly indicate that parking is restricted
       solely to marked bays. As such, the restriction relied upon in
       your response is not adequately communicated to motorists.
       For a parking restriction to be enforceable, it must be clearly
       indicated by appropriate signs and road markings so that a
       reasonably diligent motorist can understand the restriction. In
       this case, the signage along the road fails to clearly convey
       the requirement that vehicles must park only within marked bays,
       and the placement of the cones further contributed to the
       reasonable belief that parking in that position was permitted.
       Given the lack of clear signage indicating this restriction, and
       the misleading placement of the cones, I believe the alleged
       contravention did not occur and that the Penalty Charge Notice
       has been issued incorrectly.
       I therefore request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
       Please find attached the photographs taken on 28 January which
       show the signage present along the road at the time.
       I look forward to your confirmation that this notice has been
       cancelled.
       #Post#: 113384--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's L
       ane
       By: tincombe Date: March 16, 2026, 6:58 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Maybe a new 2nd para.
       For the purposes of these representations I am assuming that the
       cones which are shown clearly in your photos were placed by or
       with the permission of the council. Their presence had the
       effect of reducing the size of the bay by some 2m such that what
       remained had a length far less than the statutory minimum. But
       instead of suspending the use of what was now a redundant and
       unlawfully sized rump, the council chose to penalise a driver
       who tried their level best to fit within the space which
       remained.
       Of course, if the cones were not placed as above, then the CEO
       should have removed them and invited the driver to reverse in
       order to regularise the situation.
       *****************************************************
   DIR Next Page