DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 113389--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's
Lane
DIR By: Hiram
Date: March 16, 2026, 7:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Something like this:
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.
For the purposes of these representations I am assuming that the
cones which are shown clearly in my 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.
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#: 113455--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's
Lane
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 16, 2026, 2:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This needs simplifying as I find it hard to understand...
#Post#: 113457--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's
Lane
DIR By: Hiram
Date: March 16, 2026, 2:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How about this:
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, traffic cones had
been placed in a way that appeared to mark out a space. Their
positioning reasonably gave the impression that parking within
that area was permitted, and I therefore understood this to be
an acceptable place to park.
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
indicated by the signage present at the location.
On 28 January, I revisited the road and took photographs of the
signs along it. These photographs show that the signs do not
clearly state that parking is restricted to marked bays only.
For a restriction to be enforceable, it must be clearly
communicated through signs and road markings. In this case, the
signage does not clearly convey the requirement to park only in
marked bays, and the placement of the cones added to the
impression that parking in that location was permitted.
In light of this, I believe the alleged contravention did not
occur and I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice
be cancelled.
Please find attached the photographs taken on 28 January showing
the signage along the road.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 113537--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's
Lane
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 17, 2026, 11:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's much better.
#Post#: 115519--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's
Lane
DIR By: Hiram
Date: April 10, 2026, 8:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Latest from the council. Letter in the links:
HTML https://ibb.co/FLz3Skc4
HTML https://ibb.co/N6fNZXf5
As always, any advice welcome. Thanks in advance.
#Post#: 115550--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's
Lane
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: April 10, 2026, 12:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am happy to take this one on:
HTML https://ibb.co/gZfStzNG
Procedural impropriety: should be 28 days from date of service.
for payment and making representations.
#Post#: 115607--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's
Lane
DIR By: tincombe
Date: April 11, 2026, 8:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Surely, as this is a parking contravention the (RTRA and TMA)
Appeals regs apply.
These require specified information to be included in a NOR. In
this regard, each time period is: no later than the end of the
period of 28 days beginning on the date of service.
So they've misstated this twice and not given it correctly at
any point.
And to complete their full-house of PIs:
They have failed to consider the substantive points of your
representations and churned out a boilerplate response. (Isn't
'I can not', which one sees in virtually every NOR, something of
a giveaway!);
They've not included the vital info that you may submit an
appeal after the end of the period notwithstanding whether a CC
has been served or not.
Appeal at least on the grounds of Procedural Impropriety.
#Post#: 115682--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's
Lane
DIR By: Hiram
Date: April 13, 2026, 4:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you both.
I'll extract the points you've made into a letter and share
wording here.
#Post#: 115700--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's
Lane
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: April 13, 2026, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you want me to represent you, I would rather file the appeal
asap. I will PM you my e mail address.
#Post#: 115701--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering, code 24, not parked within marked bay, St Mary's
Lane
DIR By: Hiram
Date: April 13, 2026, 6:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page