DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 110454--------------------------------------------------
Re: Brent PCN, Code: 01, Honeypot Lane (near junction with
Westmoreland Road), Obscured Sign
DIR By: echo
Date: February 20, 2026, 4:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I do understand the situation now, what I’m trying to get
across is that at the time of parking, the restriction
applicable to the single yellow line was not adequately
conveyed. I thought that under the regulations, the authority
has a duty to ensure that the effect of a traffic order is
adequately indicated by traffic signs. My point is that a time
plate rotated away from the carriageway and not visible from the
parking position does not adequately convey the restriction.
It was only after receiving the PCN, and returning in daylight
specifically to search the area, that I located the relevant
time plate. It is oriented away from where a driver would
reasonably stand after parking. I don’t think it is correct to
say that simply because a sign exists somewhere nearby, the
restriction is necessarily adequately signed.
This is a relatively busy road with traffic usually moving at
30mph. It is the kind of road where you have to be very careful
even getting in and out of the vehicle. There is no proper
footway at the exact point where I parked, and further ahead
there is a central pedestrian refuge island which narrows the
carriageway and channels vehicles into tighter lanes. Walking
along the edge of that stretch of carriageway to search for
signage, particularly at night and in wet conditions, does not
feel safe or reasonable. I would argue that the test should be
whether the restriction is clearly visible to a reasonably
diligent motorist from the vehicle or its immediate vicinity,
not whether it can be discovered after a search.
I accept that this would not be a guaranteed win. However, my
concern is not that I misunderstood a clearly presented
restriction, it is that the relevant sign is misaligned in a way
that fails to properly face the traffic to which it applies.
My uncertainty at this stage is because this is a Europcar
courtesy vehicle, I’m not yet sure whether liability will be
transferred to me, which would allow me to take the matter to a
Tribunal. If it is transferred and I am able to make formal
representations, then I would be prepared to test whether the
signage satisfies the requirement to adequately convey the
restriction.
#Post#: 110463--------------------------------------------------
Re: Brent PCN, Code: 01, Honeypot Lane (near junction with
Westmoreland Road), Obscured Sign
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 20, 2026, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
YOu need to check with Europcar, but my understanding is they
just pay the Notice to Owner when it arrives, and add handling
fee of £50 on top. If they do this, then just paying the
discount now is your best option.
#Post#: 110513--------------------------------------------------
Re: Brent PCN, Code: 01, Honeypot Lane (near junction with
Westmoreland Road), Obscured Sign
DIR By: tincombe
Date: February 20, 2026, 12:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Provided you challenge before 28th you preserve the discount for
a further 14 days.
I suggest you make reps and test their response on your main
point.
#Post#: 110786--------------------------------------------------
Re: Brent PCN, Code: 01, Honeypot Lane (near junction with
Westmoreland Road), Obscured Sign
DIR By: echo
Date: February 23, 2026, 9:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the guidance so far.
I’ve emailed Europcar - no response yet. I decided to submit an
informal challenge to test the council’s position and preserve
the discount. Below this message is a copy of my draft appeal. I
would really appreciate any comments on the wording or approach
before I submit it.
My argument is that although I now understand the restriction,
the relevant yellow line sign was rotated away from the
carriageway and not visible from where I parked. It was only
after receiving the PCN and returning in daylight that I found
it. I believe that fails the requirement for adequate signage.
Any suggestions on tightening this up or strengthening the
signage argument would be very welcome.
Also, if liability is transferred from Europcar to me and it
progresses to London Tribunals, does this read like something an
adjudicator would properly consider, or am I missing a stronger
technical angle?
I’ve also uploaded a short video to show what this stretch of
road is actually like in practice. It demonstrates how vehicles
tend to approach at around 30mph, how narrow the carriageway
becomes near the pedestrian refuge island, and the lack of
proper footway alongside the single yellow line.
It was raining heavily on the night I parked, and the verge was
wet and muddy. I didn’t feel it was safe to start walking along
the edge of the carriageway looking for additional signage,
particularly with traffic moving at speed and no proper pavement
where I was parked. The video hopefully gives a clearer sense of
the conditions and why the misaligned sign was not apparent from
where I parked the vehicle.
Any thoughts on whether this strengthens the signage argument
would be appreciated. (had to split the video into 2 files to
upload them)
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/p/vmjizJG#hdOZmOf
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/p/vmjizJG#cF51eyw
APPEAL TEXT:
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to formally appeal the above Penalty Charge Notice
[number], which was issued on Sunday morning at 8:49 AM for
parking on a single yellow line.
I wish to challenge PCN on the basis that the restriction was
not adequately signed in accordance with the council’s duty to
provide clear and lawful signage.
I hold a valid resident permit for this area and have lived
locally for approximately nine years. During this time, I have
always made every effort to comply with parking restrictions and
have never knowingly parked in contravention of them.
On the evening prior to the PCN being issued, I returned home
after dark and, as is frequently the case in this area, there
were no available resident parking bays. I therefore parked on
the single yellow line.
Before leaving the vehicle, I checked the only sign visible
from my position beside the vehicle. That sign indicated a
Monday–Saturday restriction and gives no indication that parking
was prohibited at the time I parked.
As single yellow line restrictions commonly mirror the
operational hours shown on nearby parking plates, I reasonably
understood that parking on the Sunday morning would be
unrestricted.
The sign that apparently applies to the single yellow line was
not visible from where I parked. It is rotated away from the
carriageway and from the length of single yellow line to which
it relates. It was only after receiving the PCN, and returning
in daylight to investigate, that I located this sign turned away
from the road it applies to. It would not reasonably be seen by
a motorist approaching or parking on that side of the road,
particularly at night.
This is a relatively busy road with narrow running lanes and a
central pedestrian refuge on either side of the location which
constrains traffic flow. Vehicles regularly travel at 30mph.
There is no proper pavement at the precise location where the
sign is positioned, and on the night I parked there the verge
was wet and muddy due to recent heavy rain. It would not be
reasonable or safe to expect a motorist to walk into or
alongside live traffic in order to search for signage that
should have been clearly visible from the point of parking.
The authority has a duty to ensure that signage is clearly
visible and correctly oriented toward the carriageway and the
restriction it regulates.
I have taken photographs and video which demonstrate that:
* the nearest visible sign indicates restrictions Monday to
Saturday only;
* no signage facing the direction of travel or parking location
clearly indicates Sunday restrictions; and
* the relevant sign appears orientated away from approaching
drivers, making it difficult to see from the carriageway.
Under Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders
(Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, the authority
has a duty to ensure that traffic signs are placed so that
adequate information is made available to road users regarding
the effect of a Traffic Regulation Order.
In addition, the Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 3) published by
the Department for Transport states that signs must be
positioned so that drivers can easily see and understand the
restriction before or at the time of parking. Restrictions must
be clearly conveyed and not rely on drivers locating signage
that is obscured, poorly orientated, or not visible from the
relevant parking position.
In this case, the combination of:
* the clearly visible nearby sign indicating Monday–Saturday
restrictions,
* the absence of visible signage facing the location where the
vehicle was parked,
* the orientation of the relevant sign away from approaching
drivers, and
* the risk posed by the road’s speed and traffic density
led me to reasonably believe that parking on Sunday morning was
permitted.
Given that the relevant sign was misaligned and not facing the
carriageway or the regulated length of yellow line, I submit
that the restriction was not adequately conveyed and the PCN
should be cancelled.
I am a long-standing resident and permit holder who made a
genuine effort to comply with the restrictions. The signage
arrangement at this location is misleading and does not clearly
communicate the applicable restriction to motorists parking on
that section of road, particularly at night and on a busy road.
I respectfully request that the council review the attached
photographs and cancel this PCN on the basis that the
restriction was not adequately or clearly signed and that
reasonable safety considerations prevent drivers from having to
inspect signage in person.
Please let me know if any further information is required.
If the council does not accept this challenge, I request:
•
•
records for this location
I look forward to your response.
#Post#: 111337--------------------------------------------------
Re: Brent PCN, Code: 01, Honeypot Lane (near junction with
Westmoreland Road), Obscured Sign
DIR By: echo
Date: February 27, 2026, 6:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This morning I saw a Traffic Warden (CEO) issuing a PCN in the
exact same location and spoke to him about the sign being turned
away from the single yellow line.
He confirmed:
- The sign should be facing the road/yellow line.
- It’s not correctly positioned.
- Someone must have twisted it.
- His manager told him to follow CPZ hours (Mon–Sat).
- When I said my PCN was on a Sunday, he said I should appeal
and it should be cancelled.
I’ve also photographed all other yellow line signs nearby — they
all face the carriageway except this one.
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/W7tVKJg#4iAuESi
I’ve now submitted my appeal. Any thoughts on strengthening it
further before the 28-day deadline?
#Post#: 111342--------------------------------------------------
Re: Brent PCN, Code: 01, Honeypot Lane (near junction with
Westmoreland Road), Obscured Sign
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 27, 2026, 6:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You've now submitted your informal representation which will, in
all likelihood, be rejected, and it is unlikely they will accept
a second submission. The next stage is the Notice to Owner,
which will go to Europcar. So really unless you know whether
Europcar will not pay the NtO, but pass on your name and
address, all your photos etc interesting but of no use unless
you sort out the NtO issue with Europcar.
#Post#: 111349--------------------------------------------------
Re: Brent PCN, Code: 01, Honeypot Lane (near junction with
Westmoreland Road), Obscured Sign
DIR By: echo
Date: February 27, 2026, 7:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Europcar replied: "We will always attempt to transfer liability
where the fine issuer allows us to do so."
Apparently:
"Under the Traffic Management Act 2004 (Schedule 4A), councils
are required to allow transfer of liability for PCNs issued to
hire vehicles when the hired vehicle:
Was on hire at the time of the alleged contravention, and
The hire company provides evidence (e.g., hire agreement)
linking the vehicle to the hirer.
This applies across all English councils and is not
discretionary — it is statutory."
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page