That's better. Sounds like you were parked at a dropped kerb for pedestrian crossing. Can't fault the issuing of the ticket. Struggling to fault the PCN itself also but will look more closely later. I think you may have to pay.

Were you in a CPZ? The signs at the entry to the CPZ have the operative times. They are often to 7pm. Post the PCN, it could be defective in other ways.

Although I can't read the detail on the PCN I think the Act is underneath the "Penalty Charge Notice" heading. Any way you can post a hight res picture?

Residential or commercial dropped footway? If residential, single use or multiple use? If single use, yours or someone elses?

OK, in your shoes my strategy would be this. Firstly don't worry. I would risk the undiscounted penalty. You have 14 days from the date of service of the notice to pay the discounted rate. It is good practice for LA's, if informal representations are received within that time to, if they respond rejecting the representations to give a further period of time to pay the reduced rate (this is not guaranteed but councils have been severely criticised if they don't do this). So after 10 days I would write to the council and explain that you feel that the signage is inadequate and therefroe the restrictions are unenforceable, particularly as the council are clearly aware of the problems and have published plans to upgrade the signage. If, and I think it is quite a big if, the council reject this you can pay the discounted penalty if and they should for the reasons above still offer it. Or wait for the NTO to arrive. You have no formal right of appeal until you get the NTO (and sometimes it never comes - by law it has to come in 6 months if my recollection is correct but it may be three!). When you get the NTO you will have two grounds for appeal that I think will apply in your case ( you will have lost the right to pay at the reduced rate). The grounds will be that the contravention never occurred and that the penalty exceeds the relevant amount. To try to make the case we need to do more work but there is plenty of time if it comes to that. After you submit the appeal to the NTO the council will etite accept or reject it. Nothing else is permissable. My LA once wrote and again offered me the chance to pay at the reduced rate, I wrote back and said thank-you for accepting my appeal on one or more of the grounds I put forward, the law only allows you to cancel the PCN and NTO please do so - and they did! If the reject your appeal, you now have the right to go to the adjudicator. There is no cost other than time and postage (plus travel etc if you want a personal hearing). If the adjudicator rules against you you then have to pay the penalty (there are very very limited rights of appeal) before you start to get a charge certificate (increasing the penalty by 50%) and the possibility of any costs. All of that is a long way away though. I am more than happy to help you with the process, but only on the basis that I will tell you what I would do. You have to make up your own mind and the risk (minimal though it is, is yours).

They may have. It's finding it and the applicability to an individual case that is the challenge.

What was the date of that letter? That will be relevant. Do you mean that the other two bays are the ones, one north one south of the road to the right of the one way road you have to turn right to exit? I still think you have an inadequate signage defence. In particular you cannot be expected to read the sign when you are pulling up to park. Also from your photos I don't think the white lines are compliant but it is difficult to be sure.

It's law because it's enforced under The Greater London (Central Zone) Congestion Charging Order 2001 and stuff that came later. Under the law the panalties are civil rather than criminal. I don't know if you could end up going to prision as a direct result of the chain of events that follows failure to pay (as for example not paying council tax). It would be more likely that you would have your car or some other asset seized and sold at auction. By this stage the costs and fees would have escallated out of control and what could have been settled for a few tens of pounds would be many hundreds of pounds and probably at least a thousand. If jail is going to be involved it is more likely to result from assaulting the bailiffs. In my view the US Embassy have it wrong and it should be seen as ananlagous to a toll charge not a tax. You are certainly within your rights to appeal to the adjudicator. You have more chance on lucking out with TFL and some procedural error on their part than with the arguments you are suggesting (which are not one of the lawful grounds for appeal). As far as I can see your lawful grounds for appeal may be that the penalty charge exceeds the amount payable in the circumstances of the case. You may be able to establish this if, for example, you can find a defect in the drafting of the PCN and to do this I suggest you scrutinise the PCN against the legislation which you can find on this web site. As far as suing if you fail in your appeal. That won't work it would get struck out. Your only remedy is to seek a review of the decision if you can establish that the interests of justice require a review or a judicial review because you think that the adjudicator has erred in law (but not fact). It is your absolute and unfettered right to appeal to the adjudicator. Beyond that you have to establish stuff which I don't think you will be able to. I wish you luck but I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.

I think that chester is on the right lines. You may find yourself having to go for the person you bought the car from, if you can.

Law

I do have some sympathy for this. Londoners may well get used to it and paying when they use it regularly but for non-Londoners I'm not convinced that it is that easy. What I would like to see is on the Blue CC signs a text number that you can use to get sent a text telling you where the nearest Pay Point is (determined by what cell you are in). No idea if the technology is there though. Couldn't agree more which is why the date issue on PCN's was such a triumph.

I have had a look at the photos and while night-time shots are difficult, I think that there may well be a case to be made here for inadequate signage. "Signage" here is signs and markings. Would it be possible for you to get more pictures showing the relationship between the bay you were in and the others, the posts and the sign on the wall and also some better pictures of the white bay markings. LAs do have a duty to ensure that signage is adequate, that it is maintained and this duty is increased in unusual areas (which this may be). It is also worth posting a copy of the PCN (both sides) so we can take a look at it as that may also be defective. If you e-mail them as before that will be helpful. Thanks

Who has issued the ticket? Whose web site is it? There is a different approach if it is a private or a local authority ticket.

This comes across as a tad patronising and unhelpful. I hope that wasn't the intent.

Apart from when it tempts people to bodge a get-around, causing a fire.

You need look no further than the Barnet case available here. This is a high court decision and so is binding on the adjudicators and councils. It is a masterclass in PCN pedantry. This case and this are also useful.

No

You have nothing to lose by appealing as you have described. I happen to think that you have a better chance of challenging the lawfulness of the PCN on three grounds: 1) No "as amended" in the statute citation 2) "You are required to pay" - no liability rests with the owner not the driver 3) What is their authority to increase the penalty to £90 after 56 days. This can only be done after a charge certificate has been issued and this cannot be done if an appeal is pending. This is unlawful. But in your shoes I would throw the whole lot at them.

If you want an honest opinion . . . this approach is doomed to failure. If you drove or had your car in the CC zone during its hours of operation you have to pay the charge or the owner gets a penalty. In these circumstances what you have to do is to look at things dispassionately. Your best bet is to examine the legislation surrounding the CC and ensure that the documentation you receive is in conformity with it. I rather think you may be allowing your hatred of the CC cloud your views here. Principles are great but they can get expensive!

And what do they do if they get a don't know/won't tell who the driver was response from the keeper?

I'm not so sure I agree with Buzby. Signage still has to be adequate. Can you take some photographs and post them here? Is this de-criminalised parking? Can you scan and post both sides of the ticket or type them out here? Leave out personal stuff, reg plate etc. There may be defects in the ticket itself.

You don't pay the charge then appeal. If you pay you have no right of appeal. You need to get clear on what constitutes loading and unloading. You also need to be clear on inadequate signage of restrictions. I recommend you look at the key cases on the PATAS (inside London) and NPAS (outside London) web sites. There is nothing to stop you cross-referencing cases (eg using a London one if you are outside London). Then there is the wording of the PCN itself, can you scan and reproduce it here?

Sorry, I don't know the technicalities of being defaulted but I would write to them as follows. Dear Sirs, Re Policy No: [x] Renewal Date [dd mmmm yyyy] I am writing to you to complain about your handling of my declination to renew my insurance with you. Your staff have confirmed that your records confirm that I declined your invitation to renew. No further action should have been required from me. However, you ignored these instructions and continued to take funds from my bank account. I have now recovered these funds using the Direct Debit Guarantee. You have now written to me saying that under section 87(1) of the consumer credit act I have been defaulted. I am in default of nothing. Could you please deliver to me within fourteen days of the date of this letter a letter confirming that you have cancelled this default and that you have unravelled any notice to any credit reference agencies or any other impact whatsoever on me as a result of this action taken by you. Yours faithfully

There is no legislation that would allow a council to behave in this way. It is a private organisation. Might be worth your while going and getting some pictures of signs on display. They will have to have signs advising of CCTV to comply with the Data Protection Act. I would probably want to put a stop on the cheque. It has clearly got lost in the post and that is the prudent thing to do. If it later "turns up" at Excel, my answer would be that it was sent in error prior to your realising that as owner you have no liability and that you stopped it as a security measure when it was clear that it hadn't been received.

Were you photographed at all? They can allege that the liability lies with you, the owner/keeper/driver/hirer but that does not mean that it is joint and several (ie that any and each of them is laible for the debts of any other). In you position I would write as follows: Dear Sirs, Re your letter of [date] reference [insert reference] I acknowledge that I am the owner of the vehicle to which this penalty relates, however, I deny that any liability attaches to me as owner. Should you disagree with this please respond citing relevant statute and/or judicial precedent in order that I may verify your claim. If you are unable and/or unwilling to do so, this alleged debt will remain in dispute and I will be unable to enter into any further correspondence with you on the subject. Yours faithfully