“In 2023–24, 16,947 appeals were allowed and 8,734 of those—just over 51%—were allowed because the enforcement authority chose not to contest.”
In my quest to defeat these thieves, I've created this guide on how to win at appeal. The following are time tested methods, based on facts, and appeal information taken from London Tribunals (LT), the body who we approach as part of the final appeal.
The following provides the top reasons why appeals are successful through London Tribunals.
Adjudicators flag a recurring problem: councils issuing generic Notices of Rejection that don’t engage with the motorist’s points (“failure to consider”) or otherwise mishandling the process. These defects can tip an appeal.
The Tribunal’s reports call this out as a frequent issue and urge legally sound, specific responses.
Signage, markings, or evidence gaps.
A common successful line is that the prohibition wasn’t properly signed/marked, or the authority’s evidence doesn’t prove the contravention.
Classic Example: Yellow-box cases where the council’s video doesn’t show the vehicle entering the box (an essential element), so the appeal is allowed.
Loading/unloading, Blue Badge concessions, or other permitted activity can mean the contravention didn’t occur.
These sit under the formal grounds of appeal used in London (e.g., “the contravention did not occur”).
Appeals often succeed where the appellant wasn’t the owner at the time (sold/bought around the date), or the vehicle was taken without consent.
These are explicit statutory grounds.
Occasionally, batches of appeals succeed due to enforcement defects—e.g., the 2022–23 finding that certain bus-lane cameras lacked type approval, and (separately) disputes about camera use in red-route bays.
Note: a later High Court decision confirmed TfL can enforce red-route bay restrictions by camera, so that particular challenge is now weaker.
Loading and Unloading
Here’s what “loading/unloading” means in London PCN cases — and how it wins appeals.
Where the exemption applies;
Generally on single or double yellow lines (no-waiting) if you’re actively loading/unloading; typical borough policy allows up to 20–40 mins — but only where no kerb blips (loading restrictions) are present.
Single/double kerb blips override the exemption (single = no loading at signed times; double = no loading anytime).
Red Routes
No parking to load or unload at any time for double red lines, for single red lines it's only allowed during specific times.
1. No (or poor) consideration of your points
2. Late NoR (the “56-day rule”)
3. Mandatory wording missing / misstated in the NoR
4. Premature Charge Certificate / Wrong Sequence
5. Evidence Service Failures Before the Hearing
The latest London Tribunals report notes the law doesn’t explicitly force councils to give detailed reasons in a NoR—but public-law fairness means decisions should be explained and show the points were properly weighed (they cite Nzolameso v Westminster [2015] UKSC 22).
So while a thin NoR isn’t an automatic win by itself, if it fails to engage with key evidence/arguments that can amount to Procedural Impropriety.
Was the NoR served within 56 days of your formal reps? If not, say “deemed accepted”.
Does the NoR clearly state: (a) Charge Certificate may be served unless within 28 days of service you pay or appeal; (b) costs power; (c) how to appeal? If any are missing/misstated, plead Procedural Impropriety.
Does the NoR answer your points (e.g., loading exemption, signage defects, blue badge, location/time errors), or is it a template? If template-like, plead failure to consider + fettered discretion.
Did the authority issue a Charge Certificate early (before your 28-day appeal window, or while an appeal was pending)? That’s a sequence breach.
Did you receive their evidence at least 3 working days before the hearing? If not, object.
Councils must consider each case on its merits and can cancel a PCN even if the contravention happened. They mustn’t run blanket policies like “we never cancel for first-time offences” or tell you they “can’t consider mitigation.” That’s called fettering discretion.
The Statutory Guidance says authorities have a duty not to fetter their discretion, must approach discretion objectively, judge each case on its merits, and be ready to depart from policy when warranted.
London Tribunals case law also underlines that councils should carefully consider exercising discretion where there are extenuating circumstances.
The above factors, i.e. financial problems (cash flow), a new company and a first offence (clean record), are mitigation. They’re not a formal ground of appeal, but the council must consider them fairly. If they reply with any of the below, that screams fettered discretion:
If a Notice of Rejection uses that kind of wording (or ignores your points entirely), raise Procedural Impropriety (PI) – fettered discretion / failure to consider. Adjudicators can allow an appeal on PI if the council hasn’t had proper regard to the Guidance or has shut its mind.
Discretion / Mitigation
We are a newly incorporated company ([name], incorporated [date]). Cash-flow is extremely tight in our start-up phase and this is a first offence. We acted in good faith while carrying out a necessary delivery and we ask you to exercise discretion to cancel the PCN, or as a minimum re-offer the discount and allow time to pay.
The Statutory Guidance confirms you have discretion even where a contravention occurred, must not fetter that discretion, and should apply policy flexibly and judge each case on its merits. Please confirm you have done so here and explain your reasoning.
If they refuse with a template line like “we don’t cancel for first offences,” add this to your Tribunal appeal:
Ground: Procedural impropriety – fettered discretion / failure to consider
The authority’s rejection states [quote the line], indicating a blanket policy. The Statutory Guidance requires authorities not to fetter discretion, to approach it objectively, and to apply policy flexibly, judging each case on its merits. The rejection fails to engage with my mitigation and therefore amounts to a procedural impropriety.
See the below section (Downloads), for an example letter and applicable info (PDF).
In the last six months I've receive 3 PCNs and won every one due to a Procedural Impropriety.
The easiest way is to say the evidence upload facility wasn't working when submitting your first appeal - add this information to the appeal, do not add what this evidence was, just say you tried and it failed multiple times - take a screenshot of the form info.
On every occassion the issuing authority ignore this information and send a formal "Notice of Rejection" - a slam dunk every time.
In my cases it was due to "failure to consider" and "fettered discretion."
What happens is that the appeals are dealt with "carte blanche," they don't even look at the evidence - I think, so many people just pay, they don't care, they're making £Millions, why would they? It would be inefficient financial to look and deal with appeals correctly.
Whether you’re sending a marble dining table to London or relocating an antique cabinet to Manchester, we've got you covered.
If you’d rather leave the hard work to the experts, get an instant quote today, we use a dual system to generate a very precise price for you, and we'll honor that quote for six months;
Call, text or WhatsApp message me (Lee) on 077 888 211 21.