Broken Crook-Lock, Illegible Notes and a Flawed Ticket: How a Brent Driver Won Her Appeal

Most drivers who get a ticket for overstaying a pay-and-display bay assume the case is closed. The clock ran out, the attendant was there, and the penalty follows. But a Brent appeal shows that a parking ticket is only as strong as the evidence behind it, and sometimes the evidence has more holes than the driver's excuse.

The adjudicator allowed Mrs Heath's appeal on four separate grounds, and said any one of them would have been enough on its own. Here is what happened, why it matters and what drivers can learn without mistaking it for a template.

The case: what happened

Authority: London Borough of Brent Contravention: Parked after the expiry of paid-for time Outcome: Appeal allowed

This is one of the most common contraventions in the country. You pay for a set period in an on-street bay, the time runs out, and a civil enforcement officer (called a "parking attendant" in the decision) records that your vehicle is still there. A Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) follows. If you want to understand the contravention itself, our explainer on PCN code 05, parked after the meter expired is a good starting point.

What made this case different was why the car was still there. Mrs Heath's evidence was that her crook-lock, the bar-style steering lock some drivers fit as a theft deterrent, had broken and she could not take it off. The car was stuck, in effect, through no choice of hers. The adjudicator accepted this as fact.

The arguments

The decision is short and does not set out a detailed account of either side's submissions, so it is worth being careful about what we know.

The driver's side: Mrs Heath gave evidence that the lock was broken and she could not remove it. In parking terms, this is a "breakdown" type argument. She did not say she forgot, or that she misread the time. She said the car could not be moved.

The council's side: The council's case would have rested on the usual documents. That means the PCN, the attendant's notebook recording the observation, and the Traffic Management Order (TMO), the legal document that creates the bay and its rules. We can see from the decision that all three had problems. The TMO was not provided in full, the notebook was partly illegible, and the copy of the PCN was defective.

The decision: four grounds, any one enough

The adjudicator allowed the appeal on four grounds. Each could stand alone, which makes the decision unusually robust. Even if one ground had been wrong, the others would have carried the result.

1. The broken lock and the breakdown defence. The adjudicator believed Mrs Heath and found as a fact that her crook-lock was broken and she could not remove it.
2. Illegible notebook entries. Vital parts of the parking attendant's notebook could not be read.
3. A defective PCN. The copy provided did not contain everything required by Section 66(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and it was put forward without any explanation of where it came from.
4. Discretion. Even apart from the other grounds, the adjudicator thought this was an appropriate case to remit (cancel) the penalty charge, referring to a previous decision, Elwell v Westminster.

The legal reasoning, in plain English

Ground 1: the breakdown defence

Many Traffic Management Orders contain a provision that says, in broad terms, that the usual restrictions do not apply if a vehicle is broken down. The reasoning is simple. Parking rules are designed to control where people choose to leave vehicles, not to punish someone whose car cannot physically be moved.

Here, the adjudicator did not have the full TMO. Rather than treat that as fatal to the driver, the adjudicator said they assumed it contained the "usual break-down defence". The point is subtle. The council is the party that controls the paperwork, and the TMO is its document. When the full text is missing, the tribunal is not obliged to assume the worst for the driver. That said, this was one adjudicator's approach on the facts, and a different adjudicator might insist on seeing the order.

Notice too that a broken crook-lock is not the typical "breakdown" most people imagine, such as a failed engine or a flat battery. The adjudicator accepted that a car which cannot be moved because of a mechanical failure with a device on it fell within the idea. Whether a different tribunal would treat every similar situation the same way is not something this decision tells us. The key was that the adjudicator believed her account.

Ground 2: the attendant's notebook

When an attendant observes a contravention, their notes are generally the council's primary evidence of what was seen and when. If those notes cannot be read, the tribunal cannot test them. An adjudicator has to decide whether the council has proved its case, and "we think the attendant wrote something relevant, but we cannot read it" is not proof.

This does not mean a scruffy handwritten note automatically sinks a PCN. Here the adjudicator regarded the illegible parts as vital. The lesson is about relevance. Smudges on irrelevant sections will not matter, but gaps in the parts that prove the contravention can.

Ground 3: the defective PCN

This is the most technical point, so a quick explainer. A PCN is not just a demand for money. It is a legal document, and the law lists what it must contain. The decision refers to Section 66(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991, which sets out the required contents of a PCN served on a vehicle. These requirements include the grounds on which the authority believes the penalty is payable, the amount, how and when it can be paid and the consequences of not paying.

The adjudicator found that the copy before the tribunal did not contain all the required information. The adjudicator also noted it came with no explanation of its provenance, meaning where it came from and how the council could say it was the notice actually issued. Put simply, the tribunal was shown a document of uncertain origin that did not meet the legal standard. A council cannot rely on a notice that does not comply with the statute.

One word of caution. This decision refers to the 1991 Act, and parking legislation has been reorganised over the years, with different rules applying in different places and at different times. Anyone dealing with a current PCN should check the notice against the rules that apply now, and use official guidance rather than assume this decision's statutory reference is still the right one.

Ground 4: discretion to remit

The final ground is the one that shows the human side of the tribunal. Even if the technical points had failed, the adjudicator said this was a case where discretion should be exercised to cancel the penalty, citing Elwell v Westminster (Case No. 2050118519).

Adjudicators sometimes treat the strict wording of a rule as not the end of the matter. Where a driver acted reasonably and the outcome would be harsh, a tribunal may decide fairness points towards cancelling the charge. This is not a loophole that applies automatically, and it is not guaranteed. It depends on the facts, and a driver who simply wishes they had been let off will not benefit. Here, with a believed account of a broken lock and weak council evidence, it fitted neatly.

Lessons for drivers

This is commentary on one decision, not advice on any individual PCN. But a few practical themes stand out.

1. A credible, specific account matters. The first ground turned on the adjudicator believing Mrs Heath. Tribunals weigh credibility. Accounts that are specific and consistent, and that explain exactly why the car could not move, tend to carry more weight than vague ones. Anything that backs up the story, such as a repair invoice, photographs or breakdown records, can help, though the decision does not tell us what Mrs Heath produced.

2. The council has to prove its case. The authority bears the burden of showing the contravention occurred and that the notice was valid. Missing orders, unreadable notes and a PCN with no provenance are all weaknesses. If you appeal, it is reasonable to ask to see the evidence the council relies on, including the notice and the attendant's notes. Our guide to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal process explains how that stage works.

3. Check the notice itself. A PCN has to contain certain information. A notice that misses required content can be a ground of challenge. That said, not every small error is fatal, and tribunals look at whether the omission really mattered. If you spot something odd, it is worth raising and getting guidance rather than assuming it is a winner.

4. Make your case early and in writing. Many drivers who later reach a tribunal first make a formal challenge to the council. Setting out your account clearly at that stage creates a record. Our guide to formal representations for UK parking fines covers how to structure one. Where the sums or stakes are significant, it is sensible to take professional advice or consult official tribunal guidance.

5. Do not rely on discretion alone. The fourth ground is encouraging, but it is not a right. It applies in the particular circumstances of a case, and a driver who relies on sympathy without evidence is on weaker ground. It works best as a backstop to a well-evidenced appeal.

Key takeaway

A parking ticket is a claim the council must prove, not a verdict. Mrs Heath won because her account was believed, but also because the council's own evidence did not hold together. If your car could not be moved, say exactly why and back it up. And if the paperwork against you looks thin, that is worth knowing before you pay.

This article is general commentary on a published tribunal decision and does not constitute legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts, so if the stakes are significant, consider official guidance from the relevant tribunal or independent professional advice.