When a Sign Faces the Wrong Way: How One Driver Beat a Newham Parking Fine

The Case That Every Driver in a Residents' Zone Needs to Read

Imagine parking your car in a residential street, glancing around for any signs telling you that you need a permit, and seeing nothing obvious. You leave the car, go about your day, and return to find a Penalty Charge Notice tucked under your wiper. The council says you were parked in a residents' zone without a valid permit. You disagree — you never saw a sign. Sound familiar?

This is exactly what happened in a recent case brought before the London Tribunals, where the London Borough of Newham issued a PCN to Surinder Hullen's vehicle for "parked resident/shared use without a valid permit." The appeal that followed raises a genuinely important question that affects drivers across the country: does a sign actually count as a sign if you can't see it?

The answer, as the adjudicator made clear, is no — and the implications are significant for anyone who parks in a controlled parking zone.

The Case: A Sign That Nobody Could Read

Surinder Hullen's vehicle was parked in a street in Newham controlled by a residents' permit scheme. When a civil enforcement officer spotted the car without a permit on display, they issued a PCN under the contravention of parking in a resident/shared use bay without a valid permit.

Surinder Hullen wasn't at the tribunal in person. Instead, his representative — Ms Charnajit Hullen — attended on his behalf and put the case to the adjudicator directly. The council, by contrast, did not attend the hearing at all. They relied entirely on their written evidence and photographs submitted in advance.

The contravention itself is one of the most common in London. Residents' permit zones exist across virtually every borough, and enforcement is routine. Drivers who park in a designated bay without a valid permit — or without displaying one correctly — can expect a fine. But the entire system depends on one critical assumption: that drivers are adequately warned by signage before they park.

That assumption is where this case fell apart for Newham.

The Arguments: One Sign, One Problem

Ms Hullen accepted something that many drivers in her position might have disputed outright: she acknowledged that the council's photographs did show a sign existed. She wasn't claiming there was no sign at all. Her argument was more nuanced — and ultimately more persuasive.

Her case rested on three specific points:

• The sign was at the opposite end of the road from where the car was parked, meaning a driver pulling into the street from the nearer end would not have passed it.
• The sign was set back from the carriageway and, crucially, faced the buildings rather than the road. In other words, it was pointing in the wrong direction entirely.
• The back of the sign plate — not the front, with its restriction information — was what was actually visible to anyone walking or driving along the road.

To back this up, Ms Hullen produced her own photographs showing the sign from the perspective of someone on the footway or carriageway. What they showed was the rear of the sign plate: a blank, featureless back that told passing drivers precisely nothing.

The council's response? A close-up photograph of the sign — taken from directly in front of it — showing the text clearly. The problem is obvious: a close-up shot taken from the correct angle tells you nothing about whether that sign is visible, readable, or even facing the right direction in its actual environment.

The Decision: Appeal Allowed

The adjudicator allowed the appeal, and the reasoning is worth understanding in some detail.

The core finding was straightforward: the council had not proved that its signage was adequate. This is a crucial distinction. It wasn't that the driver had proved the sign was inadequate — it was that the council had failed to prove it was adequate in the first place. In parking enforcement, that burden sits firmly with the authority.

Several specific evidential failures were identified:

• No location plan had been provided showing the relative positions of the car and the sign. Without this, the adjudicator had no way of assessing whether a driver parking where Surinder Hullen did would have had any reasonable opportunity to see the sign.
• The council's photograph was a close-up, taken from directly in front of the sign. It showed the sign's content clearly, but it did not demonstrate that the sign was conspicuous — that is, clearly visible and readable — from the carriageway or footway in normal conditions.
• Ms Hullen's own photographs were more informative than the council's, showing the back of the sign plate as visible from the road. The adjudicator found her evidence credible.

With no attendance from the council to address these gaps, and no documentary evidence that filled them, the appeal succeeded.

The Legal Reasoning: What "Conspicuous" Actually Means

Under UK traffic regulation law, signage in a controlled parking zone must do more than physically exist. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, alongside the guidance underpinning the Traffic Management Act 2004, require that signs be conspicuous — that is, readily visible and readable to drivers in normal conditions.

This isn't a technicality invented by clever lawyers. It is the entire point. A sign that exists but cannot be seen from the road does not give drivers fair warning. It cannot form the basis of a lawful enforcement action.

The adjudicator's reasoning reflects a well-established principle in parking tribunal decisions: it is not enough for a council to show that a sign exists somewhere in the vicinity. They must demonstrate that the sign was positioned, oriented, and visible in a way that gave the driver a genuine opportunity to read and understand the restriction before parking.

Think of it this way: a speed limit sign that faces a hedge tells nobody anything. A residents' zone sign that faces a building and shows only its blank reverse to passing traffic is no different in practice. The law requires the information to reach the driver, not merely to exist in the general area.

When a council fails to provide a location plan, relies on a misleading close-up photograph, and doesn't attend the hearing to address obvious evidential gaps, it has not discharged that burden. The adjudicator was right to allow the appeal.

Lessons for Drivers: What This Case Teaches You

1. Take your own photographs immediately If you receive a PCN and you believe the signage was inadequate, go back to the location as soon as possible and photograph the signs from the perspective of a driver or pedestrian approaching the area. Show what you could — and couldn't — see. Ms Hullen's photographs of the back of the sign plate were arguably the most powerful evidence in the case.

2. Photograph from the road, not just of the sign A close-up of a sign tells a tribunal nothing about whether it was visible in context. Wide-angle shots showing the sign's position relative to the road, footway, and surrounding environment are far more useful. If the sign is set back, partially obscured, or facing the wrong direction, your photographs need to show that clearly.

3. Challenge the council to provide a location plan When making representations, ask the council to provide a plan showing the locations of all relevant signs relative to where your vehicle was parked. If they cannot or do not provide one, that is a gap in their evidence — and gaps in the council's evidence work in your favour.

4. Don't assume the council's photographs tell the full story Enforcement photographs are taken by officers who know where the sign is. They will walk up to it and photograph it from the front. That is not the same as what a driver sees when approaching a street for the first time. Always ask: does this photograph show what a driver would actually see?

5. If the council doesn't attend, use it strategically When a council fails to attend a tribunal hearing, they cannot answer questions or fill gaps in their evidence. If your case raises genuine questions about signage adequacy — as this one did — the absence of a council representative can be decisive. Make sure your written and oral submissions clearly identify the evidential gaps, so the adjudicator has a clear basis to find in your favour.

The Key Takeaway

A sign that faces the wrong way is not a sign at all — at least not in the eyes of the law. Councils must prove that their signage was genuinely conspicuous to drivers, not merely that a sign existed somewhere in the street. If you receive a PCN in a residents' zone and you genuinely could not see the relevant signs, document everything, challenge the council's evidence, and take your case to appeal. As this decision shows, the burden of proof is on them — and when they fail to meet it, drivers win.