Atherton Road, Redbridge PCN contravention 62(2)

Good afternoon

I hope you are well

I parked my car this afternoon where I have done previously without any issues for many years but today to my surprise I got this ticket - here is the location:











I had parked opposite the sign which said parking is permitted if you park with wheels on the kerb - there are no bays or other markings.  Please advise on whether I can appeal?  Thanks

Atherton Road is a quite long road with many side roads coming off.

If you could post a google street view link to about where you parked, other members could have a look at signage.

Currently, your photos don’t give much information.

Edit: using mobile and missed the street view linked - apologies

Some thoughts:

So, there are signs indicating that parking with 2 wheels on the footway is permitted on both sides(the location is linked in the first post).

On your side, the sign is ahead of your car; on the other side, it's opposite your car.

As regards placing of signs, this applies:

When a sign provided for in the sign table in Part 2 [this is you] is placed to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement or prohibition begins or ends, the sign must be placed on the road as near as practicable to that point.

And there you have it in a nutshell.

'As near as practicable' does not mean the actual point at which parking relief starts, it means what it says. The practicability point is taken by many councils to mean pre-existing columns. The problem comes with CEOs who interpret the location of the sign to mean that relief starts at that point and not somewhere near.

IMO, you have an arguable defence that the sign opposite indicates that footway parking relief starts there and not, as in your case, at the location of the sign ahead of you. If the sign on your side indicates the point at which footway parking relief applies then you are likely in contravention and the sign opposite is wrong and misleading. But if the sign opposite is placed correctly, then clearly you are not in contravention.

In short, the authority must recognise that the position of the signs is not determinative and that only by reference to the council resolution approved pursuant to s15(4) of the 1974 Act would the prohibited and permitted footway parking areas be determined. They must therefore refer to this before responding to the challenge.

I would not go near 'I have parked here before umpteen times without issue' because you don't have objective evidence. I would stick with the hard facts and the law.

Thanks for the reply, that makes sense.  I went out again to take some more photos so yes further down the side I parked there is a sign but I parked opposite the sign on the other side which I took to mean it was okay.  Also at the other end of the same road there is a sign and some double yellow lines so if the same was on the bit where I parked I would not have parked there.

Hi,  Please see below my draft appeal, kindly advise before I submit. 

Thanks

PCN No: AF15382445 — Vehicle: BK72LWD — Challenge

I am challenging this PCN, issued on 03/07/2026 on Atherton Road for contravention 62(2).

There are signs (TSRGD diagram 667B) indicating that footway parking is permitted on both sides of this stretch of Atherton Road: one on my side of the road positioned ahead of where my vehicle was parked, and one on the opposite side positioned level with my vehicle.

Under the Traffic Signs Regulations, where a sign indicates the point at which a restriction, requirement, or prohibition begins or ends, it must be placed "as near as practicable" to that point — not necessarily at the exact point itself. This means the physical position of a sign is not conclusive evidence of precisely where the permitted footway parking area begins or ends; sign placement is frequently constrained by practical factors such as existing lamp columns.

In this case, the sign on the opposite side of the road indicates that footway parking relief applies level with my vehicle's position. If that sign is correctly placed, my vehicle was within the permitted area and no contravention occurred. Only the council's resolution made under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 can determine the actual extent of the permitted and prohibited footway parking areas on this road — the signs themselves are not determinative of that boundary.

I therefore request that, before responding to this challenge, the council refers to the relevant s.15(4) resolution/order for this location and confirms the precise extent of the permitted footway parking area, together with an explanation of why the signage on the two sides of the road appears to indicate different start points for that relief.

I also request disclosure of the Civil Enforcement Officer's photographs taken at the time.

In light of the above, I request that this PCN be cancelled.

Hi, hope you are well. Any advice on my draft appeal above before I submit.  Any comments much appreciated.  Thanks

I think it's a decent challenge but at this stage likely to be ignored and rejected.

We've seen a lot of these footway cases where signs are arbitrarily slapped on existing posts.

I've checked and apart from a few yellow lines and a school entrance I can't see any other restrictions in Atherton Road so it is likely the entire road has the footway ban lifted by resolution.

Thanks, I will submit and I agree with you it will probably get rejected but would it be worth taking all the way to the adjudicator?

'but would it be worth taking all the way to the adjudicator?'

IMO,
If they don't refer to the resolution, yes?

If they do and it shows the sign in exactly the correct place, no.

Pl confirm that you have sent your reps.

Reps submitted, thanks

Hi,

Hope you are well.  As expected rejection received from Redbridge - please review and advise.  thanks

As expected they've ignored the request for the resolution. If you go on with this and they do the same at formal stage you'll have a failure to consider.

They also refer to parking near a junction - this is irrelevant as if you'd been on the carriageway there was no contravention. If they want to prevent this they can paint double yellow lines.

IMO, their reference to the Highway Code and distance from the junction is a procedural impropriety because it conveys the impression that extraneous and extra-regulatory factors were taken into account by them in reaching their decision:

'In light of these factors the contravention is upheld'!!!

From the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance:


The process of considering challenges, representations and defence of appeals is a legal process that requires officers dealing with these aspects to be trained in the relevant legislation and how to apply it.

Enforcement authorities should give proper consideration and respond to these challenges with care and attention

I agree with tincombe but a PI will carry more weight if it's carried over into a notice of rejection to the NTO.

I would go on with this but not my punt.

Case below possibly helpful on signage but the resolution is key and we rarely see this put to the test at the tribunal.

----------------

Case reference   2260036131
Appellant   xxxxx
Authority   London Borough of Redbridge
VRM   YD04EHY
   
PCN Details
PCN   AF11812644
Contravention date   24 Oct 2025
Contravention time   13:26:00
Contravention location   Fairway Gardens
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Footway parking
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   19 May 2026
Adjudicator   Chez Cotton
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons   Introduction
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for footway parking (Code 62).
2. This is a postal appeal.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is set out in detailed representations.
4. The Appellant has provided photographs showing signage permitting kerb parking in the relevant road. The Appellant’s understanding was that the signage put in place by the EA, showing the kerb parking was allowed in the location, meant that he was entitled to park as they had done. The photograph provided shows signage an arrow pointing along the road. The Appellant also produces a photograph of other vehicles parked on the kerb, alongside the EA permission sign.
5. The Appellant makes further point under the following headings, 1. The contravention did not occur – inadequate and misleading; 2. Legitimate expectation created by enforcement layout; 3. The presence of another vehicle (a white van) parked in an identical mirrored position across the road creates a legitimate expectation that parking was permitted at that location; 4. Proximity to junction – irrelevant and unsupported; 5. Failure to properly consider representations; 6. The Notice of Rejection is generic, formulaic, and fails to meaningfully engage with the specific representations made; 7. Burden of proof: The burden rests entirely on the Enforcement Authority to prove that: The restriction was clearly & lawfully signed. The contravention occurred beyond reasonable doubt Given the misleading signage, comparative parking evidence & lack of obstruction/that burden has not been met.’
6. In these circumstances the Appellant asks for the PCN to be cancelled.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
7. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on the evidence of the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) to demonstrate the contravention, and submit the photographs taken by the CEO further support that the contravention occurred.
8. The EA state the Appellant’s vehicle was observed parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or carriageway. The Highway code Rule 244 which all motorists should be aware of states; You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.
9. The EA state that the signs in the relevant road ‘indicate that footway parking is permitted in certain areas. The signs are quite clear in that they include a directional arrow depicting from which direction parking on the footpath is allowed.’
10. The EA state the Appellant was parked on the wrong side of the sign permitting kerb parking, and was in close proximity to the junction, so dangerous.
11. The EA respond to each of the Appellant’s points, and do not accept there has been a legitimate expectation created, ‘de minimis’ does not apply, that there is no basis to transfer liability to any other individual, the original notice complied with all regulations and all representations were considered.
12. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations and does not wish to exercise their discretion.
13. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
14. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully.
15. The EA's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in breach of the prohibition against "footway parking". Under Section 15(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 as amended, a contravention occurs if a vehicle is parked anywhere in Greater London with one or more wheels on or over any part of a road other than a carriageway or on or over a footpath, unless an exemption applies.
16. I am satisfied the enforcement of the contravention of 'footway parking' by the EA is underpinned by this legislation, created by Parliament, and so does not require a Traffic Management Order.
17. I have considered the photographs provided by both parties. On balance, I accept there is signage at the relevant road that expressly permits footway parking. I further accept there is a directional sign under the ‘icon’ showing footway parking. However, I am unable to satisfy myself that there is any signage to state that any vehicle parking on the kerb must remain within a particular area, or bay, or side of the road. I am unable to satisfy myself that there is any signage indicating the times during which kerb parking may take place, or that it is anyway restricted by time.
18. Therefore, on balance, I consider the EA has given permission for parking on the footway at this location, meaning this road, since I am unable to satisfy myself that there is any clear signage in place to indicate otherwise.
19. Further, for the avoidance of doubt, on balance, I do not consider there to be signage indicating that, having permitted footway parking by way of the signage, it is not allowed at the location in which the Appellant parked. I do not consider that a directional arrow on a sign permitting kerb parking is sufficient for a reasonably diligent motorist to understand that kerb parking is not permitted on the entire road, without any further clear signage to confirm any restriction on the permission given.
20. On balance I find it reasonable that the Appellant understood that they were entitled to park as they did because of the EA signage indicating that kerb parking was allowed, and the fact that there was no restriction times or other clear signage in place indicating otherwise.
21. For these reasons I find a contravention has not occurred and the PCN has not been validly issued.
22. Because I have allowed the appeal on this basis, it is not necessary for me to deal with the other points raised.
Decision
23. The appeal is allowed for the reasons outlined.

Thanks and I agree.  I am happy to take this further but we are not the registered keeper (the finance company is) and I suspect if they receive the NtO then they may be pay it and then charge us for it + admin fee