Hello everyone,
I recently informally appealed a Barnet PCN contravention code 27. I used this forum and others for help in writing my appeal. I just got the decision back, and unfortunately it was rejected. However, the appeal seems to be a generic response rather than one based on a reading of my appeal and the attached evidence.
I read on the forum before that, to appeal in a way that lets you see whether they considered your appeal or not, e.g., a tracked link/video, etc. In my response, I attached 2 photos of evidence, some tribunal decisions, and asked them to explain a couple of points as a way to see if they considered my appeal or if it was a generic automatic response.
I want to know what to do next and if I should pay the £80 or if I can get the PCN rejected based on failure to consider?
This was my appeal that I used.
I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.
The vehicle was parked adjacent to the raised kerb, rather than alongside the lowered section of the footway. The lowered kerb at this location provides access to the driveway, and my vehicle was positioned between the two immediate drops of the kerb. The wheels of the vehicle remained alongside the raised section.
I acknowledge that the rear of the vehicle slightly overhung the rear transition point of the dropped kerb. However, this was only a very minor intrusion into the driveway area. The vehicle was not substantially parked across the lowered section, and the vast majority of the driveway access remained completely clear.
I have included a contemporaneous photograph showing the rear of the vehicle in relation to the driveway. This photograph clearly demonstrates the limited extent of the overhang and the substantial amount of driveway access that remained available. It should be considered alongside the CEO's photographs when assessing the actual position of the vehicle.
There is also an important feature of the physical layout of this particular driveway which I ask the Council to take into account. The kerb arrangement is not symmetrical on both sides of the driveway. On the side immediately behind the rear of my vehicle, the kerb drops immediately, whereas on the opposite side of the same driveway there is a sloping transition before the kerb reaches the raised/level section.
I therefore ask the Council to consider the actual geometry of the kerb and identify precisely where it considers the lowered section begins and ends. The distinction between the raised kerb, any sloping/transition section and the actual lowered section is important when determining whether the vehicle was parked adjacent to the lowered section for the purposes of contravention code 27.
This issue has been considered by the parking adjudicator in Right Contract Services Ltd v London Borough of Hillingdon (2160311942, 17 August 2016). In that case, the authority argued that the contravention occurred because the vehicle was parked beyond the point where the kerb started to slope. The adjudicator expressly stated that this was an incorrect understanding of the law. I ask the Council to take this decision into account when assessing the precise position of my vehicle in relation to the raised, sloping and lowered sections of the kerb.
In any event, if the Council considers that the small rear overhang technically constitutes an intrusion into the area of the lowered kerb, I ask that the principle of *de minimis* be applied.
The circumstances here are particularly minor. The vehicle's wheels were positioned between the two immediate drops, the vehicle was predominantly alongside the raised kerb, and only a small portion of the rear extended beyond the rear transition point. The contemporaneous photograph I have provided demonstrates the limited extent of this intrusion and the substantial driveway access that remained available.
I also ask the Council to consider all photographs that I personally took at the time the PCN was being issued. These photographs were taken contemporaneously and provide additional evidence of the exact position of the vehicle, the location of the wheels, the raised kerb, the two immediate drops, the asymmetric kerb arrangement and the extent of the rear overhang.
I would also ask the Council to take into account the perspective and positioning of the CEO's photographs. The angle from which the photographs were taken gives a misleading impression of the extent of the rear overhang, making it appear considerably greater than it actually was. When viewed from a more representative perspective and alongside my contemporaneous photographs, the actual intrusion can be seen to be minor.
I therefore ask that the CEO's photographs are not considered in isolation and that they are assessed alongside the photographs I have provided, particularly the photograph showing the rear of the vehicle in relation to the driveway and the amount of access that remained available.
These photographs and the points raised above are directly relevant to whether the alleged contravention occurred, and I expressly request that they are reviewed before a decision is made.
If the Council decides to reject this representation, I request that the Notice of Rejection provides full and specific reasons addressing the material points and evidence raised in this appeal, rather than simply stating that the vehicle was adjacent to a dropped kerb.
In particular, I ask the Council to explain:
* why it considers the vehicle to have been adjacent to the lowered section;
* precisely where it considers the lowered section begins and ends;
* how it has assessed the position of the vehicle's wheels;
* how it has assessed the different kerb arrangements on the two sides of the driveway;
* the extent to which it considers the rear of the vehicle to have overhung the lowered section;
* why it considers this minor overhang to be more than *de minimis*;
* how the contemporaneous photograph showing the driveway and remaining access has been considered;
* how my other contemporaneous photographs have been considered;
* how the adjudicator decision cited above has been considered; and
* the specific evidence relied upon in reaching its decision.
I make this request to ensure that all of the evidence and representations submitted with this challenge are properly considered. If the Council rejects the representation without addressing the material points and evidence raised, I reserve the right to rely on any such failure to consider as a ground in any subsequent appeal to the independent adjudicator.
I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.
If the Council nevertheless decides to reject this representation, I request a full Notice of Rejection setting out the reasons for that decision and the information necessary for me to exercise my right to appeal to the independent adjudicator.
And this was the Email response from Apcoa-barnet
Traffic Management Act 2004 (as amended)
RE: Informal Challenge for Penalty Charge Notice (PCN):
Thank you for your correspondence received on 27/08/2026, in which you
challenged the above PCN that was issued for the following contravention:
Contravention Date and Time: 14/08/2026 at 15:50
Vehicle Registration:
Location: Woodberry Grove, N12 , North Finchley
Contravention: 27: Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway,
cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway
We have carefully considered the evidence you have supplied and decided not to
cancel your PCN. The reason for this decision is due to your vehicle being parked
adjacent to a dropped kerb.
The Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) observed your vehicle parked adjacent to a
dropped footway. The Traffic Management Act (TMA) 2004 allows for enforcement
action (issue of a Penalty Charge Notice - PCN) to be taken when a vehicle is parked
adjacent to a dropped footway. This covers any dropped footway including those
which allow vehicles to cross the footway and those which assist pedestrians
crossing the road as well as cyclists to join/exit the carriageway and supported by
photographic evidence.
Please be advised that a dropped kerb contravention applies to the entire lowered
section of the kerb, beginning at the point where the kerb first starts to slope down
from its full height. If a vehicle is parked adjacent to any part of the kerb from this top
point where it begins to lower, through to the fully lowered section, a contravention
occurs. As such, it is not necessary for a vehicle to block the fully lowered section
itself; parking alongside any part of the sloping kerb is sufficient for a Penalty Charge
Notice to be issued.
On this occasion we have decided to give you the opportunity to make payment at
the discounted amount of £80.00 within 14 days of the date of service of this letter. If
you decide not to take up this offer, please see below ‘What happens next’.
If there is anything else/more information required, let me know!
Thank you in advance
