Ealing PCN - Code 26 special enforcement area, not within design. space - Singapore Road W13

Good day gang,

I parked in a space that has no yellow lines. Rather it was against a green cycle rack. I was not blocking any cycles, nor the carriageway, and this can be see by the fact that the road has a sunk kerb stone to demarcate the space from the carriageway. And there appears to be very faint white line as well, which I have shown in a photo.

Pictures of car parked with ticket issued can be found here:

Google Maps of the location (the Streetview is not particularly good sadly as it's got the main spot missing):

Can you kindly help me to contest this? It was issued 2 days ago on 27th Dec. I am attaching a PDF of the PCN.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

EDIT - sorry yes this looks like it is the right contravention of parked more than 50cm from the carriageway edge.

Their pics:




Your pics:

That's not a code 26 contravention as the kerb is obviously on the other side of the bike rack and is not raised or lowered.

The line of stones is not a carriageway edge and in any case you were inside not adjacent.

I think the CEO was fishing for the right contravention and picked a wrong un. The right contravention is parked more than 50cm from the carriageway edge.

Thanks for the reply and fishing out their pics... I think I sort of understand. If they've picked a wrong contravention - is that grounds to contest? How would you advise I go about it?

Sorry I've been a mug - it is the right contravention I'm afraid... I was confusing it with code 28.

The only factor I can see is if the cycle rack creates a carriageway edge as it is shaped like a car!

Couldn't it be argued that the cycle rack takes the place of the kerb?

Couldn't it be argued that the cycle rack takes the place of the kerb?

Commonsense suggests yes, but we all know that commonsense has been totally abolished in the UK.

Yes as I said I would try the rack as edge and point out the rack is shaped like a car and rather invites parking there...

Unfortunately the prohibition is titled as follows:

Prohibition of double parking etc.



So even if it was a car, IMO what the OP did would be considered to be 'double parked'.

I can't see a defence with this line.