Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi,

I live in an apartment block on a cul-de-sac. On one side of the road is a proper pavement that residents use to walk to their homes. On the opposite side is a small grass verge with an indentation from years of car parking. There’s a sign on the wall behind it that reads “Private Residents Parking Only.”

To avoid blocking access up the cul-de-sac, residents (myself included) have parked on this grass verge for years. I’ve lived here for four years, and someone has parked there every day during that time. I’ve also checked Google Earth satellite imagery, and it shows cars parked in that same spot going back as far as 2006.

There is no reason anyone would want or need to walk on this grass verge — it leads nowhere, is not connected to any pedestrian route, and is clearly not used as a footway.

Recently, I received a PCN for parking on this verge. I appealed, but the council rejected it. I’ll attach:
Photos of where I parked, a photo of the opposite side of the road showing the actual pedestrian footway, and the council’s appeal response.

I’m looking for advice on whether I have grounds to challenge this further, especially considering:

The area is clearly marked as private, it’s not used by pedestrians, there’s a long-standing history of unchallenged parking there, and I had a reasonable belief that the area was either private or subject to informal amnesty, as described in the council’s own policy.

Thanks in advance,
Sam

Location: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5843322,-0.2203413,20.64z/data=!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDcyOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Street view: https://maps.app.goo.gl/k3RaxSHNMY1pugJH8 (note there is a car parked there even in the street view)
Second Street View: https://maps.app.goo.gl/79WMr5uAqwBo7bZTA ( this one you can change the date and see that there is always a car parked there)
PCN and view of parking spot and pavement: https://imgur.com/a/mW74c5a

We had another case here. The problem is that verge looks to be just inside the on-street jurisdiction.

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/barnet-parked-partially-on-grass-verge-62g-st-peter-s-court-nw4/

and someone has parked there every day for 20 years without issue. .

The term to describe what you have written above is "legitimate expectation", and has won appeals in the past at London Tribunals, but the onus is on yourself to demonstrate to the adjudicator thay you have parked there for <n> years, and other residents for much longer than that. Of course if you win, fine, but this argument only works once, because after the case, you no longer have this expectation of no enforcement.

I am not sure if this would help my case at all, but i had literally spoken to a parking warden the previous week who told me that he was told not to give tickets on the area since it was private land

This is the second argument for no enforcement, and needs investigation because whoever owns the land, (the freeholder), may have received complaints and could have complained to the council about "obstructive parking" Complaints are most likely from owners of large commercial vehicles making deliveries.

So there is detail here that wasn't apparent in the other case in particular the private sign as you were in a different part of the road.

I also see now there is or was an unofficial resident parking only tow away area sign at the start of the cul de sac.

There is also a zone ends sign (but that just signifies no restrictions of that CPZ beyond).

A case can be made this looks like a private road. Certainly Barnet should issue warnings before enforcing.

But you have to be aware of who maintains the road/verges up to the point on the map I posted before, and there is an on-street disabled bay past where you parked.

So it could be worth going on but don't park on the verges and tell the neighbours.

Also. Would they not continue to argue the point that they made on the second side of the PCN " if the public have unhindered access, as at this location, the vehicle would be parked in contravention of the footway ban regardless of the ownership of the land"?
So even if I could make the case that the land appears to be private, they will claim that this doesnt effect the contravention?

Thanks

Their response is c**p.

'urban road', FFS, this was repealed in 2008.

And as for 'if the public have unhindered access....then you would be in contravention..'. WTF.

And if the public do not, which is implied by the signs? 

OP, have a look at other neighbouring roads and where the SYL go. There's even a set on the footway..but putting this moronic matter to one side, in the next road, which is also a cul-de-sac, SYL are present.

So why not in St. Peter's?

Don't be deterred by received wisdom, as in we've always enforced here but never bothered to check its status, IMO if you are the RK I would carry on.

Thanks a lot for this. Yes i think it makes sense to go for the NTO stage. Especially based on your feedback

I have now received the NTO. Please could i get some assistance on how to build my case.

Thanks,

Sam