Free Traffic Legal Advice

Code 26 primarily reflects legislation designed to stop double parking but enforcement can't really rule out double parking briefly to unload/alight if there are no parking places.

So while the legislation exempts loading and doesn't mention boarding/alighting, the latter is exempted in the London Councils handbook and referenced in some councils' policies, as in Westminster below.

Code 26 of course is now applied to situations such as the current case and IMO in situations not intended for such enforcement by the lawmakers.

IMO, you lead with your strongest argument which is that every part of your car was within 50cm of the de facto and de jure 'edge of carriageway', namely the barriers(which Google Street View shows have been in situ for at least 5 years) and in any event you were assisting your ** to alight because *******.

Fine but IMO leave out the reference to parking spaces because it's not relevant.

This case won by our admin is better but as I said we don't usually cite cases at informal challenge stage as it's too confrontational and also makes a challenge too formal.

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

Case reference   2240321907
Appellant   xxxxxx
Authority   London Borough of Newham
VRM   DX16 UDN
PCN Details
PCN   PN37747431
Contravention date   14 Jan 2024
Contravention time   05:00:00
Contravention location   Gallions Road
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Parked more than 50 cm from edge of carriageway
Referral date   -
Decision Date   02 Nov 2024
Adjudicator   Belinda Pearce
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons   
As a result of a Statutory Declaration/Witness Statement, sworn by the Appellant at the Traffic Enforcement Centre, an Order was made by Northampton County Court cancelling the Charge Certificate but not the original Penalty Charge Notice.

It falls to me now to determine this matter on the evidence presently before me, adduced by both parties.

A Telephone Appeal Hearing was scheduled for 9 a.m. today, 2nd November 2024; I spoke with the

Appellant's representative, Mr I. Murray-Smith on the contact number provided.

1. The Enforcement Authority assert the whereabouts of the said vehicle at the relevant time on the material date, to have been parked otherwise than within 50 centimetres of the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking space.

2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of his challenge as initially stated and subsequently comprehensively set out in the Skeleton Argument submitted by Mr Murray-Smith, which challenge Mr Murray-Smith reiterated and further detailed during the Telephone Hearing.

3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so parked contrary to the operative restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-

The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises copy Penalty Charge Notice, contemporaneous notes attributable to the Civil Enforcement Officer together with contemporaneous photographic evidence: 5 images showing the said vehicle in situ, unoccupied and unattended.

4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was examined to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the representations advanced on the Appellant's behalf.

The contemporaneous photographic capture reveals the said vehicle positioned adjacent to a metal fence, behind which there appears to be no viability of public (pedestrian or vehicular egress); no designated parking space demarcation is discernible.

5. Neither limb of the allegation (both elements of which are requisite by virtue of the use of the conjunction 'and') is evident; the contravention is not proved.

The evidential burden does not pass to an Appellant unless and until that evidential burden is discharged satisfactorily by the Enforcement Authority.

Evidentially I cannot find the alleged contravention occurred.

This Appeal is Allowed.