Free Traffic Legal Advice

Sadly this shows the pathetic state of local authorities' staffing and procedures.

It brings them into disrepute.

The alleged contravention relates to a statutory prohibition (s86 Traffic Management Act 2004) which is as follows:

86Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.
(1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/86

I don't need to go any further!

Read the above....'..a vehicle must not be parked ON THE CARRIAGEWAY...'

The car was not on the carriageway therefore the contravention did not occur.

It is irrelevant that the car was 'adjacent to a dropped footway'.

You cannot lose even if the eejits close ranks and act as bullies while they are judges in their own cause.

IMO, with suitably worded reps you must succeed and, if the authority dragged this out to adjudication, would be awarded costs.

Keep is simple as HCA  has told you above. Just deny the contravention, in the name stated on the Notice to Owner, and point out the vehicle was not on the carriageway, or ask me to, which is free. Email mrmustard@zoho.com - I appear by video at the tribunal every week.

Correct.

And next to the carriageway is the......footway! And this is ...

"footway” means a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only;

A [authorised and properly constructed] vehicle crossover permits a vehicle to move across a footway to access/exit the carriageway from/to adjoining premises.

They do NOT have the right to park on any part of the footway, contrary to what your Dad might think he's read in an email from the council.

Therefore, in this case an offence WAS being committed, in fact two, one statutory and one a contravention of a traffic order* (it just wasn't the one cited in the PCN). They only get one go so this time the owner was lucky. But don't make a habit of it!


*- https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1974/24/contents  (s14)
   Double yellow lines mean no waiting 24/7

Yellow lines cover the entire road up to property boundaries so this is a contravention.

Footway/verge parking is banned throughout London.

But councils do allow situations like this often through custom as you say.

So they have been lucky as the contravention given is wrong as explained.

You've blanked the location but it looks like kerbside parking is unrestricted so no problem parking on the road as an alternative.

Yes, it was a separate offense (so your mum shouldn't do it again) but this doesn't matter as far as this PCN is concerned. The recipient of a PCN only has to defend themselves against the specific allegation made on the PCN. The authority only has one go at getting this right, they can't go back and issue a second PCN if they messed up.

How you should proceed for now is as suggested, a very simple one line response pointing out that their own photo shows the vehicle was not on the carriageway and therefore the PCN must be cancelled.

Everything else you've said is potentially useful later on if the Council don't fold immediately, but at the moment you're dealing with junior level council staff who probably have to hit a tough target for number of PCN responses processed. Your objective is to get them to realise the traffic warden messed up, so they press the button that spits out a standard form 'on this occasion we've decided to let you off' letter. If they don't, then you can go in all guns blazing at the adjudicator stage, armed with a ridiculous rejection of an obviously winning argument.