Free Traffic Legal Advice

Based on the comments I received on PePiPoo, I am proposing to challenge this PCN based on three grounds:

1) The PCN is defective as Code 01 refers to ‘Parking on single or double yellow lines’, and the car was parked on a grassed area, ‘the green’, away from the road, that does not form part of the road. Therefore it does not constitute as being parked on double yellow lines.

2) The PCN is defective as it fails to include the mandated information in Part 2 Chapter 1 of ‘The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022’.

     3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the following information—

          (a) that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;

          (b) that if, before a notice to owner is served, representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified in the notice for the purpose those representations will be considered by the enforcement authority;

          (c) that if a notice to owner is served despite the representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.

3) For the past 20 years, I have regularly visited the adjacent St Mary’s Bridge Chapel for services, and the adjacent driveway car parking to the side of the Chapel is very limited. Myself, my family, and other patrons regularly use ‘the green’ as an overspill parking. Having enjoyed unhindered use of it for decades, whether it is council owned or not, why has Derby City Council decided to apply this enforcement now?

In view of the above please cancel the PCN.

Is this viable grounds for appeal?

Is this viable grounds for appeal?

No, code 01 has nothing to do with yellow lines, it's to do with waiting prohibitions (which for instance require no lines in a restricted parking zone), yellow lines just happen to be the most common way of indicating a waiting restriction.

Waiting restrictions generally extend across verges and footpaths up to the boundary of the highway, it is a common misconception that you can get round a double yellow line restriction by parking on the "other side" but that is just a misconception (otherwise everyone could park wherever they want by just parking on the pavement rather than the carriageway).

As for your second point, this wording on the back of the PCN plainly covers the requirements:



The PCN does not need to quote the regulations verbatim, it just has to get the substantive message across, which this wording does probably better than any other example we've seen.

Here are the council photos:

DR1495737A:









DR14957369:









As we know from the Court of Appeal judgment in Dawood, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1411 as further clarified by the High Court in Pereira, R (On the Application Of) v Environment And Traffic Adjudicators [2020] EWHC 811 (Admin), who owns the land under the highway is irrelevant (the land under almost all highways in the country is privately owned, including in all likelihood the road outside your house).

So, there are three issues here:

1) Is there a traffic regulation order to support the restrictions?
2) Were the cars parked on the highway at all? We would normally say that the road extends as far as one can go without getting to a physical boundary such as a wall, fence or so on.  Obviously this can only go so far because if the carriageway were adjacent to an open field with no physical separation such as a ditch, it would be a nonsense to say the whole field is part of the highway, but it then becomes a question of fact and degree.
2) Is there a legitimate expectation that you could park there?

To get a definitive answer on point 1 I will have to ask the council, it can take 20 working days to get a reply (possibly longer, sometimes quicker).

As for point two, I think if the cars had been parked where the red car is seen here https://maps.app.goo.gl/2vbhyFpfLz5WoDLs8 they would have likely been safe as that is far too far from the carriageway to be objectively part of the highway in any meaningful sense, but as the cars were right next to the pavement I think this argument is a non-starter.

As for point three, there are 12 Google street view captures between 2008 and 2023 and of those only three show cars parked on the grass, so there is no prima-facie evidence of any legitimate expectation. If you wanted to pursue this angle, you'd need to provide witness statements, I'd suggest one from the cathedral would hold a lot of weight.

The statement would need to spell out exactly how many people park their cars there, when and how often this happens, how long this has been going on for, and on how many occasions penalty charges have been served on cars parked there. The best way to get an evidentially watertight statement would be if I could have a chat with whoever from the cathedral you are in contact with and then I could draft some wording and you could give it to them to sign. Please contact me via PM if you'd like to arrange this.

No. The PCN gives the period 'if you challenge within 14 days of the PCN being issued'.

This is 27th, tomorrow.

Submit what you have.

OP, of your three points:
Is the waiting restriction underpinned by a provision in a traffic order? Who knows until it's seen. But the balance of probabilities is on the side of yes.

Were the cars parked within its scope? IMO, yes.

Legitimate expectation. The burden falls to the person making this claim, not the council. What objective evidence do you have? As observed, GSV does not support this claim in the general sense, but perhaps your claim is narrower e.g. Sundays?

As regards the wording of the PCN. IMO, it is misleading. When looking at this issue I always find it better to quote what is stated and not summarise. As far as is germane, the PCN states:

'..you will receive a Notice to Owner(NTO). This means that the council are still seeking payment..that any challenge was unsuccessful. Under no circumstances should you ignore the NTO.

What you can do upon receiving the NTO
..you are entitled to make representations.

Nonsense. 'You' is ambiguous at best and untrue at worst.

The only person who could receive a NTO is the 'owner' who is the registered keeper (RK)for these purposes. The RK is as likely to be a hire company or person who was NOT driving as they might be the driver and therefore totally detached from the 'you' of the PCN - which is a personal document only to be opened by the driver- indeed the following applies:

12.—(1) A penalty charge notice fixed to a vehicle in accordance with regulation 9(2)(a) or (3) must not be removed or interfered with except by or under the authority of—

(a)the owner or person in charge of the vehicle, or

(b)the enforcement authority.

(2) A person contravening paragraph (1) is—

(a)guilty of an offence, and

(b)liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard 3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the following information—



Their repeated use of 'you' in the PCN has no place in the procedure which requires that the PCN must state:

3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the following information—

(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may*, in accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;

(b)that if, before a notice to owner is served, representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified in the notice for the purpose those representations will be considered by the enforcement authority;

(c)that if a notice to owner is served despite the representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.**

*- could be the driver, or Uncle Tom Cobley.
**- whoever is named in the NTO may make representations - and nobody else

@cp8759 I challenged the PCNs on 22/04/22 based on one point as I didn't believe the other two were valid in the end, (point challenged "Having enjoyed unhindered use of it for decades, this has given rise to the reasonable expectation that the lines are not enforced here").

As I kind of expected, Derby City Council rejected the challenge stating the following:

Thank you for your enquiry, which was received on 22 April 2024, in respect of this Penalty Charge Notice.

Due consideration has been given to the information you have supplied, but it provides insufficient justification for cancelling the Penalty Charge Notice.

The area where you were parked is part of the public highway and is subject to the double yellow line restriction.

Parking on the pavement can cause inconvenience to pedestrians. It can create hazards for visually impaired, disabled and elderly people or those with prams or wheelchairs. It may also cause damage to the kerb, the pavement or services underneath for which the culprit could be held liable. The City Council could also face claims for compensation for injuries received resulting from damaged or defective pavements.

I am therefore unable to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Please make your payment of £70.00, or reduced to £35.00 if paid within 14 days from the date of service of this response


Whilst I understand the above was an Informal Challenge, and the next step would be to appeal the decision, I have given this consideration and feel that the grounds of appeal would be too weak to challenge further. I have decided to pay the PCN. 

Whilst I understand the above was an Informal Challenge, and the next step would be to appeal the decision

@lost4words2 you misunderstood the process, the next step would have been to wait for the notice to owner and then make a formal representation.

If that representation had also been rejected, only then would you have had to decide whether to pay the discount or appeal to the tribunal (providing any formal representation was made within 14 days of the date of issue of the notice to owner).

However as you've paid that's the end of the matter. Next time maybe check your options with us rather than rushing to pay.