Free Traffic Legal Advice

Whether there is "room to pass", or you think there was no obstruction is irrelevant, the council don't have to prove obstruction; your car was blocking the footway crossing as indicated by the 'knobbly' paving stones, so as far as I can see the contravention is made out.

This may not be the end of the game as there may be a 'technical' appeal based on council mismanagement of the enforcement process, or fatal errors of content in the PCN. However, I can see no PCN errors. So wait a bit to see if others suggest anything, but don't miss any PCN deadlines for payment or submission of reps.

Thank you both for your replies so far

H C Andersen, despite the single yellow line running along the length of Singapore Road, from the GSV you can see that there is actually a (private?) roadway which the footway crosses. There are also faded double yellow lines near the opposite pavement, so I wonder if that bit of roadway could also be argued as a carriageway?

Thanks for the tips in any case. I'll see if anyone else replies and attempt to appeal this.

We live in a low car-ownership housing zone and are unable to apply for council parking permits. That particular spot is one of the few on the road where parking is not restricted, and people (including myself) have been parking there for years without issue.

I was probably parked a bit too far back on this occasion, resulting in this PCN. Indeed I moved the car forward a bit after this happened and the car has remained in that position since without issue (or further PCN).

@MrM, on what grounds?

How is my analysis incorrect i.e. no part of the vehicle was adjacent to the lowered kerb along its prohibited length/width(a point we examine in every case) and the council do not appear to have not treated the surface on which the car was parked as carriageway?

That last part I wholeheartedly agree with and therefore a dollop of contrition wouldn't go amiss.

Does this sound all right?

---

Dear Ealing Council,

I write in connection with PCN AO03595612 issued to OW16 RNA on 7th January 2025.

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

In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the **carriageway** **adjacent** to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the **carriageway** for the purpose of—
(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the **carriageway**,
...

I believe the alleged contravention did not occur for the following reasons:

1. Not parked adjacent to dropped footway: The prohibition states that a vehicle must not be parked "adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge". As the CEO's photos and additional photos I've uploaded show, my vehicle was not parked adjacent to the lowered section of the footway. The portion of my vehicle closest to the footway was well beyond the point where the kerb is lowered.

2. Not parked on the "carriageway": The presence of the single yellow line along Singapore Road, as visible in the CEO's photos, denotes the edge of the carriageway (as such lines must be placed at the edge of the carriageway). I therefore dispute that my vehicle was parked on the "carriageway" as defined within the prohibition.

3. Purpose of lowered footway: The prohibition specifically states that the lowered footway must be for the purpose of "assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway". As explained in (2), my vehicle was not parked on the carriageway, and so the lowered footway facilitates passing along the footway itself, rather than assisting them in crossing the carriageway.

While I acknowledge that my parking may have been inconsiderate on this occasion (for which I apologise), for the reasons outlined above, I strongly believe that the alleged contravention (Code 27) did not occur. I therefore kindly request that you cancel the PCN.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours sincerely,