Ealing Council - Contravention 27 parked on lowered kerb, Ellison Gardens

My mother had parked outside a GP 7am in the morning (GP opens at 8am) on part of the road where the kerb is lowered. The lowered kerb is marked with lines indicating a bay and suggesting parking is allowed. Furthermore, the car was not blocking any gate or entrace of any sort.

She was given a PCN for Contravention 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway.

There was also no signs mentioning that parking isn't allowed.


Given these reasons above (GP not yet open/lines suggesting bay/no entrace blocked/no signs), is it worth appealing?


I have drafted this with the use of AI:


Hi,

I wish to challenge this PCN on the basis that the restriction was not clearly conveyed.

The location is marked as a parking bay, and the bay markings extend right up to the dropped kerb. This creates a legitimate expectation that parking is permitted in that space.

There are no yellow lines, and no signage indicating that part of the bay is restricted. The layout is misleading and invites drivers to park there.

A reasonable driver would conclude that the marked bay includes the area adjacent to the kerb.
As the council has a duty to ensure restrictions are clear and not misleading, I request that the PCN be cancelled.





The PCN number:AO10229272
Vehicle Registration: KS15KSJ


Street view link:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/VCWv7TEcoQbwEyjEA

No contravention - clearly car was in a parking place. The law says:

The first exception is where the vehicle is parked wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of the carriageway where parking is specifically authorised.


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

You only need to say:

There was no contravention as my car was parked in a designated parking place.

As you are no doubt aware this is an exception to the prohibition of parking at dropped footways.

I look forward to your early cancellation of this PCN and respectfully suggest you review your training of CEOs.

The marked bay trumps the lowered kerb, so sho should submit reps on the basis that she parked in a marked bay, therefore the contravention did not occur.

Hi guys,

Thanks for your support. I sent the following appeal and was fairly confident that it would get appealed:
There was no contravention as my car was parked in a designated parking place.

As you are no doubt aware this is an exception to the prohibition of parking at dropped footways.

I look forward to your early cancellation of this PCN and respectfully suggest you review your training of CEOs.



Today I got the council's reply and they have rejected it which doesn't make sense since the first exception to Section 86 clearly applies. This was their reply:
















What should my next course of action be or am I unlikely to get this appealed?

Section 86 of the TMA 2004

86  Prohibition 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—

(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,

(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or

(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or

(b)the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.

This is subject to the following exceptions.
(2)The first exception is where the vehicle is parked wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of the carriageway where parking is specifically authorised.

A “designated parking place” means a parking place designated by order under section 6, 9, 32(1)(b) or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27).

This should be a slam-dunk win at London Tribunals, but first you must wait for the Notice to Owner, and submit reps against that, pointing out their mendacity in quoting Section 86, but ignoring the exemptions

So is your mother the owner of the car and is the address on her V5C Registration Certificate up-to-date ?

If they don't cancel at next stage a costs application is in order. They have just ignored your challenge and sent template.

Their description and illustration of a dropped kerb is also false. It does not unclude the sloping kerbs (which Ealing call 'height transition kerb').

Section 86 of the TMA 2004

Quote

86  Prohibition 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—

(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,

(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or

(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or

(b)the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.

This is subject to the following exceptions.
(2)The first exception is where the vehicle is parked wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of the carriageway where parking is specifically authorised.

A “designated parking place” means a parking place designated by order under section 6, 9, 32(1)(b) or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27).

This should be a slam-dunk win at London Tribunals, but first you must wait for the Notice to Owner, and submit reps against that, pointing out their mendacity in quoting Section 86, but ignoring the exemptions

So is your mother the owner of the car and is the address on her V5C Registration Certificate up-to-date ?

Me and my mum share the car and I’m the registered keeper. Address is also up to date.

If you want to pursue the matter, you should now wait for the Notice to Owner, submit a formal representation to that, including the full text of S86 to rub their noses in it, and when rejected, register an appeal at London Tribunals.
Of course, they may fold when they see the full S86, but these people are mendacious, venal, and rapacious so you'll probably have to go to London Tribunals. Only the PCN penalty is in play, there are no other costs whatsoever.

Thank you, I’ll wait for the NTO. Would you be able to draft something I can use for formal rep/tribunal please?

Thank you, I’ll wait for the NTO. Would you be able to draft something I can use for formal rep/tribunal please?

We can put something together but prefer an OP to write their own and then we review it. You should base your formal reps on you informal challenge, but beefed up to emphasise the full content of S86 TMA 2003, which they have ignored. If it gets to London Tribunals you would be quite justified in asking for costs when you win. If you can read S86 in full, why can't they ! The sheer mendacity of their reply beggars belief !

Here's a rep that I've drafted, please let me know what you think:

Dear Sir/Madam,
I make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.

The PCN is issued for parking adjacent to a dropped footway. However, Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 expressly disapplies this prohibition in certain circumstances, including:
“The first exception is where the vehicle is parked wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of the carriageway where parking is specifically authorised.” Traffic Management Act 2004
This is a clear statutory exemption.

At the time of the alleged contravention:
•   My vehicle was parked wholly within a marked/designated parking bay, and
•   That bay is a location where parking is specifically authorised
Accordingly, the exemption under Section 86 applies directly. Therefore, no contravention can occur in law.

In my informal challenge, I clearly raised:
•   That I was parked in a designated parking place, and
•   That this is an exception under the legislation
Your rejection fails to engage with this point at all and appears to rely on a standard/template response. A failure to properly consider a material representation amounts to a procedural impropriety.

For completeness:
•   The statutory prohibition relates to the part of the footway that has been lowered to meet the carriageway level
•   It does not extend to the sloping transition kerbs
If your allegation relies on those transition kerbs, it is misconceived.

That looks mostly OK but you can't send it until you get an NTO.

The last bit about sloping kerbs is not right as the car was clearly by a fully lowered section of kerb.

Looking at Maps it seems there is a vehicle gate but it's now to the left of the lowered kerb and so the lowered kerb is redundant. There was a vehicle crossover access there but this sequence from 2024 to 2021 to 2019 shows changes.

But this is irrelevant but can be added for their information.   



be added

Hi guys,

I submitted my formal representation, see below:

Dear Sir/Madam,
I make formal representations against this Notice to Owner on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.

The PCN is issued for parking adjacent to a dropped footway. However, Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 expressly disapplies this prohibition in certain circumstances, including:
“The first exception is where the vehicle is parked wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of the carriageway where parking is specifically authorised.” Traffic Management Act 2004

This is a clear statutory exemption.

At the time of the alleged contravention:
• My vehicle was parked wholly within a marked/designated parking bay, and
• That bay is a location where parking is specifically authorised

Accordingly, the exemption under Section 86 applies directly. Therefore, no contravention can occur in law.

In my informal challenge, I clearly raised:
• That I was parked in a designated parking place, and
• That this is an exception under the legislation

Your rejection fails to engage with this point at all and appears to rely on a standard/template response. A failure to properly consider a material representation amounts to a procedural impropriety.








Today I've received a notice of rejection of formal representations:





























Is my next step now to make an appeal and cost order with London Tribunals? Should this appeal be similar to my formal representation?

IMO appeal.

Some thoughts.


Contravention did not occur and Procedural Impropriety
My car was parked in what I am allowed to assume is a designated parking place by virtue of the presence of road markings prescribed under Schedule 7 to the Traffic Signs etc. Regulations 2016. I cannot state that this is accepted by the council(despite the markings being clear in their own evidence) because they have refused to address this issue at both stages of the enforcement process.

I submit that my vehicle was exempt from the prohibition created by s86(1) TMA 2004 by virtue of s86(2), namely:

(2)The first exception [to the prohibition] is where the vehicle is parked wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of the carriageway where parking is specifically authorised.

As the adjudicator will see from my informal and formal representations, I have referred the council to this exemption at each stage. You will similarly see that neither of their responses has engaged with this point, thereby failing to consider, contrary to their duty (which forms the basis of my grounds of procedural impropriety), the council preferring to ignore the realities, both at the enforcement authority level and on-street enforcement. That the council could place such bays adjacent to dropped footways shows a remarkable level of incompetence because every property which should benefit from the prohibition is compromised by virtue of the presence of designated parking places at these locations.

In my, and no doubt every other similar case, the council has ignored its own error, preferring instead to penalise motorists for parking where they are permitted, an issue I shall be taking up through other channels after this hearing.

I ask the adjudicator to allow my appeal and to provide a steer on the issue of a costs award.