Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi,

I haven't listed the details as this may be applicable to any LTN.

I was wondering if there is any grounds to challenge a PCN I received. Contravention code 01. I parked on a double yellow line. It used to be a minor road joining a major road but now is a dead end because an LTN has been placed at the end of the minor road. The road blocks are planters with a bollard to allow cyclists through.

The double yellow would have initially been to keep the junction clear. Now its not a junction does that matter? Can they essentially be arbitrarily placed? The only grounds I can think are to keep clear a turning space for the dead end.

Many thanks,
Al

Lines are underpinned by the law, motorists can't decide for themselves that a parking or speeding restriction is no longer required, that way leads to anarchy.

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

Here is the PCN https://imgur.com/a/p4oSso7

And GSV

I know I shouldn't have parked there and will accept paying the fine if it comes to it.

You weren't parked o/s 85 Derwent Road and if you were then there aren't any waiting restrictions.

85 Fox Lane is another matter.

85 Derwent Road (as per PCN) is here
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ioRm1Hh2xNf6fWtJ6

Weirdly, GSV won't let you put the marker on 85 - one has to use 83 or 85 (likewise for search).

GSV search for 85, Derwent Road produces a marker on 85, Fox Lane.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/N8UDH6U64YDDd7gE6

(I've submitted an edit.)

I thought wrong location, no doubt confirmed by Council photos, was fatal to PCN?

EDIT:
The confusion for the CEO presumably arose because the white door of 85, Fox Lane is in Derwent Road and unhelpfully marked with just a plain '85'.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hKyZtVhv4J5edZNM9

We're not there yet. I note the point but the OP would be entitled to put this point at the informal stage and while as regards the PCN they may well be on separate lines adjudication would be against the RK, an NOR and a NTO ..and where and how this info would be presented in the latter is an unknown at present.

OP, IMO it would help to know whether you are the registered keeper before thinking how, if at all, to present this issue.

If you read the two location lines separately they are true so an adjudicator will probably not cancel for that especially as the vehicle is on doible yellows.

whilst you are correct in reading both lines but I suggest an address should be read as a whole. there in "Derwent road OS No 85" which is not the correct location
it could also be argued the OP was "Derwent road OS No 3" as there is also a door numbered "3"

With the help of my AI friend how is this for an appeal?
If possible, would it be worth adding image evidence such as the traffic order map highlighting the actual 85 Derwent Road


I am writing to appeal against the issuance of PCN EF11590749, issued on 17/07/25, for an alleged contravention on Derwent Road N13 os 85.

Upon reviewing the notice and the location details provided, I must raise concern regarding the accuracy of the location as stated in the PCN. The alleged contravention is reported to have occurred “outside 85 Derwent Road.” However, house number 85 is not situated on Derwent Road, but on Fox Lane, which intersects with Derwent Road. The house referenced (number 85) is positioned on the corner and has its official address on Fox Lane, not Derwent Road.

Furthermore, number 85 Derwent Road is located further down the street and was not in proximity to the location where the alleged contravention took place. This discrepancy in the recorded location raises doubt about the correctness of the PCN, as the stated location does not match where the vehicle was parked.

As such, I respectfully request that this PCN be reviewed and cancelled on the grounds of incorrect or misleading location information, which affects the validity of the charge and fails to clearly identify the place of the alleged contravention.