Free Traffic Legal Advice

Despite your note in the windscreen, the patrolling CEO just sees a parked and locked van with no visible permit, (or it might be virtual for this council), so he serves a PCN. I remember seeing George Cole in "Minder" parking his Jag on a yellow line and putting a note on the windscreen "doctor on call". That was when we had traffic wardens who came under the police and there was no incentive to maximise income. So I expect the CEOs are trained to ignore such notes.

The only thing puzzling me is why you didn't get a visitor permit from the resident at the property where you were delivering goods. Any reason at all ?  ANyway, it is likely the parking order for the bay has loading as an exemption so you submit reps on this basis. They'll soon come back and tell you whether there is or not. Submit the collateral you have itemised to back up your claim.

Your other problem is this: -

"This period coincided with internal transfer of items from the first floor to the ground floor and therefore no external activity would have been visible."

It is a bit of stretch to call that part of the loading activity.

Also wait for others to comment as I may not be totally correct on what can be included in 'loading'

...The PCN shows observation for 8 minutes. This period coincided with internal transfer of items from the first floor to the ground floor and therefore no external activity would have been visible...

I'm a bit confused.

Do you mean you weren't loading anything, or do you mean you were transferring items from the first floor to the ground floor in preparation for loading onto your vehicle and taking away?

Loading is an exemption and if you had to carry stuff down then provided you have evidence you should be OK.

If this sort of job is regular I would look to avoid PCNs by paying to park - here you were in a shared use bay that would have cost you about £2 for 30 mins.

The s suffix is shared use and if wrong that would have been a minor challenge point but the pics show a shared use bay.



Case from yesterday.

-------


Case reference   2250414436
Appellant   Silviu Velescu
Authority   London Borough of Camden
VRM   BG10CSF
PCN Details
PCN   CU71143688
Contravention date   19 Jun 2025
Contravention time   09:22:00
Contravention location   Mill Lane
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Parked restricted street during prescribed hours
Referral date   -
Decision Date   22 Dec 2025
Adjudicator   Sabina Powar
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons   
1. This is a postal appeal against a penalty charge notice.

2. The Appellant states that he is a plumber by trade. He says that at the time of the alleged contravention, he was attending an urgent job on the third floor of neighbouring flats. He parked for 12 minutes to unload his tools required for the job. He has provided the address of the customer to the Enforcement Authority as he says the tenants can confirm his position. He says that he had expensive tools in the van and was unable to leave the doors open so as to designate unloading.

He says that he explained his position to the civilian enforcement officer at the scene but his representations were dismissed. He advises that the CEO told him that he had witnessed no evidence of unloading.

He has produced a copy of the invoice for the job in evidence.

3. The Enforcement Authority have provided witness statements, photographs and maps in evidence.

They state that the CEO has the vehicle under observation for 11 minutes and witnessed no unloading. They say that the invoice provided by the Appellant is not sufficient.

4. I find that the Appellant has satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that he was unloading his tools for a job at the time of the alleged contravention.

He has produced an invoice which shows payment for a job at the address for the date in question. It seems that whilst The Enforcement Authority requested an invoice from the Appellant in order to consider his case that they then rejected it as inadequate as they maintain it did not show he was unloading at the time.

It is not disputed by the Enforcement Authority that there was a conversation between the Appellant and the CEO at the scene. I accept the Appellants evidence that he endeavoured to explain his position but that the CEO did not accept what he had to say.

6. I am satisfied that the contravention did not occur, and the penalty charge was not correctly issued. The Appellant has established a ground of appeal in this case. I am therefore granting the appeal and find that no penalty charge is payable.