Free Traffic Legal Advice

Got a PCN for one wheel on the pavement.

PCN: https://imgur.com/a/rrdWKXW
GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ByvH9MAvJvt5E52y6

I was parked where the black Fiat is here. But facing the other way, with my left rear wheel on the pavement.
I was no way obstructing anyone using the pavement but I guess that doesn't make a difference!

This is on a street with lots of areas where you are allowed to park on the pavement.
IIRC I approached from the North, saw the space as I drove past, did a u-turn, then parked (facing North).

So the last sign I should have seen showing the end of parking on the footway was the one shown here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/vxZWPPqtGfv3FfSe6
The sign is in poor condition. Lots of others on the road are in even worse condition - totally faded, bent or missing.

The imgur link above includes a close up of the sign (poor condition) and the view as I approached (partially obscured by overgrown trees).

I have looked but haven't been able to find a TMO for the footway parking on this road.

Any help very gratefully received! Along the lines above or any other ideas.

Or is there an argument that it's not clear where the footway ends and the 'bay' begins? Given the very shallow curb and the material used.

Ironically I think if I had not tried to squeeze into the bay and just parked on the road I would have been fine on a Sunday. Doh!

Thank you

Thanks very much that’s an interesting one. Any advice on how I word that in an appeal?

Do I say something like “The yellow line indicates the edge of the carriageway so the whole parking space is off the carriageway. So it doesn’t make sense to issue a PCN for one wheel being somewhere “other than the carriageway.””

Is that the point or should I say it differently?

Thanks very much

Thanks very much. I will wait a few days for other ideas. But below my current draft

~~~

A contravention did not occur because the parking signs and road markings were unclear and misleading.

Signage in poor condition

I approached from the north before turning round to park facing northwards. On the approach there are a number of signs indicating where parking on the footway is or is not permitted. These are in a very poor state of repair, with many broken, missing, bent or faded. In particular, the last sign I passed (which I did not see at the time) is in poor condition - dirty, faded and partially obscured by overhanging trees. This sign indicates the end of the permissible footway parking area. Due to its poor condition, it was unclear that parking on the footway was prohibited beyond this point.

Unclear road markings

Furthermore, where I parked there is a single yellow line running along the main carriageway, with the parking spaces behind it. I understood the yellow line to demark the edge of the carriageway, meaning that the parking spaces were all outside the carriageway. This (together with the poor signage described above) indicated to me that parking is permitted here outside the carriageway.

Because of the yellow line, the whole parking space is on the footway / outside the carriageway. I believe the perceived issue is that one wheel was on the higher section of the footway. The PCN therefore relies on a distinction between the higher area of the footway (where the rear left wheel was parked) and the lower area of the footway (where the other three wheels were parked) which is not made clear by any markings or signage. I cannot be expected to deduce from the levels of different curbs on which areas outside the carriageway it is or is not permitted to park.

De minimis

Notwithstanding the above, I also submit that the claimed contravention was de minimis. I believe the one wheel on the higher section of the footway was not possible of causing any obstruction to any user of the footway. It did not narrow the footway at all.

I respectfully request that this penalty be cancelled based on the grounds stated above.

I submitted informal challenge per below
And have now received Haringey refusal per below
Should I pay the reduced £65? Or proceed to formal challenge?
Thanks for any advice

My challenge
A contravention did not occur because the parking signs and road markings were unclear and misleading.

Signage in poor condition
I approached from the north before turning round to park facing northwards. On the approach there are a number of signs indicating where parking on the footway is or is not permitted. These are in a very poor state of repair, with many broken, missing, bent or faded. In particular, the last sign I passed (which I did not see at the time) is in poor condition - dirty, faded and partially obscured by overhanging trees. This sign indicates the end of the permissible footway parking area. Due to its poor condition, it was unclear that parking on the footway was prohibited beyond this point. (Photo 1 and Photo 2.)

Unclear road markings
Furthermore, where I parked there is a single yellow line running along the main carriageway, with the parking spaces behind it. (Photo 3, from Google Street View). I understood the yellow line to mark the edge of the carriageway, meaning that the parking spaces were all outside the carriageway. This (together with the poor signage described above) indicated to me that parking is permitted here outside the carriageway. Because of the yellow line, the whole parking space is on the footway / outside the carriageway. The PCN (which states that it was issued for one wheel being on the footway) therefore relies on a distinction between the higher area of the footway (where the rear left wheel was parked) and the lower area of the footway (where the other three wheels were parked). This distinction is not made clear by any markings or signage - it is not clear that it is permitted to park on the lower area of the footway but not the higher area. It may be that the single yellow line is meant to follow the inside of the parking space, which would make more sense.

De minimis
Notwithstanding the above, I also submit that the claimed contravention was de minimis. The one wheel on the higher section of the footway was not possible of causing any obstruction to any user of the footway as it did not narrow the footway at all. I respectfully request that this penalty be cancelled based on the grounds stated above.

Haringey response

Penalty Charge Notice (parking ticket) number: ZN13285309
Date of contravention: 04 August 2024
Location: Muswell Hill Road, N6
Vehicle registration: J21RAW
Thank you for your correspondence.
We have carefully considered what you say but we have decided not to cancel your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
You were issued a PCN for parking with one wheel (or more) on the pavement or off the road. Pavement or off-road parking is not allowed unless signs say otherwise. This rule applies 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and is enforced because vehicles:• can get in the way of pedestrians, especially blind people or people with prams; and • can damage paving or underground pipes.
The area where the vehicle was parked is land that is owned and maintained by the Council at public expense.
Please see Highway Code rule 244: which states you MUST NOT park partially or wholly on pavements in London. There may be exceptions where road signage shows different restrictions. Parking Laws UK | Highway Code Parking Rules for Cars (theukrules.co.uk).
The onus lies with the motorist to park in a safe and appropriate manner before leaving their vehicle unattended. Seeking alternative parking was an option which could have been considered.
You have these choices:• You can pay the discount charge of £65.00 if your payment reaches us within 14 days of the date of service of this letter. • You can pay £130.00 within 28 days of the date your PCN was issued. • You can formally challenge your PCN by using a Notice to Owner form. The vehicle's owner will automatically receive the form if the PCN has not been paid within 28 days of being issued. The form offers you the chance to formally challenge your PCN or pay the full £130.00. If you decide to formally challenge your PCN, please do not write to us again but wait until the Notice to Owner form arrives

Thank you I've challenged (taking your advice into account)

Formatting lost but here it is –

A contravention did not occur because the parking signs and road markings were unclear and misleading. Signage in poor condition. I approached from the north before turning round to park facing northwards. On the approach there are signs indicating where parking on the footway is or is not permitted. These are in a very poor state of repair, with many broken, missing, bent or faded. In particular, the last sign I passed (which I did not see at the time) is in poor condition - dirty, faded and partially obscured by overhanging trees. This sign indicates the end of the permissible footway parking area. Due to its poor condition, it was unclear that parking on the footway was prohibited beyond this point. (Photo 8108 as example of unclear signage close by - other visible on Google Street View.) Unclear road markings. Furthermore, where I parked there is a single yellow line running along the main carriageway, with the parking spaces behind it. (Visible in photos by CEO). I understood the yellow line to mark the edge of the carriageway, meaning that the parking spaces were fully outside the carriageway. This (together with the poor signage described above) indicated to me that parking is permitted here outside the carriageway. I would respectfully ask Haringey to find the resolution or order setting out where footway parking is or is not permitted on Muswell Hill Road (which I have been unable to find online). If it indicates that footway parking is not permitted in this section, then why has the yellow line been painted between the carriageway and those spaces? Because of the yellow line, the whole parking space is outside the carriageway / on the footway. The PCN (which states that it was issued for one wheel being on the footway) therefore relies on a distinction between the higher area of the footway (where the rear left wheel was parked) and the lower area of the footway (where the other three wheels were parked). This distinction is not made clear by any markings or signage - it is not clear that it is permitted to park on the lower area of the footway but not the higher area. It may be that the single yellow line is meant to follow the inside of the parking space, which would make more sense, but that means the road markings as they stand are misleading. De minimis. Notwithstanding the above, I also submit that the claimed contravention was de minimis. The one wheel on the higher section of the footway was not possible of causing any obstruction to any user of the footway as it did not narrow the footway at all.

Surely this case.

----------

2240500815
Contravention date 04 Aug 2024
Contravention location Muswell Hill Road
Decision Date 17 Dec 2024
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed

Mr Rawcliffe has attended the hearing today in person.

Mr Rawcliffe appeals because he says that it was his understanding that footway parking was permitted in Muswell Hill Road and that the signage in place was not clear. He submits an image of an end of footway parking sign which is faded and almost obscured from view on the approach by tree foliage. The Council does not address the evidence about the signage.

It is clear from the evidence that footway parking is allowed in certain places in Muswell Hill Road and I am not satisfied from the evidence that the signage is adequate for motorists to know where the exemption is in place and where it is not.