Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi there,

I recently got a PCN for code 25 'parked in a loading bay during restricted hours'. Details below:

- PCN: IZ37568464
- Date and time: Sunday 16/11/25 17:38
- Vehicle Registration Number: VN69 AZP
- Location: 173 - 177 Hornsey Road, N7 6RA
- PCN ticket and photos: link

I parked in the loading bay for about five minutes and stood on the opposite side of the road waiting for my daughter to come out of somewhere. I turned around, saw a parking inspector had turned up on his moped and was issuing a PCN, tried to appeal to him to cancel the PCN because I had just pulled up quickly to pick up my daughter, but he wouldn't do it.

One thing I noticed about the bay - it doesn't have a 'loading only' marking on the floor; does that mean the loading bay restriction is invalid?

Also; there is a 'Controlled zone' sign about 20 feet to the lift of the loading bay saying that the restricted times are Sunday 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm (and gives other days and times); do you think I could argue that the signage is confusing because it appeared that there were no restrictions at the time I parked my car?

Any help much appreciated, as always

Kind Regards

Tom

It's a 24/7 goods vehicle loading bay - arguably you have the wrong contravention as it should be parked in a parking place not designated for that class of vehicle (goods loading bay).

Assisted boarding is an exemption but sounds like this would be hard to justify.

There's no requirement for a road legend I think.

Hi @Incandescent, @stamfordman

Thanks for your help.

My daughter is 16 years old. I picked her up from outside her drama school - she was doing about five hours of dancing and acting that day, she has hypermobility and so her legs and joints get extremely tired and painful, so I try to pick her up as close as possible.

Re the road markings - penaltychargenotice.co.uk's article on code 25 say that 'loading' has to be written on the street (their article was written in 2015 though, so might be out of date):
'Was the bay marked correctly? Were the words “loading” painted on the street which is a legal requirement...'

I asked Google Gemini what the sign and road marking restrictions were for loading bays; it said that according to the Highway Code guide for road markings, loading bays should have 'loading only' on them:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/road-markings#:~:text=Loading%20restrictions%20on%20roads%20other,including%20Sundays%20and%20Bank%20Holidays.

Do you think that is correct?

Kind Regards

Tom

Hi @Incandescent

Thanks for the clarification re the Highway code.

OK, I will appeal based on medical grounds.

Thanks again for all your help

Kind Regards

Tom

Remember..

I parked in the loading bay for about five minutes and stood on the opposite side of the road waiting for my daughter to come out of somewhere. I turned around, saw a parking inspector had turned up on his moped and was issuing a PCN, tried to appeal to him to cancel the PCN because I had just pulled up quickly to pick up my daughter, but he wouldn't do it.

The PCN gives an observation time of nil i.e. from 17.38 to 17.38.

IMO, the CEO has chosen the wrong contravention.

The 'Goods vehicle loading..' restriction is a two-part test both of which must be satisfied (conjunctive) in order to not be in contravention i.e. a goods vehicle and 'loading'. However, the objective tests are not the same. Whether a vehicle is a 'goods' vehicle can be determined by simple and instant observation(although none of your photos shows your vehicle, I don't think MG make a 'goods' vehicle). However, 'loading' cannot, it requires a reasonable period of observation. IMO and I suspect under the council's policies the 'loading' test requires at least 2 minutes' obs.

IMO, as the CEO treated this as a simple 'loading' bay, which it is not, then they were obliged to observe for a reasonable period. IMO, the CEO did not give a long enough period to determine that 'loading' was not taking place i.e. they made an instant determination based upon the type of vehicle and then used the wrong contravention for such a determination.

But what was your conversation with the CEO, can you remember?

Hi @stamfordman, @H C Anderson, @Incandescent

Thanks again for all your help.

I've drafted a response below (heavily borrowing from your points), if you have any feedback please let me know. In particular, whether it is worth including the assisted boarding argument.

Also; my conversation with the CEO - I think I told him I had just parked and crossed over to pick up my daughter. We didn't spend much time talking, I tried to appeal to him to be reasonable, that I had just parked and crossed the road to pick up my daughter as she came out, but he made it clear he wasn't going to cancel the PCN so I didn't bother continuing to talk to him. He said he would put a note on the PCN to that effect.

-------------

Dear Sir/Madam.

I am writing to appeal PCN IZ37568464. The contravention did not occur, for the following reasons:

1. The PCN evidence fails to prove that all required test criteria for contravention code 25 were met

The contravention code 25 restriction is a two-part test, both of which must be satisfied (conjunctive) in order to not be in contravention i.e. a goods vehicle and 'loading'. However, the objective tests are not the same.
Whether a vehicle is a 'goods vehicle' can be determined by instant observation, but the second component of the test (loading) cannot; Civil Enforcement Officers are required to observe the vehicle for a sufficient period of time to determine if loading is occurring, and in this instance the CEO failed to do so; they made an instant determination, as shown by the PCN's evidence. The PCN evidence begins at 17:38, and from the beginning of the evidence it shows the PCN attached to my vehicle (at 17:38), i.e. the CEO saw my vehicle and immediately issued and attached a PCN. They failed to sufficiently assess the loading component of the test, and therefore this PCN is invalid.
They effectively applied the wrong contravention code test when determining that the alleged contravention had occurred. They only applied the test conditions for contravention code 23 ('Parked in a parking space or area not designated for that class of vehicle') because this only requires observation of whether a vehicle is a 'goods' vehicle, but code 23 was not the code assigned to this PCN.

2. Assisted boarding exemption

My 16 year old daughter has hypermobility, which means she can suffer from extreme tiredness, aching joints and muscles. This NHS website gives some of the symptoms:
- 'Joints move too much: Extra movement can cause the joints to become unstable or work harder to stay in place.
- Muscles have to work overtime: Muscles may become tired, tight, or sore from trying to keep joints stable.
- Increased risk of sprains and strains: Looser ligaments may not support joints as well during everyday movements or exercise.
- Poor posture or coordination: This can develop over time if the body is constantly compensating for joint instability.
- Pain may affect knees, ankles, shoulders, wrists, and the back, but any joint can be affected. Fatigue and difficulty with balance or coordination are also common.'

On the day in question my daughter had completed 5 hours of dancing, acting and other intense physical activity at a Theatre school ('West End MT' on Hornsey Road, this combined with her hypermobility meant she would be in intense discomfort and so I sought to minimise this by parking in the loading bay directly opposite her theatre school so that I could assist with her heavy bag and boarding into our car. In the period when I crossed the road to collect and assist my daughter the CEO drove up and immediately issued the PCN. I saw him, crossed the road again and explained that I had just crossed the road to momentarily pick up my daughter, but he was unwilling/unable to cancel the PCN. But this is a second reason that the alleged contravention did not occur because of the assisted boarding exemption.

I look forward to your response,

Yours sincerely

Hi @stamfordman @Incandescent

I won the appeal for the above ticket

I got a response back from Islington Council saying the following:

'Penalty Charge Notice No. IZ37568464 Date of Issue 16/11/2025 at 17:38
Location of Contravention Hornsey Road [Zone F]
Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a loading place or bay during
restricted hours without loading/unloading.
After reviewing the system as well as the photographic evidence and notes provided to me
by the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO), we are not convinced that the PCN should have
been issued. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the issuing of this PCN.
The PCN issued to your vehicle has been cancelled. This case has now been closed and no further action is required'

Thanks for all your help

Tom

Sorry I didn't get back to you but your challenge won the day anyway.