Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello guys,

This morning I found a PCN on my windshield, left by a Lewisham council's traffic warden. The penalty is £140 and I have 28 days to pay it. If I pay within 14 days it will cost me £70. I have attached the picture of the PCN.

As new building (we are been leaving there for last 6yrs), we can't request parking permit. So all local residents have to "fight" (first come, first serve) for these few spaces (which I think, belong to TFL as just under its bridge. And every time there is a maintenance, TFL will post letters to notify people leaving around, that's us). We have never received any parking fines there.

Is this space (with the black arrow sign) considered as a footpath or part of a road other than a carriageway? Does the council have the right to give PCN on this space? I also took some pictures showing people passing by without any issue.

Is there any good reason to appeal this PCN? Please your support/help will be appreciated as this is the only space I have to park at the moment.

Thank You

P.S: the picture with the black arrow is a picture taken 5 years ago (from Google: www.disused-stations.org.uk/l/lewisham_first/index.shtml).

https://imgpile.com/p/LVgX8Cg

Thank you for your reply @stamfordman.

Does this mean that the van near the car is also parked on a footway? It did not receive a PCN, so I was wondering if I should park there.

Again, before today no one has never got any ticket at all. The ramps in front of the car are there for preventing cars to go further, so I am surprised it is considered as footpath today.

Indeed @Incandescent, TFL has always tolerated us to park there and they let us know when they will need that space to be cleared. If the council now is starting to enforce part of this space, we haven't been informed and there is no sign saying so.

By the way, I have never heard about the 1970s Act ban.

Pl post the back of the PCN.

The 14/28 day periods end on 12/26 April respectively.

A challenge made before the 12th would likely lead them to re-offer the discount if unsuccessful.

The contravention description is wrong - you did not have 'all 4 wheels' of the carriageway. I would at least make reps on this point because if the contravention occurs only if 4 wheels are off then, according to the council's photos, the contravention did not occur.

NB. the number of wheels isn't relevant, but at least test their reasoning!

That's the mandated description.

There are suffixes to be used with the contravention code, in your case this is 624 i.e 4 wheels on footway.

See Suffixes here: https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/assets/Services-Environment/civil-enforcement-officers-handbook.pdf

I wouldn't refer to the CEO's handbook, I quoted it so that you could see that 624 wasn't a random addition.

The wrong contravention code isn't a statutory defence, so tread lightly. I am simply suggesting that you challenge because although the PCN states that 4 wheels were on the footway, and you assume* it is this which gave rise to the PCN, as they will see only one wheel was on the footway. It must surely follow that the CEO was mistaken an the PCN must be cancelled.

They won't, but what you're doing is testing them within the 14-day period.

*- you say you didn't know about the footway prohibition beforehand, so all you're doing is reflecting on their PCN i.e. 4 wheels = penalty, but it wasn't 4 wheels. 

I don't think this has been said.

You are testing them risk-free. Whether the registered keeper continues after their response is received will be informed to a great degree by their response.

Bottom line: you cannot park on the footway. So, a technical defence is being tested.