Possible relevant case.
----------
Case reference 2250538257
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
VRM B16FOR
PCN Details
PCN BZ63436689
Contravention date 14 Jun 2025
Contravention time 10:27:00
Contravention location Listowel Road
Penalty amount GBP 140.00
Contravention Footway parking
Referral date -
Decision Date 28 Mar 2026
Adjudicator Chez Cotton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Introduction
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for footway parking (Code 62).
2. This appeal was listed for a personal video hearing at which the Appellant was scheduled to attend. The Enforcement Authority (EA) was not due to attend but instead provided their evidence electronically. I waited for ten minutes after the commencement time, but the Appellant had not attended or otherwise contacted the Tribunal. I therefore proceeded to determine the case based upon the papers, as had been advised would occur in the notice of hearing sent to the Appellant to advise of the hearing date.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is set out in detailed representations.
4. In brief, ‘The road is subject to a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). Within this CPZ, the marked bays require all vehicles to park with two wheels on the footway in order to permit traffic flow. The Council has therefore established a clear precedent that footway parking is necessary on Listowel Road. The PCN was issued to vehicle registration B16FOR while it was parked on a single yellow line outside of CPZ operational hours. The vehicle was parked with two wheels on the footway for the same reason vehicles are required to do so in the CPZ bays: without this, no other vehicle could pass.’
5. The Appellant adds, ‘By formally requiring footway parking in marked bays on Listowel Road, the Council has created a legitimate expectation that vehicles parked outside operational hours (on a yellow line) may also park in the same manner to avoid obstructing the highway. It would be irrational to permit and indeed require two-wheels-up parking in bays, yet penalise the same arrangement immediately outside a bay where the same physical conditions apply.’
6. In summary, ‘The contravention did not occur because: • Footway parking is mandated by the Council within the same road. • Parking two wheels on the footway was necessary to avoid obstruction. • The Council has created a legitimate expectation that such parking is required on this road to maintain traffic flow.’
7. The Appellant has provided photographs in support.
8. In these circumstances the Appellant asks for the PCN to be cancelled.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
9. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on the evidence of the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) to demonstrate the contravention, and submit the photographs taken by the CEO further support that the contravention occurred.
10. The EA state the Appellant’s vehicle was observed parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or carriageway. The Highway code Rule 244 which all motorists should be aware of states; You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.
11. The EA add, ‘Footway parking is prohibited by default in London. The only exceptions are where the Council has passed a formal resolution under Section 15(4), and, where the permitted area is clearly indicated by signs and marked bays. The bays on Listowel Road represent specific, limited exceptions. They do not extend beyond the marked areas, nor do they imply that footway parking is acceptable outside of them.’
12. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations and does not wish to exercise their discretion.
13. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
14. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully.
15. The EA's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in breach of the prohibition against "footway parking". Under Section 15(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 as amended, a contravention occurs if a vehicle is parked anywhere in Greater London with one or more wheels on or over any part of a road other than a carriageway or on or over a footpath, unless an exemption applies.
16. I am satisfied the enforcement of the contravention of 'footway parking' by the EA is underpinned by this legislation, created by Parliament, and so does not require a Traffic Management Order.
17. There is no dispute between the parties that the EA has authorised footpath parking in Listowel Road. The EA state this is limited to the marked bays, the Appellant that it is limited to the entire road outside of the CPZ restricted hours. The hours on the ‘Resident Permit holders only’ sign, state ‘Mon – Fri 8.30am to 5.30pm’. I accept the Appellant was parked outside of these hours.
18. I am able to see the marked bays in the photographic evidence, and I accept the Appellant’s vehicle is parked in line with the vehicles parked there.
19. Although the EA state that kerb parking is restricted to the marked bays, I note there is no signage to state that any vehicle parking on the kerb must remain within any marked bay.
20. Therefore, on balance, I consider the EA has given permission for parking on the footway at this location. Further, on balance, I do not consider there to be signage indicating that, having permitted footway parking on the street, it is not allowed at the location in which the Appellant parked. I consider the Appellant’s interpretation to be reasonable, in that they parked in line with other vehicles parked on the kerb, and outside of the permit only restriction times.
21. For these reasons I find a contravention has not occurred and the PCN has not been validly issued.
Decision
22. The appeal is allowed for the reasons outlined.
