3. PCN contravention 62 4
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: PCN contravention 62 4  (Read 1177 times)

0 Members and 32 Guests are viewing this topic.

PCN contravention 62 4
« on: »
Hi there, please can I get advise on appealing this alleged contravention.  It appears that where my vehicle was parked was outside of the parking box, but at the time it all looked the same.  I can get more updated pics of the location shortly.

The gsv is here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/bKoJiGMXkAH8jGQ47







Please advise on how to appeal, thanks in advance
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: PCN contravention 62 4
« Reply #1 on: »
This is a council PCN so I have moved this post to the Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) forum.

To help the users there provide you with the best advice, please read the following thread carefully and provide as much of the information it requests as you are able to: READ THIS FIRST - **BEFORE POSTING YOUR CASE!**, This section is for council, TFL, Dart/Mersey/Tyne etc. cases
Logged
Re: PCN contravention 62 4
« Reply #2 on: »
The kerb is dropped where you parked so the question is whether this can be seen as a continuation of a designated parking place despite the double yellow lines.

There doesn't seem to be any signage about footway parking and bays there but there are parking signs and bay lines.

A resolution disapplying the footway ban may be in place.





Logged
Re: PCN contravention 62 4
« Reply #3 on: »
The traffic order map shows designated bays there but not as footway ones.

Logged
Re: PCN contravention 62 4
« Reply #4 on: »
Yes exactly, I thought where I had parked was fine in all honesty.  Since then Ive seen other cars make the same mistake, although the white lines are in the pictures it didn't feel clear.

Do you think I can successfully appeal on these grounds?
Logged
Re: PCN contravention 62 4
« Reply #5 on: »
The CEO had a choice on what contravention to put on the PCN, and chose the off-carriageway parking ban. He could have served a PCN for being parked on double-yellow lines. Rather too many people don't seem to know that yellow lines apply to the whole road, not just the carriageway.
Logged
Re: PCN contravention 62 4
« Reply #6 on: »
It's not a marked parking bay, the end of the sub-divided free parking place can be seen ahead of the car. In addition, the DYL mean that one may not wait, which includes parking at that spot.

What other drivers might do is not something which an adjudicator would take into account.

On the basis of what can be seen, you're bang-to-rights on the contravention because the whole of your car was parked other than on the carriageway.

But what's the authority's take and could this be used to your advantage?

Depends how you present your reps.
Logged
Re: PCN contravention 62 4
« Reply #7 on: »
As this is Lewisham, please screenshot the payment status page as if to make representations:


The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £165.00 on Tue, 1 Apr 2025. Please pay £110.00 now.

This is an illegal demand for money and is a procedural impropriety since it undermines your right to use the statutory process. I have a costs hearing in the near future against this outfit.

I am more than happy to deal with this one at the Tribunal.
Logged
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"
Re: PCN contravention 62 4
« Reply #8 on: »
Quote from: Hippocrates on March 04, 2025, 03:35:21 pm
As this is Lewisham, please screenshot the payment status page as if to make representations:

The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £165.00 on Tue, 1 Apr 2025. Please pay £110.00 now.
This is an illegal demand for money and is a procedural impropriety since it undermines your right to use the statutory process.

How so? The NTO says the same thing, the only difference is that the website gives a few days grace, as legally they could increase the charge on 26 March.

If the message stays the same after representations are made, that would be a different matter.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: PCN contravention 62 4
« Reply #9 on: »
@Aubama draft representation:

Dear London Borough of Lewisham,

I challenge liability on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur, as footway parking is permitted on Galahad Road and there are no signs indicating such parking is permitted in marked bays only. If you are minded to refuse this representation, I ask that you provide the footway parking resolution duly enacted under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, so that I may confirm whether the bays are correctly marked.

Yours faithfully,


Don't forget to take a timed / dated screenshot of the confirmation page.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: PCN contravention 62 4
« Reply #10 on: »
IMO, the NTO does not state 'will' increase but uses the mandated form 'may increase'. As far as I know, the permissive power which is required to be stated in a NTO may not unilaterally and without context be changed to 'will' on a website without consequences.
Logged
Re: PCN contravention 62 4
« Reply #11 on: »
Thank you all for your amazing advice, I have followed @cp8759 and submitted representation online

Logged
Re: PCN contravention 62 4
« Reply #12 on: »
Are you waiting for NTOs to challenge parking PCNs?
Logged
Re: PCN contravention 62 4
« Reply #13 on: »
Quote from: stamfordman on March 04, 2025, 10:21:13 pm
Are you waiting for NTOs to challenge parking PCNs?

I've already received that I believe, its in an earlier post on this thread
Logged
Re: PCN contravention 62 4
« Reply #14 on: »
Ive had a rejection letter through the post, please see below:







Logged
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »
  3. PCN contravention 62 4