Free Traffic Legal Advice

This is the initial online appeal I made against the windscreen ticket (possibly ill advised but I hadn’t done much research at that point!).

I drove from Lincoln Road into James Street at 20.17, and then into John Street, also at 20.17.

As can be plainly seen on the evidence uploaded, there is a distinct sign indicating to park on the footpath, clearly inducing motorists to position their vehicles as such.

The Footway Parking resolution made under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 applies to the entirety of John Street and has no exceptions.

Part of the footpath on John Street is bricked rather than paved to support this, further inducing a motorist to position as such.

The prohibition signage is beyond my vehicle; unless vehicles drive along John Street from the opposite end it would not be seen (indeed, I did not see it until I looked into the PCN notice)

Vehicles opposite are also parked on the footpath (along with an identical sign indicating to do so) and I would have potentially been struck by passing cars as it would have left a narrow gap.

This was rejected on 16th September.

John Street, in contrast to James Street, has the footpath partially brick-paved to support footpath parking. I have not actually been able to find the resolution as made for John Street to allow footpath parking, but I would assume it was made for the entirety of the street, and I believe the area I was parked in used to be prohibited by way of double yellows, these can be seen on google maps, but in both the dash cam and photos from the CEO are non-existent.

I have included the rejection as it does not appear to answer any of the points raised in my initial appeal.

Rejection





PCN







Dash Cam Images







PCN evidence images







Google Maps Link

https://maps.app.goo.gl/Gmvvbm7v5Hiqj4CQ7

I intend to make formal representation (and take to London Tribunal if necessary) as I feel I was completely led astray by the markings and signage and should not have received a PCN for this. However, I would also appreciate any guidance from those here who are more experienced!

Thank you

IMO, there's no ambiguity here.

The default position is that footway parking is not allowed.

If the council wish to allow it then, as the OP posted, a sign must be erected to this effect. These are set out clearly in the regs: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made

diagrams 12-17.

When placed at right-angles to the carriageway diagram 12, as in this case, means that parking on the footway beyond the sign on this side of the carriageway is permitted with 2 wheels on the footway.

OP, you were facing such a sign but you had not passed it. No different to a CPZ sign, or permit parking area, or speed limit for that matter: until you've passed one (or the first onej then it doesn't apply.

As regards parking on the footway, it was not permitted where you were by the sign ahead of you, only beyond the sign.

But being that councils are chaotic, this is not to say that either:
You had already passed one (which had not been terminated) on your route*, or
The council has actually excluded the whole road and been lazy and penny-pinching by not placing signs at the actual point that footway parking is permitted.

*- I can't see one on GSV.

There was a footpath parking resolution made for John Street, EN1, but I cannot find the actual resolution anywhere, so am unable to know whether it was for the entire street or not.

I’m not local and on the previous occasion I visited I parked on James Street, which as you can see on Google Maps, has no street parking allowed and the entire pavement is concrete slabs. John Street has identical concrete slabs, however as can be seen on earlier street views, the permitted pavement parking is bricked. This is continued into the area I parked in, which I feel is an incredible inducement to park there. Why else would it be made identical to the area where parking is allowed, rather than being identical to James Street and have no brick from the point pavement parking is prohibited.

The double yellow lines are completely gone. In the dark there was no hint of them (as can be seen in both my dash cam pics and the CEO pics). It was only in the morning I could see small parts of them by the lamppost.

Well this eventually got to tribunal, and I was successful.

Case Reference is 225008067A if anyone is dealing with similar.

Well done for seeing this through. The missing question is what they mean by 'They also confirm that John Street is partially exempt under Section15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (as amended)' but the layout and degraded yellow lines look to have won the day.

--------


Case reference   225008067A
Appellant   
Authority   London Borough of Enfield
VRM   EK71GAA
PCN Details
PCN   EF14045191
Contravention date   05 Sep 2024
Contravention time   21:11:00
Contravention location   John Street
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Footway parking
Referral date   -
Decision Date   17 Jul 2025
Adjudicator   Louise Fisher
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons   
1. This is an appeal by Ms xxxxxxx (the Appellant) against a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Enforcement Authority (EA) for parking with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway on John Street on 5 September 2024 at 21.11 hours.

2. The appeal is on the ground that there was no contravention and was decided at a personal hearing.

3. The EA submits that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath on 5 September 2024. They say that there is signage, where the Appellant was parked, prohibiting footway parking outside of designated areas where an exemption applied.

4. The EA further submits that The Highway code Rule 244 states that you must not park partially or wholly on the pavement in London and should not do so unless specifically permitted. They also confirm that John Street is partially exempt from this general prohibition, under Section15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (as amended), and that the exempted areas are marked with road signs and may have white lines and that footway parking is only allowed within those designated areas.

5. The EA further confirms that the blue sign (with an icon of a vehicle partially on the footway) indicates the commencement of the parking bay, and that the blue sign with the same icon with a line through it, shows the end of the parking concession and that these were located near to where the Appellant’s vehicle was parked.

6. It is the Appellant’s case that there was no contravention. She asserts that the entirety of John Street was or had been exempt and that the reinforced block paving on the footpath, which appears from the photographic evidence to run the length of John Street, indicates where footway parking was permitted. The Appellant asserts that if there were any double yellow lines and/or white parking bay markings as represented by the EA, these are no longer visible. The Appellant relies on her dashcam footage, and the photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer at the time the PCN was issued, in support of her representation that there were no road or bay markings visible at the location of the contravention.

7. The Appellant also relies upon a report number 445 entitled ‘footway parking ban – criteria for exemption from the ban’ which the EA supplied to her following a Freedom of Information Request, which indicated that one of the reasons for the introduction of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 was the ‘cost of reinforcing footways and verges and providing and maintaining footway authorisation signs and lines were exemptions were allowed’ and therefore represents that the existence of a ‘reinforced footway’, in the form of block paving, at the location at which her vehicle was parked was indicative of an area where an exemption was in place.

8. In conclusion, the Appellant asserts that the presence of reinforced paving, the lack of road/bay markings, the presence of other vehicles parked on the footway in the vicinity of the alleged contravention and the unclear signage, led to an inducement for her to park in that location and to assume that the exemption to footway parking applied to the location at which she parked.

9. I have seen images of the location where the Appellant was parked. I find that the signage is unclear and does not appear to be double-sided potentially leading to some confusion as to where the end and beginning of the designated exempt areas are. Although I find that there is no legal requirement for there to be a sign indicating that footway parking is prohibited, the existence of signage at the location indicating an exemption together with the block paved area, suggests otherwise. It is clear from the photographic evidence taken on the date of the contravention, that none of the road markings or bay markings to which the EA refers are visible.

10. The EA states in the Case Summary, which is not of itself evidence, that there was no exemption at the location of the contravention and refers to Section15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, as amended. I have not been provided with that legislation, any relevant Traffic Management Order or evidence showing me the location of the exempt bays. The map which the EA has put into evidence, indicates double yellow lines at the location of the contravention, however this is not the contravention to which the PCN relates and in any event, I find that these are not clearly visible in any of the photographic evidence before me. Although I find that from the moment that road markings are painted the process of erosion begins and the fact that markings are not in pristine state does not mean that restrictions cease to apply, when the quality of the markings is in dispute the test applied is whether they remained substantially compliant, clear and adequate for the motorist to give the markings the appropriate degree of attention. I find that the photographic evidence shows that any white bay markings and/or any double yellow lines at the location of the contravention were not substantially compliant, clear and adequate, especially at night when the contravention occurred. That together with the paved area of the footway, the location of the blue signage and the way it faced, entitles the Appellant to the benefit of legitimate expectation.

11. On the balance of probabilities evidentially therefore, I cannot be satisfied that the EA has proven the contravention and accordingly I allow this appeal and direct that the PCN and NTO be cancelled.