Appeal sent on 04/06
I make formal representations against the Notice to Owner for contravention code 62: “parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than the carriageway.”
The location is subject to a sign stating “In marked bays only”, with dashed bay markings on the carriageway/raised kerb. I do not dispute that there is signage at the location. However, I do dispute that the authority has proved that the alleged position of the vehicle amounted to a contravention.
A) The authority must prove the legal extent of the permitted footway-parking area:
Footway parking in London is prohibited by default unless the authority has created a lawful exemption for the relevant location. Where the council relies on a sign and bay markings to say that footway parking is permitted only within a specific marked area, the council must prove that the marked area corresponds with the legal exemption.
A sign and dashed line do not, by themselves, prove the legal boundary of the exemption. I therefore require the council to produce the relevant footway-parking resolution, authorisation, plan, schedule, or other legal document showing:
a. that footway parking is lawfully permitted at this exact location;
b. the precise extent of the permitted area;
c. that the dashed bay markings relied on by the CEO are the legal boundary of that permitted area; and
d. that the alleged wheel position was outside that legally permitted area, not merely alleged to be outside a painted line.
If the council cannot produce this evidence, it has not proved that the alleged contravention occurred.
B) The marked bay is physically impracticable because of fixed street furniture:
The marked bay at this location is constrained by fixed street furniture, specifically a lamp post and a tree. The available space between them is extremely limited. The layout makes it difficult for a vehicle to use the raised-kerb bay while remaining perfectly aligned within the dashed markings.
The alleged issue was, at most, a marginal wheel position caused by the impractical layout of the bay. This was not a case of a vehicle deliberately parking on the footway outside any permitted area. The council has created and maintained a marked footway-parking bay in a position where ordinary use is made difficult by fixed obstructions.
If the council rejects these representations, it is requested to address this point specifically and explain how a motorist is expected to comply with the bay markings at this exact location, given the positioning of the lamp post and tree. The council should also provide the CEO photographs and any site photographs it relies upon to show that the vehicle was materially outside the permitted area.
C) Inconsistent enforcement at this location creates uncertainty:
I am also concerned that the council’s enforcement position at this location appears inconsistent. The sign directs motorists to use the marked raised-kerb bays only. However, it has been observed, on more than one occasion, that vehicles parked fully on the carriageway, where there appears to be no separate waiting restriction, have also received PCNs.
This creates obvious uncertainty for motorists. On the one hand, motorists are directed towards a physically constrained raised-kerb bay. On the other hand, parking fully on the carriageway appears also to be treated as unlawful in practice, despite there being no clear carriageway restriction apparent at the location.
The council is therefore requested to check its own enforcement records and explain its enforcement policy at this location. In particular, the council should explain what lawful parking position it says was available to motorists at this location, and whether vehicles parked wholly on the carriageway are also subject to enforcement there.
This point is relevant because it supports my case that the parking arrangement is unclear, inconsistently enforced, and not adequately communicated to motorists.
Evidence requested if the council rejects these representations:
If the council is not prepared to cancel the PCN, I require it to provide the following with the Notice of Rejection:
a. the relevant footway-parking resolution or authorisation;
b. any plan, map, schedule, or drawing showing the exact legal boundary of the permitted footway-parking area;
c. evidence that the dashed markings at this location correspond with that legal boundary;
d. an explanation of how the council says a vehicle can reasonably use the marked bay given the lamp post and tree; and
e. an explanation of the council’s enforcement approach to vehicles parked wholly on the carriageway at this location.
The council must consider these representations properly and address the substance of each point. A generic response stating only that footway parking is prohibited in London, or that the vehicle was outside markings, will not be adequate because the issue is whether the council has proved the legal boundary of the exemption and whether the marked bay is reasonably usable and clearly enforceable at this exact location.
For the reasons above, the alleged contravention has not been proved and the PCN should be cancelled.
