Author Topic: Redbridge: (62(4)) Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath  (Read 471 times)

0 Members and 368 Guests are viewing this topic.

Wanted to see if there is any grounds for an appeal for this.

This is the crossover outside the family home. It was my mother's house from 87 and I purchased it from her in 2014. Since 2015 I have been parking on the crossover. Every so often I get a ticket so park on the street for a while, then go back to parking on the crossover. I make sure to leave space on the right for pedestrian access.

Being opposite a school I know if I park up my drive I could get blocked in. This has happened to me numerous times over the years. The most egregious offender left their car blocking me for 10 hours. As I type this there is a car parked right across the crossover, blocking egress from my property. It is now 11 am and it has been there overnight.

There are a handful of these crossovers on the road. There are also regular pedestrian sized crossovers from the pathway to the road.

Parking in the crossover frees up a space on the road for someone else and ensures I am not blocked from accessing my garage. I believe I leave enough room for anyone (wheelchair/paramedics etc) to get through. Sure, this is my biased opinion but I feel not without merit after 38+years experience with the road.

The bushes span the whole length of the street, so the crossover itself doesn't cross over a pathway, it crosses over the bushes/flower beds. I think/hope this is what would make a potential appeal?

Any help would be appreciated.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2025, 12:05:37 pm by John U.K. »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: Redbridge: (62(4)) Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #1 on: »
IMO, there are two types of metalled footway across the verge and they are clearly distinguished from each other. The VAC are distributed only where there are off-street residential parking areas. The remainder, which are barely more than shoulder width, are set in pairs either side of the carriageway.

OP, IMO you are entitled to park adjacent to your dropped footway because its purpose is to provide vehicle access to your property, which does not have a shared drive, therefore as the occupier you are entitled to claim the exemption.

But IMO you should still tell the authority in writing.

As regards the current PCN and contravention, all you've got so far is mitigation IMO.

Re: Redbridge: (62(4)) Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #2 on: »
For very good reasons I have heavily edited this thread at the request of the OP, but left the thread so any updates can be posted.

Re: Redbridge: (62(4)) Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #3 on: »
Thanks and thanks to those that offered opinions/advice.

I have appealed (might as well) on the grounds that I don't believe the contravention occurred as the crossover crosses over planters/plant beds and not a footpath and no part of the vehicle encroaches on the actual footpath.
IMO that makes the cross-over part of the highway with no posted restrictions (a stretch!)
As there are many pedestrian width sections across the planters/beds on this road this crossover is obviously intended to be for vehicular access to my property and pedestrian access is a bonus, not its intention.

In mitigation I have stated that imo parking on the crossover leaving a space larger than the pedestrian access points is less of an inconvenience than parking adjacent to the crossover, blocking all pedestrian access, which would be my right as the resident. The already restricted parking available in this road and the surrounding area should make off-road parking more appealing to the council in cases like this.

Might as well throw the dice!