Free Traffic Legal Advice

Good afternoon

I hope you are well

I parked my car this afternoon where I have done previously without any issues for many years but today to my surprise I got this ticket - here is the location:











I had parked opposite the sign which said parking is permitted if you park with wheels on the kerb - there are no bays or other markings.  Please advise on whether I can appeal?  Thanks

Some thoughts:

So, there are signs indicating that parking with 2 wheels on the footway is permitted on both sides(the location is linked in the first post).

On your side, the sign is ahead of your car; on the other side, it's opposite your car.

As regards placing of signs, this applies:

When a sign provided for in the sign table in Part 2 [this is you] is placed to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement or prohibition begins or ends, the sign must be placed on the road as near as practicable to that point.

And there you have it in a nutshell.

'As near as practicable' does not mean the actual point at which parking relief starts, it means what it says. The practicability point is taken by many councils to mean pre-existing columns. The problem comes with CEOs who interpret the location of the sign to mean that relief starts at that point and not somewhere near.

IMO, you have an arguable defence that the sign opposite indicates that footway parking relief starts there and not, as in your case, at the location of the sign ahead of you. If the sign on your side indicates the point at which footway parking relief applies then you are likely in contravention and the sign opposite is wrong and misleading. But if the sign opposite is placed correctly, then clearly you are not in contravention.

In short, the authority must recognise that the position of the signs is not determinative and that only by reference to the council resolution approved pursuant to s15(4) of the 1974 Act would the prohibited and permitted footway parking areas be determined. They must therefore refer to this before responding to the challenge.

I would not go near 'I have parked here before umpteen times without issue' because you don't have objective evidence. I would stick with the hard facts and the law.

Hi,  Please see below my draft appeal, kindly advise before I submit. 

Thanks

PCN No: AF15382445 — Vehicle: BK72LWD — Challenge

I am challenging this PCN, issued on 03/07/2026 on Atherton Road for contravention 62(2).

There are signs (TSRGD diagram 667B) indicating that footway parking is permitted on both sides of this stretch of Atherton Road: one on my side of the road positioned ahead of where my vehicle was parked, and one on the opposite side positioned level with my vehicle.

Under the Traffic Signs Regulations, where a sign indicates the point at which a restriction, requirement, or prohibition begins or ends, it must be placed "as near as practicable" to that point — not necessarily at the exact point itself. This means the physical position of a sign is not conclusive evidence of precisely where the permitted footway parking area begins or ends; sign placement is frequently constrained by practical factors such as existing lamp columns.

In this case, the sign on the opposite side of the road indicates that footway parking relief applies level with my vehicle's position. If that sign is correctly placed, my vehicle was within the permitted area and no contravention occurred. Only the council's resolution made under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 can determine the actual extent of the permitted and prohibited footway parking areas on this road — the signs themselves are not determinative of that boundary.

I therefore request that, before responding to this challenge, the council refers to the relevant s.15(4) resolution/order for this location and confirms the precise extent of the permitted footway parking area, together with an explanation of why the signage on the two sides of the road appears to indicate different start points for that relief.

I also request disclosure of the Civil Enforcement Officer's photographs taken at the time.

In light of the above, I request that this PCN be cancelled.