Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Johnsmith86 on March 11, 2026, 03:58:24 pm
-
Pl post what you've submitted.
-
Challenge submitted.
Will report back once I hear from the Council.
Thanks
-
IMO, I wouldn't waste too much time or ink on your reps because the issue is clear and narrowly defined.
As the council's evidence shows, I was parked immediately adjacent to metal barriers which GSV shows have been in situ since at least ****.
De facto, these represented the limit and therefore edge of the carriageway.
Adjudication decision ****** makes it clear that in such circumstances these represent the 'edge of the carriageway' as regards s85 of the Traffic Management Act. It therefore follows that the contravention did not occur as my car was at all times parked within 50cm of the 'edge of the carriageway'.
Either the council accepts this reasoning or it does not.
-
Hello,
I have now received the NTO and intend to submit a formal representation.
My question is: do I just re-submit my exact previous appeal but include the similar case (2240321907) that was won by one of the administrators on the forum. Anything else I need to add to the representation?
Thanks,
-
You cannot make formal representations until a NTO has been served.
For info, this is the full enforcement process: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/parking-penalty-charge-notice-enforcement-process
Noted.
I will revert once I have received the NTO
-
You cannot make formal representations until a NTO has been served.
For info, this is the full enforcement process: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/parking-penalty-charge-notice-enforcement-process
-
The key parts of the quoted decision is that the edge of the carriageway can be construed as being a barrier, this being the case then the first limb of the contravention in your case fails and the contravention did not occur. The adjudicator also clarified the issue 'not in a parking place' which is not how Westminster interpret matters.
Mr Rowling is an idiot. If the vehicle is not more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway then consideration as to whether there's a parking space is irrelevant: were they to use the same reasoning in any formal rejection would IMO be grounds for procedural impropriety as well, not that you'd* need this!
IMO, wait for the NTO. Are you the registered keeper?
Yes I am the registered keeper.
So I should not bother with a formal challenge and wait for the NTO?
-
The key parts of the quoted decision is that the edge of the carriageway can be construed as being a barrier, this being the case then the first limb of the contravention in your case fails and the contravention did not occur. The adjudicator also clarified the issue 'not in a parking place' which is not how Westminster interpret matters.
Mr Rowling is an idiot. If the vehicle is not more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway then consideration as to whether there's a parking space is irrelevant: were they to use the same reasoning in any formal rejection would IMO be grounds for procedural impropriety as well, not that you'd* need this!
IMO, wait for the NTO. Are you the registered keeper?
-
Hi
As expected the appeal has been rejected (see below):
https://ibb.co/5W2mCYSz (https://ibb.co/5W2mCYSz)
In terms of the next steps, do I go ahead and proceed with a formal representation based on the same argument and should I quote the adjudicator case (2240321907) mentioned in Stamford man's post?
Thanks
-
Ok noted.
I have removed the cited case from the appeal and submited it to the Council.
I will revert once I hear back.
This case won by our admin is better but as I said we don't usually cite cases at informal challenge stage as it's too confrontational and also makes a challenge too formal.
--------------
Case reference 2240321907
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM DX16 UDN
PCN Details
PCN PN37747431
Contravention date 14 Jan 2024
Contravention time 05:00:00
Contravention location Gallions Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked more than 50 cm from edge of carriageway
Referral date -
Decision Date 02 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Belinda Pearce
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
As a result of a Statutory Declaration/Witness Statement, sworn by the Appellant at the Traffic Enforcement Centre, an Order was made by Northampton County Court cancelling the Charge Certificate but not the original Penalty Charge Notice.
It falls to me now to determine this matter on the evidence presently before me, adduced by both parties.
A Telephone Appeal Hearing was scheduled for 9 a.m. today, 2nd November 2024; I spoke with the
Appellant's representative, Mr I. Murray-Smith on the contact number provided.
1. The Enforcement Authority assert the whereabouts of the said vehicle at the relevant time on the material date, to have been parked otherwise than within 50 centimetres of the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking space.
2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of his challenge as initially stated and subsequently comprehensively set out in the Skeleton Argument submitted by Mr Murray-Smith, which challenge Mr Murray-Smith reiterated and further detailed during the Telephone Hearing.
3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so parked contrary to the operative restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises copy Penalty Charge Notice, contemporaneous notes attributable to the Civil Enforcement Officer together with contemporaneous photographic evidence: 5 images showing the said vehicle in situ, unoccupied and unattended.
4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was examined to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the representations advanced on the Appellant's behalf.
The contemporaneous photographic capture reveals the said vehicle positioned adjacent to a metal fence, behind which there appears to be no viability of public (pedestrian or vehicular egress); no designated parking space demarcation is discernible.
5. Neither limb of the allegation (both elements of which are requisite by virtue of the use of the conjunction 'and') is evident; the contravention is not proved.
The evidential burden does not pass to an Appellant unless and until that evidential burden is discharged satisfactorily by the Enforcement Authority.
Evidentially I cannot find the alleged contravention occurred.
This Appeal is Allowed.
-
This case won by our admin is better but as I said we don't usually cite cases at informal challenge stage as it's too confrontational and also makes a challenge too formal.
--------------
Case reference 2240321907
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM DX16 UDN
PCN Details
PCN PN37747431
Contravention date 14 Jan 2024
Contravention time 05:00:00
Contravention location Gallions Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked more than 50 cm from edge of carriageway
Referral date -
Decision Date 02 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Belinda Pearce
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
As a result of a Statutory Declaration/Witness Statement, sworn by the Appellant at the Traffic Enforcement Centre, an Order was made by Northampton County Court cancelling the Charge Certificate but not the original Penalty Charge Notice.
It falls to me now to determine this matter on the evidence presently before me, adduced by both parties.
A Telephone Appeal Hearing was scheduled for 9 a.m. today, 2nd November 2024; I spoke with the
Appellant's representative, Mr I. Murray-Smith on the contact number provided.
1. The Enforcement Authority assert the whereabouts of the said vehicle at the relevant time on the material date, to have been parked otherwise than within 50 centimetres of the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking space.
2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of his challenge as initially stated and subsequently comprehensively set out in the Skeleton Argument submitted by Mr Murray-Smith, which challenge Mr Murray-Smith reiterated and further detailed during the Telephone Hearing.
3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so parked contrary to the operative restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises copy Penalty Charge Notice, contemporaneous notes attributable to the Civil Enforcement Officer together with contemporaneous photographic evidence: 5 images showing the said vehicle in situ, unoccupied and unattended.
4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was examined to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the representations advanced on the Appellant's behalf.
The contemporaneous photographic capture reveals the said vehicle positioned adjacent to a metal fence, behind which there appears to be no viability of public (pedestrian or vehicular egress); no designated parking space demarcation is discernible.
5. Neither limb of the allegation (both elements of which are requisite by virtue of the use of the conjunction 'and') is evident; the contravention is not proved.
The evidential burden does not pass to an Appellant unless and until that evidential burden is discharged satisfactorily by the Enforcement Authority.
Evidentially I cannot find the alleged contravention occurred.
This Appeal is Allowed.
-
Take out the toilet sentence.
Put a line spaces above and below points 1 and 2.
We wouldn't usually suggest quoting cases at this stage and I think we have a better case to quote - I'll see if I can find it.
-
Fine but IMO leave out the reference to parking spaces because it's not relevant.
-
Here is my draft appeal:
I am appealing this PCN based on the below:
1) The contravention did NOT occur
The CEOs pictures show metal barriers to the right of my vehicle, it is clear that Westminster Council have treated the metal barriers as the edge of the carriageway for at least 5 years (as per Google Street View).
Therefore, if the ‘de facto’ limit of the carriageway is the metal barriers then a motorist should be able to consider the metal barriers to be the ‘de jure’ edge of the carriageway. The CEOs pictures show my vehicle was parked less than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway and that there are no lines drawn designating parking spaces, hence no contravention has occurred.
I refer you to the below extract from tribunal case number 2240189683:
"The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking place when in Snowshill Road on 10 December 2023 at 14.32.
The Appellant denies the contravention.
I have considered the evidence in this case and I find that the Authority has not proved that the Appellant's vehicle was parked more that 50cm from the edge of the carriageway.
The reason being that I find that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a car park where there is no carriageway.
The appeal is allowed."
2) Boarding/alighting is exempted in the London Councils handbook and referenced in Westminster councils' policies when assessing a Code 26 contravention
Code 26 primarily reflects legislation designed to stop double parking but enforcement can't rule out double parking briefly to unload/alight if there are no other parking places available.
In this case I was collecting my two young children from maths class and this was the safest location I could find for my children to board the vehicle. My youngest child needed to use the toilet as he was boarding hence, I took him to the toilet across the road in the hotel.
I request that you give this matter a fresh and impartial consideration. I’m sure you will see that the evidence unequivocally demonstrates that no contravention has occurred and will therefore cancel this Parking Charge.
-
IMO, you lead with your strongest argument which is that every part of your car was within 50cm of the de facto and de jure 'edge of carriageway', namely the barriers(which Google Street View shows have been in situ for at least 5 years) and in any event you were assisting your ** to alight because *******.
-
In my case the CEO did not see any evidence of boarding/alighting hence instant PCN was issued as per Westminster's policy.
The question is do I amend my appeal to include the exemption for boarding/alighting of passengers or no point?
-
Code 26 primarily reflects legislation designed to stop double parking but enforcement can't really rule out double parking briefly to unload/alight if there are no parking places.
So while the legislation exempts loading and doesn't mention boarding/alighting, the latter is exempted in the London Councils handbook and referenced in some councils' policies, as in Westminster below.
Code 26 of course is now applied to situations such as the current case and IMO in situations not intended for such enforcement by the lawmakers.
(https://i.ibb.co/ZpZRBP3t/Screenshot-2026-03-14-at-16-20-20.png)
-
The prohibition is statutory(s85 TMA) and the relevant exception is:
4)The third exception is where—
(a)the vehicle is being used for the purposes of delivering goods to, or collecting goods from, any premises, or is being loaded from or unloaded to any premises,
(b)the delivery, collection, loading or unloading cannot reasonably be carried out in relation to those premises without the vehicle being parked as mentioned in subsection (1), and
(c)the vehicle is so parked for no longer than is necessary and for no more than 20 minutes.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/85
-
Thanks for the input.
So if I understood correctly, I am challenging on the basis that the contravention did not occur bec I am parked less than 50cm away from the edge of the carriageway (i.e. the barriers in this case) ?
Correct.
There is no exemption for loading or boarding for this PCN
No, loading and boarding/alighting are exemptions.
But surely not for parking more than 50cm away from the kerb, which is what the PCN is for ?
-
Thanks for the input.
So if I understood correctly, I am challenging on the basis that the contravention did not occur bec I am parked less than 50cm away from the edge of the carriageway (i.e. the barriers in this case) ?
Correct.
There is no exemption for loading or boarding for this PCN
No, loading and boarding/alighting are exemptions.
-
How does this look for an appeal:
I am appealing this PCN on the basis that the contravention did not occur.
The CEOs pictures show metal barriers to the right of my car, it appears that Westminster Council have treated the metal barriers as the edge of the carriageway for at least 5 years (as per Google Street View).
Therefore, if the de facto limit of the carriageway is the metal barriers then a motorist should be able to consider the barrier to be the de jure edge of the carriageway. In conclusion, my car was parked less than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway and that there are no lines drawn designating parking spaces hence no contravention has occurred.
I refer you to the below extract from tribunal case number 2240189683:
"The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking place when in Snowshill Road on 10 December 2023 at 14.32.
The Appellant denies the contravention.
I have considered the evidence in this case and I find that the Authority has not proved that the Appellant's vehicle was parked more that 50cm from the edge of the carriageway.
The reason being that I find that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a car park where there is no carriageway.
The appeal is allowed."
I request that you give this matter a fresh and impartial consideration. I’m sure you will see that the evidence unequivocally demonstrates that no contravention has occurred and will therefore cancel this Parking Charge.
-
Thanks for the input.
So if I understood correctly, I am challenging on the basis that the contravention did not occur bec I am parked less than 50cm away from the edge of the carriageway (i.e. the barriers in this case) ?
Correct.
There is no exemption for loading or boarding for this PCN
-
Thanks for the input.
So if I understood correctly, I am challenging on the basis that the contravention did not occur bec I am parked less than 50cm away from the edge of the carriageway (i.e. the barriers in this case) ?
-
There are, they're the barriers. IMO, avoid using the term 'kerb' because the legislation doesn't, it simply refers to 'edge of carriageway' and IMO as the de facto limit of the carriageway is the barriers then a motorist should be able to consider these to be the de jure edge of carriageway.
See page 49 of this: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP03-92/RP03-92.pdf
You can see the issue that the contravention is designed to tackle, and it's not parking by barriers which for 5 years have restricted motorists' access to kerbs!
-
Kids 7 & 8, I was picking them up from a maths lesson.
Are the council allowed to treat the railings as a kerb, shouldn't there be a sign or lines of some sort?
-
Kids 7 & 8, I was picking them up from a maths lesson.
Are the council allowed to treat the railings as a kerb, shouldn't there be a sign or lones if some sort?
-
IMO, the council have treated the barriers as the edge of the carriageway for at least 5 years according to GSV.
I would challenge and pursue on this basis.
-
I'd say the right-hand side by the railings is a de facto kerb so the contravention didn't occur. See what others say.
Assisted boarding is an exemption but don't volunteer toilet details - just as long as necessary.
How old and where from.
(https://i.ibb.co/5g9m89LY/w4.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/VY7Rt95J/w3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/mFhqFrDC/w2.jpg)
-
Thanks for the response.
The reason I took around 10 mins to collect my kids was that as I arrived my youngest needed to use the toilet so I had to take him to the closest coffee shop I could find.
Please see copy of PCN below and google maps location:
https://ibb.co/HpKR61GG (https://ibb.co/HpKR61GG)
https://ibb.co/HDRSW0rQ (https://ibb.co/HDRSW0rQ)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/cKh9jzjPywKqH6y16
Many thanks
-
What are the PCN number and VRM.
-
Sorry, but we need to see where this is, so please read this and update your thread accordingly: -
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
Your photo shows double-yellow lines behind your car. These apply 24x7. However, boarding/alighting passengers is an exemption, and with children needing collection from a safe place, time is also allowed to collect them, but you have to show why you took 10 minutes, so please tell us, so we can help you prepare a representation to submit to Westminster council.
-
Unfortunately I have received a PCN for the above alleged contravention code 26 from Westminster council. I stopped for approx. 10 mins to pick up my children as couldn't find anywhere else to park. It was getting dark and I honestly had no idea that you couldn't park there plus I did not see any signings prohibiting parking.
I know this is probably a long shot but can anyone help me find any grounds for appeal from the PCN or photos?
Many thanks
https://pasteboard.co/NslCNzswYqQi.jpg (https://pasteboard.co/NslCNzswYqQi.jpg)