Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: helpmeplease22 on May 14, 2026, 03:34:39 pm
-
This physical infrastructure does not exist at the location of the vehicle.
Look at the kerb adjacent to the tree where you have added the red line, it's clear that carriageway rises at this point.
-
Apologies, and thank you
-
I tried to get you on the right track but failed.
-
As I posted earlier, IMO you do not need anything more than the statutory exemption at this stage.
-
Can I suggest a slightly different drafting?
---
I am challenging the issuance of the above PCN on the statutory grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.
The PCN explicitly alleges a contravention for parking on a "carriageway raised to meet the level of a footway." This physical infrastructure does not exist at the location of the vehicle. As demonstrated in the attached photographic evidence (IMG20260504102158 (2).jpg), the carriageway is entirely flat. It is the footway that is sloped down to the carriageway. Because the CEO has cited a topographical feature that is not present at the location, the specific contravention alleged on the PCN could not have occurred.
Notwithstanding the fatal procedural error above, the infrastructure that actually exists at the location my car was parked is a footway lowered strictly for the engineering purpose defined in Section 86(1)(a) of the Traffic Management Act 2004: assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway.
Therefore, the absolute exemption detailed in Section 86(3) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 applies in full. The statute dictates that the prohibition is nullified "where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises."
My vehicle was parked immediately adjacent to the crossover exclusively serving my residential property at [the address]. As the sole occupier of these residential premises, I provided explicit consent for my vehicle to be parked at this location. No reward was given or received for this consent. Attached is proof of address and proof of ownership.
The alleged infrastructure does not exist, and the existing infrastructure is subject to an absolute statutory exemption. Please cancel the PCN immediately.
-
Wait for tincombe to have a look.
-
This looks great, thank you ! I will submit it :)
-
Try this. I'm playing dumb and not taking on the pedestrian crossing prohibition which I think is why the PCN was issued - let them try and argue this given their silly initial rejection.
--------------
I was puzzled to read your rejection of my initial challenge as it appears to be template concerning a contravention that is not alleged on the PCN.
The PCN was issued for 'Parked in a special enforcement area on part of the carriageway raised to meet the level of a footway, cycle track or verge' - but you then refer to a dropped or lowered kerb or footway. This makes no sense.
My car was parked adjacent to my own crossover for my house, and is exclusive to my property and not shared with any other property.
I have checked and this is an exemption to the alleged contravention under Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, which states that an exception to the prohibition of 'assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge' where 'the carriageway has... been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge' is:
where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises.
As I was parked with my own consent outside my own premises the contravention did not occur.
I look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation the PCN.
-
IMO, you just need what you've drafted to Statutory Exemption.
2 is unnecessary and 3 is easily dealt with in 1 by the suitable addition of 'see attachments'
-
5/6/26
-
What date is the NTO. There is probably no rush.
-
I don't recall unfortunately and didn't save my informal challenge. I'd be grateful for any advice / improved wording. TYIA
-
No, this is not the right approach and looks like AI to me.
Can you recall what you said in your initial challenge?
-
Thanks for the quick replies. How is this revised draft ?
-----
Formal Representation Against PCN [Insert PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
Location of Alleged Contravention: [Insert Location]
Date of Issue: [Insert Date]
Grounds for Representation: The alleged contravention did not occur.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle [VRM] and the occupier of the residential premises at [Insert Address]. I am challenging the issuance of this Penalty Charge Notice on the basis that a statutory exemption applies.
1. Statutory Exemption for Residential Occupiers
Under the Traffic Management Act 2004, a vehicle is exempt from the prohibition of parking adjacent to a dropped footway if it is parked outside residential premises by, or with the consent of, the occupier.
The following conditions of this exemption are met:
- The premises are strictly residential.
- The driveway is for a single occupancy and is not shared with any other property.
- I am the occupier of the property and explicitly grant myself consent to park there.
- The vehicle was parked outside of any controlled hours for waiting restrictions (yellow lines) at this location.
2. Topographical and Structural Facts
The physical layout of the location confirms its sole purpose as a private crossover. Specifically, the footway slopes to meet the carriageway at this precise point to facilitate vehicular access exclusively to my property. It is not a pedestrian crossing point, nor does it serve any other public utility.
3. Evidentiary Submission
Attached to this representation is documentary evidence confirming:
- Proof of address and occupancy, establishing my right to the statutory exemption.
- Photographic evidence demonstrating that the footway slopes to meet the carriageway directly in front of my unshared, private driveway, and that the vehicle was parked in accordance with the exemption.
The enforcement officer has failed to establish that an actionable contravention occurred. I require the immediate cancellation of this PCN.
-
Doesn't the statutory exemption only apply for a dropped kerb in front of a driveway?
As per stamfordman, NO.
86Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.
(1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,
(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or
(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; OR
(b)the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.
This is subject to the following exceptions.
...
3)The second exception is where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises.
This exception does not apply in the case of a shared driveway.
-
It's a raised junction table. I thought we'd established this.
I would keep it simple and assume you were done for parking by your crossover, as per their nonsense initial template rejection, and pointing out it makes no sense and in any case you can't be done for blocking your own exclusive access as it's an exemption.
I'll draft something if you like.
Can you recall what the substance of your first challenge was.
(https://i.ibb.co/Q31GR0bg/image.png)
-
Doesn't the statutory exemption only apply for a dropped kerb in front of a driveway?
So in order to apply this - I need to show that the carriageway has NOT in fact been raised to meet the footway ? (the alleged contravention)
The presence of the dropped kerb evidences this point, because had it been raised, then the dropped kerb could not possibly exist.
-
Wrong tack IMO.
The kerb is considered to be part of the footway.
That another part of the footway slopes towards the kerb is not the issue: it's whether the kerb has been lowered to meet the carriageway and IMO your 'does this photo help' does help by showing that the carriageway has been raised. If you scan either side you can see that(as far as is possible in highway engineering terms with a pre-existing kerb) the kerb is level.
IMO, your first (only?) argument should be the statutory exemption, not a debate about raised v lowered.
-
How is this ?
---
Formal Representation Against Notice to Owner
PCN Reference: [Insert PCN]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
Location: [Insert Location]
I challenge this Notice to Owner on the primary ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. The PCN is both factually incorrect regarding the topography of the location and legally void due to the application of a statutory exemption.
1. Procedural Invalidation via Topographical Error
The PCN states the vehicle was "parked in a special enforcement area on part of the carriageway raised to meet the level of a footway, cycle track or verge" (Code 28). This physical description is false. The carriageway at this location has not been raised. Rather, the footway is sloped down to meet the level of the carriageway to facilitate vehicle access to a residential driveway. The Civil Enforcement Officer has conflated a dropped footway (Code 27) with a raised carriageway (Code 28). Because the PCN alleges a contravention that physically cannot have occurred at this location, the penalty is procedurally defective and must be cancelled.
2. Statutory Exemption under Traffic Management Act 2004
Notwithstanding the CEO’s fatal error in coding the topography, no parking contravention occurred. The location is a dropped footway serving a single residential driveway. Section 86(3) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 explicitly exempts vehicles parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a dropped footway if the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by, or with the consent of, the occupier.
As the registered keeper of the vehicle and the occupier of the property at [Insert Address], I authorised the vehicle to be parked in this location. The statutory exemption is fully engaged.
I require immediate cancellation of the PCN. If this representation is rejected, you must provide the CEO’s complete topographical survey notes and photographic evidence specifically proving a raised carriageway, rather than a sloped footway, exists at this exact coordinate.
To accelerate the cancellation of this PCN, I have attached photographic evidence confirming the existence of a dropped footway, demonstrating unequivocally that the carriageway has not been raised. Furthermore, I have attached proof of residency at [Insert Address] to validate my authority to engage the Section 86(3) exemption.
-
When you get the NTO post draft reps here first.
-
ok thank you so much. I will raise a formal challenge then in response to the NTO. Will update you how I get on :)
-
Then, if this is supported by the evidence, this applies and you have no worries:
3)The second exception is where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises.
The exception is not contingent upon the purpose of the raised carriageway.
-
No, this was not the case.
-
I do have a crossover, between my driveway and the road
Thank you. Which leads on to whether any part of your car was parked on the raised carriageway adjacent to any part of the footway other than the limits of your crossover?
-
You keep coming back to your argument but without answering what IMO are key questions:
Does the raised footway extend beyond your crossover;
Was any part of your vehicle parked OTHER THAN adjacent to your crossover?
IMO, if it does and if you did, by more than a de minimis degree, and if it would be accepted by an adjudicator as a raised carriageway for the purposes of s86(b), then you have a problem.
Sorry, not intentional, does this photo (https://i.snipboard.io/9MUtC2.jpg) help ?
- I'm not aware of any raised footway at all - but the speed hump and dropped kerb extends for a few reasons (see photo just linked)
- I do have a crossover, between my driveway and the road
Does this photo (https://i.snipboard.io/9MUtC2.jpg) help to illustrate at all ? I don't think I'm anywhere near the pedestrian crossing
-
OP, so as you do not have a crossover, your reference to 'driveway' is to your property off the highway, yes?
If so, then although the initial burden falls to the council to demonstrate that the carriageway falls within 87(6)(1), IMO you could not rely upon the exemption you're claiming.
A view.
-
From the council pics I'd say it's about a pedestrian crossing - there's nothing showing crossover access.
-
You keep coming back to your argument but without answering what IMO are key questions:
Does the raised footway extend beyond your crossover;
Was any part of your vehicle parked OTHER THAN adjacent to your crossover?
IMO, if it does and if you did, by more than a de minimis degree, and if it would be accepted by an adjudicator as a raised carriageway for the purposes of s86(b), then you have a problem.
-
ok thank you so much. So on what basis do I challenge the NTO ? Simply that I was parked in front of my driveway, which is why the kerb was lowered, and not in front of a pedestrian crossing ?
-
So there is a longstanding junction table there. Just some repainting.
I spy tactile crossing points so presumably you were well clear of these.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/D14ZHKKJsrstzMuw7
I would wait for the NTO. If they are going after the whole table as a crossing rather than blocking your drive-in you'll find out then. They will probably reoffer the discount especially as they sent a nonsense initial rejection.
-
No works that changed the driveway or pavement or crossover. Just in google maps there is hoardings in front of the driveway.
Otherwise, Google Maps is fully up to date.
Is parked outside my driveway an exemption to the code they've issued under ? (code 28) - I.e. I need to challenge the code 28 not the code 27 referenced in their challenge rejection.
-
Maps is out of date - it seems there were recent works?
Take pics of the extent of the raised carriageway and any obvious crossing points.
For formal reps I would just go with parked outside your own drive-in, which is an exemption.
-
I've shared all the photos from the counsel and a google maps link.
What else would you like to see ?
-
Anyone have any thoughts based on the above ? Thank you in advance !
Totally confused.
Why do you continue to obscure essential details, preventing us looking for ourselves and understanding the bigger picture?
The supposed raised carriageway appears to be a standard speed hump? The rejection is nonsense as has been said.
But how can we help you make a case if we don't understand the situation?
-
The photos aren't very clear IMO.
Questions in my mind:
Does the raised carriageway extend beyond the your crossover;
Was any part of your car parked anywhere on the raised carriageway other than adjacent to your crossover?
Raised carriageways can work in both directions, as here i.e. facilitate pedestrians crossing and providing kerb-free access to crossovers.
IMO, you would need to have been parked wholly within the boundaries of your crossover to claim the exemption.
(edited to change my repeated misuse of 'raised footway' to 'raised carriageway')
-
There are no signs for dropped/raised footway crossings but you often see dropped kerbs at the corner of roads and obviously some have tactile paving.
But we have seen these entire junction tables upheld as a big pedestrian crossing area at the tribunal.
I would go on with this not least because their rejection is daft although we don't know what your challenge was. We don't know why the PCN was issued (see law below).
Are you the registered keeper and has the logbook gor the correct name and address.
---------
The law
86 Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.
(1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,
(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or
(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or
(b)the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.
This is subject to the following exceptions.
(2)The first exception is where the vehicle is parked wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of the carriageway where parking is specifically authorised.
A “designated parking place” means a parking place designated by order under section 6, 9, 32(1)(b) or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27).
(3)The second exception is where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises.
This exception does not apply in the case of a shared driveway.
-
Right but wouldn't that table need to be signed somehow ?
Is there a 'pedestrian crossing' that exists that is not signed in any way ? I.e. no road markings or signage?
It's my own private driveway.
-
Their letter makes no sense as it is template for a code 27 lowered footway, whereas the contravention you have is for code 28, where the carriageway has been raised to footway level.
There are two likely reasons for the PCN.
There is a table at the junction there and they consider the whole table is a pedestrian crossing.
Your car was blocking a driveway - that's OK if it's yours alone but it's a contravention if the driveway is shared.
-
Anyone have any thoughts based on the above ? Thank you in advance !
-
Council Photo 1 (https://i.snipboard.io/YMdKxE.jpg)
Council Photo 2 (https://i.snipboard.io/H6thnA.jpg)
Council Photo 3 (https://i.snipboard.io/GIhQvM.jpg)
Council Photo 4 (https://i.snipboard.io/rtaCj6.jpg)
Council Photo 5 (https://i.snipboard.io/BmSZPw.jpg)
Google Maps (https://maps.app.goo.gl/BZbUG4ZygQLAsNYq7)
I don't have a copy of my challenge, but their rejection letter is here (https://i.snipboard.io/NC51Ln.jpg).
-
Forget the yellow line. The contravention is being adjacent to a raised carriageway to the footway, usually enforced on what is deemed a pedestrian crossing or vehicle access area.
We need to see the council's pics so post them or tell us the PCN number and car VRM.
Also what is the Goggle Maps location.
Also post your challenge and their rejection.
-
Hi all - I got this ticket... On a yellow line, in front of own driveway, outside of controlled hours.
PCN photo (https://i.snipboard.io/mbN4TJ.jpg)
Car relative to driveway (https://i.snipboard.io/JrSvjL.jpg)
More context showing position on street (https://i.snipboard.io/uiYEjn.jpg)
They are arguing contravention code 28.
Should I pay it ? They already rejected informal challenge but their response made no sense as they rejected because I was parked in front of a dropped kerb (which is a different contravention code).