Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Traffic Fairies on June 21, 2026, 12:16:56 pm
-
You're well prepared for the NTO when it arrives.
-
Hi
Just realised- I have to wait for Notice to owner (NTO) letter before making this formal representation. So 28 days applies after NTO letter is received, right? Its mentioned in the letter. Here it is for your reference:
Here is the google link to access the rejection letter:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B1PmGY3tEfDICBywcxTKBNnHQPQguYul/view?usp=sharing
Could you please clarify this?
Many thanks
-
Hi
I am currently trying to get at least a statement from my friend. If I dont get it by today- I may have to send it without it. Can you support on what should I write? I think you advise to write on the following:
"You were parked in a permit bay and were involved in an exempt activity, namely assisting ****, who is a friend and who lives at **** but was unable to get to her house unaided because of her medical condition. She was ** months pregnant and on the day this was compounded by ******.
Once she was settled in her house I returned to the car.
Is this in a nutshell?
Refer to both permit signs in support."
Many thanks
-
What happened from her perspective is what's needed. Any medical support would be useful.
-
Thank you guys. Yes- that is in a nutshell.
I can try to get a letter from my friend. What should be included in the letter- what sort of information? does she need to sign it or something?
Please advise.
Many thanks
-
This is what they ask for - anything on these lines is likely to be useful.
(https://i.ibb.co/8gr48h5j/Screenshot-2026-08-06-at-15-13-11.png)
-
You make formal reps to the authority at this stage: this is a 2-stage process, informal then formal.
If they reject formal reps then you may appeal to the adjudicator. There are no costs involved and your liability is the full penalty.
IMO, your reps are simple:
You were parked in a permit bay and were involved in an exempt activity, namely assisting ****, who is a friend and who lives at **** but was unable to get to her house unaided because of her medical condition. She was ** months pregnant and on the day this was compounded by ******.
Once she was settled in her house I returned to the car.
Is this in a nutshell?
Refer to both permit signs in support.
This means that the council must consider both parts i.e. whether you were in a permit bay and whether, if so, they agree that you were engaged in the activity.
I suggest you get a letter from her and whatever else you can in support. But time is not on your side, an NTO dated 10 July gives you until close of play on 8th to submit reps.
-
Hi
Thank you for your reply. Do I have to go to Tribunal at this stage or still dealing with council for this formal representation? The rejection was sent to me on 10th of July- by 28 days should i make this formal representation by 8th of Aug?
The evidence- I am not too sure what to provide. On the day I was helping a pregnant friend, she was shopping and became unwell. What do i provide on this- a statement?
Please advise.
I have used the following representation to appeal initially which was rejected:
Dear London Borough of Barking and Dagenham,
I challenge liability for PCN BZ72022199 on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.
On 20/06/2026, I stopped in the permit holder parking place outside 21–23 Parsloes Avenue for the sole purpose of assisting a pregnant friend who required urgent medical attention.
Although I was not displaying a permit, I contend that my vehicle was lawfully present under the assisted alighting exemption. My friend was pregnant and required urgent medical attention. Due to her condition, it was not sufficient simply to drop her at the kerbside and drive away. She required physical assistance to reach her destination safely, and I therefore escorted her to the premises to ensure that she was safe and properly attended to before returning immediately to my vehicle. My absence from the vehicle was solely for this purpose and lasted only for the minimum period reasonably necessary to provide that assistance.
I returned promptly and was back at my vehicle while the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) was still present, as evidenced by the CEO’s own photographs. This supports my account that I was away from the vehicle only briefly while assisting a vulnerable passenger. The PCN itself records an observation period of 17:09 to 17:09, suggesting that there was effectively no observation period before the notice was issued. I appreciate that CEOs have an important role in enforcing parking regulations, but in the circumstances of this case, I respectfully submit that insufficient consideration appears to have been given to the possibility that the vehicle had been stopped for the purpose of assisting a passenger.
When I returned to my vehicle, I immediately explained the situation to the CEO, namely that I had been helping a pregnant friend who required urgent medical attention. I understand that this conversation may have been recorded in the CEO’s handheld device or notebook, and I respectfully request that these notes are reviewed as part of the consideration of my representations. I also have photographs and video footage taken at the scene, with the CEO’s knowledge, in which I explain the emergency and the circumstances surrounding my brief absence. I am happy to provide this evidence should the council consider it helpful. I have attached pics in evidence section. However, I was unable upload the video (with CEO in it) as it does not have the option.
The vehicle was not parked for convenience, nor was it left unattended for any purpose unrelated to assisting my passenger. I did not stop to shop, visit premises for personal reasons or gain any parking advantage. My only reason for stopping was to provide essential assistance to a pregnant friend who required urgent support. Once I had ensured that she had safely reached her destination, I returned directly to my vehicle without unnecessary delay.
I respectfully submit that these circumstances fall within the assisted alighting exemption. My actions were entirely consistent with the purpose of that exemption, namely to allow a driver to provide such assistance as is reasonably necessary where a passenger cannot safely be left to make their own way. Given my friend’s condition, simply dropping her at the roadside would not have been appropriate or responsible.
I trust the council will also take into account that I acted in good faith throughout. As soon as I returned, I engaged with the CEO, explained the circumstances honestly and cooperated fully. At no stage did I attempt to avoid responsibility or mislead the officer. My actions throughout were motivated solely by concern for the welfare and safety of my pregnant friend.
In light of the above, I respectfully submit that the assisted alighting exemption applies and that the alleged contravention did not occur. I therefore ask the council to cancel PCN BZ72022199.
Yours faithfully,
-
The rejection asks for medical evidence - if you can provide what they ask for they will cancel it.
Have you got your challenge so we can see the full picture.
-
Hi Thank you for replying. Yes- its a similar case actually. So, how do I represent formally with barking and dagenham council? Challenging the PCN option, same as challenging it informally? Thats the option I am seeing on their web.
Would you be able to help me writing it within my context, please?
Much appreciated.
-
Possible relevant case.
----------
Case reference 2250538257
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
VRM B16FOR
PCN Details
PCN BZ63436689
Contravention date 14 Jun 2025
Contravention time 10:27:00
Contravention location Listowel Road
Penalty amount GBP 140.00
Contravention Footway parking
Referral date -
Decision Date 28 Mar 2026
Adjudicator Chez Cotton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Introduction
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for footway parking (Code 62).
2. This appeal was listed for a personal video hearing at which the Appellant was scheduled to attend. The Enforcement Authority (EA) was not due to attend but instead provided their evidence electronically. I waited for ten minutes after the commencement time, but the Appellant had not attended or otherwise contacted the Tribunal. I therefore proceeded to determine the case based upon the papers, as had been advised would occur in the notice of hearing sent to the Appellant to advise of the hearing date.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is set out in detailed representations.
4. In brief, ‘The road is subject to a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). Within this CPZ, the marked bays require all vehicles to park with two wheels on the footway in order to permit traffic flow. The Council has therefore established a clear precedent that footway parking is necessary on Listowel Road. The PCN was issued to vehicle registration B16FOR while it was parked on a single yellow line outside of CPZ operational hours. The vehicle was parked with two wheels on the footway for the same reason vehicles are required to do so in the CPZ bays: without this, no other vehicle could pass.’
5. The Appellant adds, ‘By formally requiring footway parking in marked bays on Listowel Road, the Council has created a legitimate expectation that vehicles parked outside operational hours (on a yellow line) may also park in the same manner to avoid obstructing the highway. It would be irrational to permit and indeed require two-wheels-up parking in bays, yet penalise the same arrangement immediately outside a bay where the same physical conditions apply.’
6. In summary, ‘The contravention did not occur because: • Footway parking is mandated by the Council within the same road. • Parking two wheels on the footway was necessary to avoid obstruction. • The Council has created a legitimate expectation that such parking is required on this road to maintain traffic flow.’
7. The Appellant has provided photographs in support.
8. In these circumstances the Appellant asks for the PCN to be cancelled.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
9. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on the evidence of the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) to demonstrate the contravention, and submit the photographs taken by the CEO further support that the contravention occurred.
10. The EA state the Appellant’s vehicle was observed parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or carriageway. The Highway code Rule 244 which all motorists should be aware of states; You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.
11. The EA add, ‘Footway parking is prohibited by default in London. The only exceptions are where the Council has passed a formal resolution under Section 15(4), and, where the permitted area is clearly indicated by signs and marked bays. The bays on Listowel Road represent specific, limited exceptions. They do not extend beyond the marked areas, nor do they imply that footway parking is acceptable outside of them.’
12. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations and does not wish to exercise their discretion.
13. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
14. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully.
15. The EA's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in breach of the prohibition against "footway parking". Under Section 15(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 as amended, a contravention occurs if a vehicle is parked anywhere in Greater London with one or more wheels on or over any part of a road other than a carriageway or on or over a footpath, unless an exemption applies.
16. I am satisfied the enforcement of the contravention of 'footway parking' by the EA is underpinned by this legislation, created by Parliament, and so does not require a Traffic Management Order.
17. There is no dispute between the parties that the EA has authorised footpath parking in Listowel Road. The EA state this is limited to the marked bays, the Appellant that it is limited to the entire road outside of the CPZ restricted hours. The hours on the ‘Resident Permit holders only’ sign, state ‘Mon – Fri 8.30am to 5.30pm’. I accept the Appellant was parked outside of these hours.
18. I am able to see the marked bays in the photographic evidence, and I accept the Appellant’s vehicle is parked in line with the vehicles parked there.
19. Although the EA state that kerb parking is restricted to the marked bays, I note there is no signage to state that any vehicle parking on the kerb must remain within any marked bay.
20. Therefore, on balance, I consider the EA has given permission for parking on the footway at this location. Further, on balance, I do not consider there to be signage indicating that, having permitted footway parking on the street, it is not allowed at the location in which the Appellant parked. I consider the Appellant’s interpretation to be reasonable, in that they parked in line with other vehicles parked on the kerb, and outside of the permit only restriction times.
21. For these reasons I find a contravention has not occurred and the PCN has not been validly issued.
Decision
22. The appeal is allowed for the reasons outlined.
-
Pl post your reps.
-
Hey guys
My appeal was rejected and they send me this rejection letter. It was sent on 10th of July. I believe we have to submit the formal appeal by this week-28 days right? I have been unwell and could not get in touch. Apologies.
Here is the google link to access the rejection letter:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B1PmGY3tEfDICBywcxTKBNnHQPQguYul/view?usp=sharing
Please suggest how I go about this?
Many thanks
-
Okay- thank you. I will keep that in mind.
If anyone else has any advise please do share it.
I would appreciate it.
Thanks
-
IMO,
PCN issued on 20 June therefore 14-day period ends 3 July.
Wait for other views, but if none forthcoming then submit no later than 3 July to keep the option of the reduced payment.
-
Okay. I understand. Shall i submit this for now and lets see what they come up with? Do you have any advise as in when I should submit it?
Please let me know.
Thanks
-
They might buy it but as I posted earlier, the burden falls to you to establish the exemption and I think you need to beef-up your claim. Don't share the info here if it's sensitive, but don't expect them just to believe simply based upon your say-so, they're not the most believing of people.
-
Hello guys
I have prepared the representation above. Please advise as requested.
Thank you
-
Hey guys
Here is the final one. Should I attach the video or pics that I took with the CEO on that day with this representation or wait till later? Also- when should I submit this representation- within 14 days or 28 days timeframe. The PCN was issued on 20th of June, Saturday. I look forward to hearing from you. Please let me know if you do have any feedback on the following:
Dear London Borough of Barking and Dagenham,
I challenge liability for PCN BZ72022199 on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.
On 20/06/2026, I stopped in the permit holder parking place outside 21–23 Parsloes Avenue for the sole purpose of assisting a pregnant friend who required urgent medical attention.
Although I was not displaying a permit, I contend that my vehicle was lawfully present under the assisted alighting exemption. My friend was pregnant and required urgent medical attention. Due to her condition, it was not sufficient simply to drop her at the kerbside. I was required to escort her to her destination and ensure that she was safely handed over before returning directly to my vehicle. I returned promptly and was back at the vehicle while the CEO was still present. Regrettably, the CEO only observed the vehicle from 17:09 to 17:09, suggesting no observation period whatsoever. The vehicle remained only for the period (few minutes to be precise) reasonably necessary to carry out that assistance.
The Civil Enforcement Officer’s photographs show that I returned while the CEO was still at the location. I immediately explained the circumstances and understand that notes may have been made on the handheld device. I also have photographs and video footage (with the CEO in it) from the scene explaining the emergency which I can provide if required.
The vehicle was not parked for convenience or left unattended for any purpose unrelated to assisting the passenger. Its presence was solely connected with helping a vulnerable passenger who required urgent assistance.
I therefore submit that the assisted alighting exemption applies and that the alleged contravention did not occur. I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
-
This is an informal challenge and it's going to be rejected but important to lay down some markers to use at the next stage.
Tincombe's draft is the way to go.
--------
On *** I parked in the parking place outside 23/25* Parsloes Avenue. This parking place is reserved for permit holders as can be seen in the GSV snapshot enclosed. You will notice that this traffic sign is not visible in the CEO's photos because they chose to stand at the sign when taking photos.
I accept that I am not a permit holder and therefore on the face of it I was in contravention of this restriction. However, my reason for parking was for the purpose of ******. After delivering her safely(a pun which I suspect would go over their heads), I returned to my car while the CEO was present, as can be seen in your photos. A matter of a couple of minutes, but accept that I was not clock-watching which was a secondary concern: simply helping *** to *** and returning promptly being my objective.
I believe that assisted alighting is an exemption from the permit holder restriction and therefore I was permitted to be so parked.
I cannot understand why the CEO has used the contravention in this case and can only assume that they pressed the wrong button, hence why my representations address what I think they meant.
*- a little bit a licence here..or is it, after all you didn't get a tape measure out!
Based upon your account. You should beef up what you were doing IMO.
-
No, I'd rather you used my version(plus your **** detail) as per my reply #13.
-
Hello both
Thank you so much for picking this up.
tincombe- do you want me to add this quote bit in my representation or just submit as it is?
Much appreciated!
-
A parking place on the footway disapplies the prohibition!!.
In short, it does NOT apply within a parking place which is why I'm steering you towards this argument.
4)A highway authority may by resolution, or in the case of the Secretary of State by such notice as appears to him to be appropriate, authorise, from a date specified in the resolution or notice, the parking of vehicles[F7—
(a)]on, or [F8on or over a road or part of a road] which is a highway other than a carriageway[F9; or
(b)on or over a footpath or any part of a footpath];
and notwithstanding the provisions of this section or of any other enactment or any rule of law, it shall be lawful from the specified date for any person to park a vehicle on the [F10road or footpath], or on the part thereof, as the case may be, to which the said resolution or notice relates and is for the time being in force.
-
You're going wrong. The pictures clearly put you on the footway.
-
Hey guys
Thanks a trillion for kindly looking into it and supporting me. However, I have been researching on this found the following:
If wheels WERE on the pavement
Then our assisted-alighting argument becomes much weaker.
In London, footway parking is generally prohibited by statute and there is no general assisted-alighting exemption equivalent to what may apply to waiting restrictions.
However, councils can still exercise discretion in exceptional circumstances. We are challenging a permit-bay contravention that was never alleged. That could make the council think we’re appealing the wrong PCN?
The main issue is this:
None of the CEO photos clearly show a wheel on the footway.
For a Code 62 contravention, the council must prove that one or more wheels were on:
* the footway,
* a verge, or
* another part of the highway other than the carriageway.
I have prepared the following representation. Please let me know if you have any suggestions at all. I would love your expert opinion before submitting anything.
Dear London Borough of Barking and Dagenham,
I challenge liability for PCN BZ72022199 on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.
The PCN alleges that my vehicle was parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath, or on any part of a road other than the carriageway. This allegation is incorrect.
At no time was any wheel of my vehicle on the footway, kerb, verge or any other part of the highway other than the carriageway. The vehicle was parked entirely on the carriageway adjacent to the kerb.
I have reviewed all of the Civil Enforcement Officer’s photographs supplied by the council. None of the photographs show any wheel of my vehicle on the footway. The photographs merely show my vehicle parked next to the kerb. I therefore request that the council identify which wheel it alleges was on the footway and provide clear photographic evidence supporting that allegation.
Furthermore, the PCN records an observation period of 17:09 to 17:09. The CEO photographs also show that I returned to the vehicle while the officer was still present.
For completeness, I had stopped briefly only to assist a pregnant friend who required urgent medical attention. I escorted her safely to her destination and returned directly to the vehicle. However, the principal issue is that the alleged contravention simply did not occur.
One of the CEO photographs appears to show me returning to the vehicle while the PCN was being issued. I have also taken photo and video with the officer in it (with his consent) explaining the emergency on the day. This supports my account that I had only been absent briefly while assisting a pregnant passenger requiring urgent assistance.
In the absence of evidence showing any wheel on the footway, I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
-
There are also the points that our admin identified in a similar location, but maybe that can wait until the next stage as they are unlikely to accept.
The idea is about signage and also that given footway parking is banned in London they sometimes pass a resolution disapplying the ban and it can apply throughout a road.
----------
Dear London Borough of Barking and Dagenham,
I challenge liability for PCN BZ61315872 on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur. Footway parking is permitted on Cartwright Road and there are no signs indicating footway parking is only permitted in marked bays. There is also no rule of law that says footway parking must be within marked bays, indeed there are many areas of London where footway parking is permitted even though there are no bays at all.
Where footway parking is only permitted in marked bays, the council is required to install upright signs compiling to diagrams 667.1 or 668.1 with an auxiliary plate stating "in marked bays", there are no such signs on Cartwright Road.
If footway parking is only permitted in marked bays, the authority has failed to comply with its duties under section 15(5) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, as a consequence of which the alleged contravention did not occur.
Should the council not be willing to accept this representation, please would you provide a copy of the footway parking resolution for this road.
In any even I further contend that my vehicle was merely stopped and was not parked within the meaning of the legislation. I stopped my car where I did in order to collect my 2 month old baby and grandmother who is disabled (and a blue badge holder). As soon as I walked in I grabbed baby things, opened the door and the civil enforcement officer was standing in front of my car. I asked him not to issue a penalty charge notice at which point he started printing it.
Owing to the brevity of the stop for an amount of time that was purely nominal, I content that my vehicle was not parked, and I note the legislation uses the work "parked" not the word "stopped" (this is not a red route).
It follows that the penalty charge should be cancelled in any event.
Yours faithfully
------
The council apparently rely on:
The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (Charged-For Parking Places) Consolidation Order 2016.
The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (Permit Parking and Waiting Restrictions) (Controlled Parking Zone BEC Extension D) Amendment No. 37 Order 2019.
Map tile Z13.
None of that is a resolution under section 15(4) of the 1974 Act, but even if it were, the council has not erected signs saying footway parking is permitted "in marked bays only" as required by section 15(5), so their case fails on that point, as per Lorna Jennifer Whittick v London Borough of Merton (2160383659, 10 October 2016) and Aliecee Cummings v London Borough of Lewisham (219023696A, 18 July 2019
-
I was parked in between property numbers 21-23 on that road.
So, no more than 2-3m from an upright traffic sign telling you were in a parking bay!
I suggest reps along these lines:
Contravention did not occur.
On *** I parked in the parking place outside 23/25* Parsloes Avenue. This parking place is reserved for permit holders as can be seen in the GSV snapshot enclosed. You will notice that this traffic sign is not visible in the CEO's photos because they chose to stand at the sign when taking photos.
I accept that I am not a permit holder and therefore on the face of it I was in contravention of this restriction. However, my reason for parking was for the purpose of ******. After delivering her safely(a pun which I suspect would go over their heads), I returned to my car while the CEO was present, as can be seen in your photos. A matter of a couple of minutes, but accept that I was not clock-watching which was a secondary concern: simply helping *** to *** and returning promptly being my objective.
I believe that assisted alighting is an exemption from the permit holder restriction and therefore I was permitted to be so parked.
I cannot understand why the CEO has used the contravention in this case and can only assume that they pressed the wrong button, hence why my representations address what I think they meant.
*- a little bit a licence here..or is it, after all you didn't get a tape measure out!
Based upon your account. You should beef up what you were doing IMO.
-
Hi Tincombe
Thanks for your input. I was parked in between property numbers 21-23 on that road.
Stamfordman- thank you for sharing this details. I read that thread and it appears they were rejected.
Please let me know about the ground I should prepare for this representation.
Thanks
-
To be honest, IMO you would not succeed in convincing an adjudicator on (b) or (c), primarily because you could have parked on the carriageway instead. This is based on reading decisions which, because the adjudicator cannot consider mitigation, at times seem cold and harsh.
But if you thought you were parked in a parking place, then different rules apply.
IMO, I would go for contravention did not occur because you believed you were parked in a parking place covered by the upright traffic signs* restricting use to types of permit holders but also exempting assisted alighting which applied in your case as you were ***********.
Are you local and could you get better photos of the markings please. On GSV it looks like a continuous bay with the 2 signs sitting inside.
What property were you parked outside? The numbers are distinct on GSV which would allow us to pin-point exactly where you were.
Objective:
to shift the focus from exemptions applicable to footway parking to those applicable to parking places;
Also, but perhaps later, to tie them up in knots. Their parking places are not lawful or the yellow line isn't, or maybe both! You cannot have a SYL restricting waiting forming one boundary of a parking place which permits parking when those restrictions cover the same times. And (from reading stamfordman's link) the signs aren't prescribed for use anyway unless the parking place already sits within an area where the footway parking prohibition has been lifted.
*- in the plural. Looks to the casual observer like a long parking place within which sit 2 traffic signs.
-
Have a look at this thread.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/barking-dagenham-contravention-62-drop-kerb-cartwright-road-rm9/
-
Hi
Yes thats the location. Oh okay.The marking does not look. You can park on those box Mon- Sat: 8:30-17:30 I believe.
Let me know my next steps please.
Thank you for looking into it.
-
About here?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/C694cQJgSFPSKbDg7
OK so there are footway parking bays but the markings don't look good, and the council may have disapplied the footway parking ban here.
(https://i.ibb.co/zD3JvD3/Screenshot-2026-06-23-at-12-37-48.png)
-
Hi
Not sure what you meant. When you cross the Dagenham heathway station (having station on your left) and take the left after the first signal, the parsloes avenue starts. Look at the bus in the first picture, thats the turn at the signal.
Hope it helps.
Thanks
-
What is the location on Google Maps.
-
Hello both
Thank you for replying. Yes- It definitely does fall on the category b and c (all of it). I was helping a pregnant woman and the car was there only for few minutes with the hazard on. The officer even appeared confused when I asked him- I have even shot a video (and pics-badge number as potential evidence) with him explaining the situation and upon my request he did put a note of this emergency onto the PCN details instantly which could be accessed by the PCN team. He even showed me.
Yes- Parsloes avenue is a long road and has parking box to park which I was unable to do due to the emergency.
Please advise me what I do next.
Much appreciated.
-
Where exactly is this on Google Maps. Footway parking is indicated at many places on Parsloes Avenue but it's a long road.
(https://i.ibb.co/3ydGJFVC/b2.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/fGtfSHN3/b3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/xSMQvN3m/b1.jpg)
-
Do you think one of these ( exceptions from the London-wide prohibition) applies to your circumstances:
(3)A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the vehicle was parked—
(a)in accordance with permission given by a constable in uniform; or
(b)for the purpose of saving life or extinguishing a fire or meeting any other emergency; or
(c)for the purpose of rendering assistance at the scene of an accident or a bona fide breakdown involving one or more vehicles, and—
(i)such assistance could not have been safely or satisfactorily rendered if the vehicle had not been so parked; and
(ii)the vehicle was not left unattended at any time while it was so parked; or
(d)for the purpose of loading or unloading goods [F6for a period not exceeding 20 minutes or such longer period as the council may permit], and—
(i)the loading or unloading of the vehicle could not have been satisfactorily performed if it had not been so parked; and
(ii)the vehicle was not left unattended at any time while it was so parked?
-
Hi thank you for picking this up. Its now public.
Much appreciated.
-
You need to set the link to public.
-
Hello Life savers
Just got this PCN yesterday (20th of June, 2026) whilst I was helping one of mate's pregnant wife. The Hazard lights were on and I was already gone for few minutes. Still got the ticket. I requested the officer whether he can cancel it- he said he cant as it has gone to system now. But he put the notes of my circumstances which should be found in their system. I took photo of his badge number and made a short video explaining the situation. He agreed to be on the video as well. May be we can use as evidence or so?
Please find the PCN clicking the following google link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ip7N__eYAyueJTLFACv1u9CI_Hc878rW/view?usp=drive_link
Could you please advise- how I go about this?
Much appreciated!!
Regards