Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Gardener on August 25, 2026, 10:05:41 pm
-
This is Google Street View in 2014. Is it just me or does the area in question look like part of the carriageway?
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/PAMGGs2_wm.webp) (https://imgpile.com/p/KuP6G9L)
-
If the authority knows its stuff then as I posted earlier I doubt whether the OP would succeed. But IMO the OP should at least test their mettle with the issue of London Councils' contravention description suffixes because it's obviously not a grass verge.
-
It looks like it could be misleading as off-carriageway parking owing to the posts.
Only one case (multiple PCNs) on tribunal some with grass verge and My Burke wasn't bothered.
---------
Case reference 2260084021
Appellant Rachpal Kaur
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM AT57AYA
PCN Details
PCN PN2389291A
Contravention date 14 Oct 2025
Contravention time 13:10:00
Contravention location Aldersbrook Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Footway parking
Referral date -
Decision Date 07 Aug 2026
Adjudicator Michael Burke
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
on 23.06.26 I adjourned this case, writing in the following terms:
“The Adjudicator has to consider appeals against 8 PCNs issued to the Appellant’s vehicle in similar circumstances over the period 22.09.25 to 18.10.25. The allegation in each case is that the vehicle was parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway. In 6 of the cases the PCN adds (on grass verge). The Appellant disputes that the vehicle was parked in contravention with the argument that it was not parked on a grass verge.
Since 1974 there has been a London-wide prohibition on ‘footway parking’. The Highway Code advises that
‘You MUST NOT park anywhere partially or wholly on the pavement in London…’
The precise definition has been amended on several occasions and is presently expressed so that the contravention occurs if the vehicle is parked ‘with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway’. As the prohibition applies across London, there is no requirement for signage at any particular location.
The Adjudicator is satisfied that on each occasion the vehicle was parked as alleged on part of a road other than a carriageway and will set out full reasons in due course. He is satisfied that the vehicle had been moved and reparked between the issue of the first PCN 22.09.25 and the issue of the second on 02.10.25. The Enforcement Authority have therefore established 2 separate contraventions and are entitled to enforce 2 separate PCNs. However, it is not clear to the Adjudicator that the vehicle had moved between 22.10.25 (sic) and the issue of the last PCN on 18.10.25.
The Adjudicator’s provisional view is that this is a continuing prohibition and that a vehicle which remains parked in a continuing single contravention. As such the Enforcement Authority would not be entitled to enforce any of the last 6 PCNs as separate contraventions. He has adjourned the cases to afford the Enforcement Authority the opportunity either to establish that the vehicle had moved in between PCNs or to establish that separate contraventions were committed. They should note that it will not be sufficient for them to point out the PCN were issued on different days.
If they choose to make further submissions the Enforcement Authority must do so within 14 days.
The Adjudicator will also consider any further submissions from the Appellant should he choose to make any.”
On 14.07.26 I further adjourned in the following terms:
“The Adjudicator has considered the Enforcement Authority response to his letter of 23.06.26. The only point which he considers may have merit in these particular cases is point 3.2. He directs that if the Enforcement Authority continue to seek enforcement of the last 6 PCNs they provide an annotated schedule establishing the photographic evidence which they say shows the vehicle had moved between PCNs. ”
The Enforcement Authority have now responded to indicate that they accept my recommendation in relation to the final 6 PCNs. I had not made any recommendation: I merely given an indication of my provisional view of the cases but I am grateful to the Enforcement Authority for the indication that they no longer seek enforcement of the final 6 PCNs.
The Appellant has not provided any further submissions or evidence. He had originally provided photographs and video footage, which I considered together with the photographic evidence provided by the Enforcement Authority.
The suffix “on grass verge” was unnecessary and potentially confusing. The vehicle was parked on a verge but there is no grass to speak of on the verge. However, it was clearly parked on part of a road other than a carriageway. I am satisfied the PCNs remained substantially compliant and even if I took a different view this would only have resulted in me refusing the 2 cases involving PCNs which did not mention the grass verge (the first and fifth rather than the first and second). However, the Enforcement Authority may wish to avoid the use of unnecessary and inaccurate suffixes as another Adjudicator might take a different view
The Appellant should also note that even if the vehicle had not been parked on part of a road other than a carriageway it would still have been parked in contravention as it was within the restrictions indicated by the adjacent double yellow line.
It follows from all the above that I refuse the appeals in the first 2 cases but allow the appeals in relation to the final 6 PCNs.
-
Thanks.
I'd go with the obvious which is that as can be seen in the CEO's photos you were not parked on a 'grass verge' but instead on a metalled surface; the PCN is therefore incorrect in this regard and should therefore be cancelled.
-
Here's the google street view link.
Google Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5543872,0.0519242,3a,55.9y,339.13h,72.6t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sEwzKjQqjR0hKLVKCtlAVyQ!2e0!5s20250801T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D17.400485021867%26panoid%3DEwzKjQqjR0hKLVKCtlAVyQ%26yaw%3D339.12589304727817!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDgyMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)
It's at the transition between Aldersbrook Road and Rabbits Road A116.
-
Certainly looks like a road and that you were not parked on the carriageway, therefore IMO you were in contravention. You were also subject to the DYL 24/7 waiting restriction.
Could you give us a GSV link pl.
The contravention grounds suffix of 'g, grass verge' seems odd for what is clearly a metalled surface. But whether this would save the day for you, I don't know.
-
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/STq27Ry_wm.jpg) (https://imgpile.com/p/NldkLHF)
-
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/0PLyRO8_wm.webp) (https://imgpile.com/p/7e9cuva#QyLfq5E)
-
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/KErWPeI_wm.webp) (https://imgpile.com/p/7e9cuva#fIbaWne)
-
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Nd1BMto_wm.webp) (https://imgpile.com/p/7e9cuva#PZL8sdC)
-
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/jdpb3rd_wm.webp) (https://imgpile.com/p/7e9cuva)
-
Parking off-carriaeway has been an offence in London since the mid-70s and requires no signs or lines.
-
Please post the council photos for the PCN, or confirm PCN number and VRM so that they can be viewed and assessed.
-
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/dN2ijXP_wm.jpg) (https://imgpile.com/p/YJBgEf4)
-
All thoughts, suggestions and perspectives appreciated.
I have a 62G contravention, (grass verge).
I genuinely thought this was a legitimate place to park - unrestricted.
(https://imgpile.com/m/m6nPVTu)
A local has said this was City of London property but has recently been transferred to Newham Council.