Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: got_a_username on March 15, 2025, 12:10:37 am
-
Hi all,
Good news!
The PCN was cancelled, thank you all for your help, I really appreicate it.
The cancellation letter read as follows;
Traffic Management Act 2004
Cancellation of your Penalty Charge Notice
Thank you for your communication regarding the above PCN.
The Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) issued the PCN, alleging that your vehicle was
parked with two wheels over a footpath. The regulations in London always prohibit
parking on the footway. Footway parking is enforced under Section 15 of the Greater
London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 as amended by section 15(2) of the London
Local Authorities Act 2000. Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974
(legislation.gov.uk). You can review the photographic evidence at
https://www2.richmond.gov.uk/PCNViewer/ and add the PCN reference number and
vehicle registration.
You state that you have previously been advised by a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO)
that you would not incur a PCN if you park on the footway due the this road being
narrow and I note your comment that you tried to park where you believed a footway
bay was present.
However I must start by advising that footway parking in London is prohibited at all
times. I can advise that our CEOs are trained and fully aware of this contravention. It
seems to me very improbable that a Richmond trained CEO offer such a comment and
our officers will issue a PCN should they encounter a vehicle in breach of the regulations, as was the case in this instance. Additionally, the issuing officer records
‘Driver Not Seen’.
Footway parking is only permitted within a specially marked bay; this is identified with
white lines up onto the footway and signs indicating that footway parking is permitted.
There are no signs at this location, so footway parking is not allowed.
Parking with one or more wheels on the pavement is prohibited for many reasons; doing
so can cause a hazard for pedestrians including those who are blind and partially
sighted; it can also hinder wheelchair users and obstruct people with pushchairs. In
addition, there is the added potential for damage caused to pavements that are not
constructed to take the weight of vehicles, accidents arising because of falls or trips on
broken or uneven paving slabs and the increased costs of repairs to the pavements.
Notwithstanding the above, and after reviewing all the available photographs, I note the
presence of a faded bay line directly behind your vehicle which is confusing and
misleading. In these circumstances, the CEO should have reported the line and lack of
sign. Thank you for alerting me to this issue.
Please be assured that this matter has been forwarded to Parking Operations to
address as a CEO training issue. We have also requested that the lines and signs are
attended to.
-
No worries, thank you.
Will give it a go, wish me luck!
-
I still don't get it.
I wouldn't concede anything - just lose that first bit. I have edited as below,
--------
I was surprised to receive this PCN because I have previously discussed this specific parking arrangement with the traffic warden who regularly monitors the road. He assured me that no ticket would be issued under such circumstances, as the road is quite narrow and this form of parking ensures better access. This indicates either a change in approach or that someone else was on duty that day.
Please also note the parking bay markings on Wyndham Crescent are in an extremely worn state and I did my best to park where I think they were.
I have also done some homework on the presence of markings and I do not think they establish permitted parking; rather, their purpose is to delineate areas prescribed under a resolution passed by the council, as stipulated under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974.
I request that the council consult, and send me, the relevant resolution to ensure that the markings comply with its provisions and that a contravention may occur if it is clear that a car is not in the bay markings. If such a resolution does exist I also request that you repaint the markings so they are clear to residents.
I have acted in good faith in relying on the advice of the traffic warden and have made every effort to park responsibly. The unclear state of the bay markings is a factor you should also consider in my view.
Thank you for taking the time to review my challenge. I trust that you will carefully consider the points raised, and I am hopeful for a positive resolution.
-
Any help with this, i think i have to appeal by tomorrow.
-
In the photo, you can see the car is within the length of the poorly marked parking bay, the issue is due to the width of the parking pay causing obstruction to the road. Have reworded below;
On the date in question, I parked my vehicle in a designated bay situated on the footpath. I recognize that a portion of my car extended beyond the boundary of the footpath. However, the vehicle remained within the marked length of the bay and left ample room for both the road and footpath to be used without obstruction.
-
I don't get this bit:
While I acknowledge that part of my vehicle was over the line of the footpath, the car was still within the length of the bay, leaving sufficient space for other vehicles to pass freely along the road.
-
Thank you @stamfordman
How about this?
Dear London Borough of Richmond upon Thames,
I am writing to formally challenge the Parking Charge Notice issued to my vehicle on 14 March 2025, on Wyndham Crescent.
On the day in question, I parked my car in a marked bay on the footpath. While I acknowledge that part of my vehicle was over the line of the footpath, the car was still within the length of the bay, leaving sufficient space for other vehicles to pass freely along the road.
I was surprised to receive this PCN because I have previously discussed this specific parking arrangement with the traffic warden who regularly monitors the road. He assured me that no ticket would be issued under such circumstances, as the road is quite narrow and this form of parking ensures better access. This indicates either a change in approach or that someone else was on duty that day.
Furthermore, the alleged contravention may have occurred because part of my vehicle was outside the designated markings. However, it is worth noting that the parking bay markings on Wyndham Crescent were in an extremely worn state at the time. Due to their faded appearance, it was genuinely difficult to discern the boundaries of the bay, which inadvertently led to the positioning error.
Regarding the alleged contravention itself, I believe the markings themselves do not establish permitted parking; rather, their purpose is to delineate areas prescribed under a resolution passed by the council, as stipulated under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974. To confirm the validity of this PCN, I respectfully request that the council consult the relevant resolution to ensure that the markings comply with its provisions and that an actual contravention has occurred. I also request a copy of this resolution be provided should my appeal be rejected.
I ask that you take into account the mitigating factors outlined in this appeal. I have acted in good faith in relying on the advice of the traffic warden and have made every effort to park responsibly. Additionally, the unclear state of the bay markings further complicates the situation.
Thank you for taking the time to review my appeal. I trust that you will carefully consider the points raised, and I am hopeful for a positive resolution.
-
Post a draft here first.
This case could be useful.
----------
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OHv5WtqKfsGDTgUuLZ906DBJZwS9TDG3/view
2190249269
Having heard the Appellant in person I entirely accept his evidence that his
vehicle had broken down. He pushed it off the carriageway in the dark and
as a result of the worn state of the bay markings did not realise that
approximately a quarter of his vehicle was outside them. Having given the
matter some thought I am unable to go so far as to say that the principle of
de minimis applies here; and the Council is correct in that the legislation
contains no exemption for broken down vehicles.
Nevertheless the combination of the circumstances clearly amounts to very
strong mitigation and I am therefore adjourning this case in the hope that
the Council will consider it appropriate to exercise its discretion. If it is not
prepared to do so it should produce a copy of the Council resolution under
s15 (4) Greater London Council (General Powers ) Act 1974 showing the
extent of the footway parking exemptions applicable in Ashton Rd in order
to demonstrate that the bay markings correctly show the exempted area.
No further evidence or communication has been received from the Council.
In the circumstances I am unable to be satisfied that the vehicle was not
parked within an exempted area and the Appeal is therefore allowed.
-
Thank you, i will try and add that in somewhere
-
Yes I see what you're saying. I don't think we've seen a resolution though that applies only to marked bays. I thought resolutions were blankets for a street/area. CP would know better.
Here a tack is also how well the footway is marked for such bays.
-
IMO, a traffic order creates parking places which, in this case, would have to be signed. None is signed as required. The 'in marked bays' sign conveys a resolution to the effect that parking on the footway is limited. These are quite prevalent where there are vehicle access crossovers and where the passable part of the footway needs to be protected for pedestrians.
As far as I am aware, footway parking markings only have to be applied on the footway, they are not required on the carriageway for obvious reasons, whereas parking places created under a traffic order must be marked in full.
-
Furthermore, regarding the alleged contravention, I believe this occurred because part of my vehicle was outside the designated markings. However, it is worth noting that the markings themselves do not establish permitted parking; their purpose is to delineate areas prescribed under a resolution passed by the council, as stipulated under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974.
Not sure this is right. My understanding is the bay markings may be an invention by the council in a street where the footway ban has been disapplied by resolution. The bays are either then established by a traffic order or often as we see just paint, as I suspect here, resolution or no resolution.
-
No problem, i don't really know where else to try so will have to just give it a shot.
-
Seems fine. There are other posters who are adept at obtaining resolutions - they're not state secrets - and so whether they supply to you or not you might make progress by other channels anyway.
-
Appreicate the response! @H C Andersen
Would you add/change anything to the below appeal response?
On the day in question, I parked my car in a marked bay on the footpath. While I acknowledge that part of my car was over the line of the footpath, the car was still within the length of the bay, leaving sufficient space for other vehicles to pass freely along the road.
I was surprised to receive this PCN because I have previously discussed this specific parking arrangement with the traffic warden who regularly monitors the road. He assured me that no ticket would be issued under such circumstances, as the road is quite narrow and this form of parking ensures better access. This indicates either a change in approach or that someone else was on duty that day.
Furthermore, regarding the alleged contravention, I believe this occurred because part of my vehicle was outside the designated markings. However, it is worth noting that the markings themselves do not establish permitted parking; their purpose is to delineate areas prescribed under a resolution passed by the council, as stipulated under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974.
To confirm the validity of this PCN, I respectfully request that the council consult the relevant resolution to ensure that the markings comply with its provisions and that an actual contravention has occurred. I also request a copy of this resolution be provided should my appeal be rejected.
Thank you for taking the time to review my appeal. I trust that you will carefully consider the points raised, and I am hopeful for a positive resolution.
-
I suggest you add to these informal reps something along the lines of:
As regards the detail of the contravention, you assume that this occurred because part of your car was not within the markings. Be this as it may, the markings themselves do not create the permitted parking as such, their function is to delineate areas prescribed under a resolution passed by the council under s15(4) of the GLC(General Powers) Act 1974. Therefore it is necessary for the authority to consult this in order to be satisfied that the markings comply with the resolution's provisions and that there has been a contravention. You should appreciate a copy the this provision with any rejection.
-
Fair enough, I guess I have to try my luck.
Thank you
-
I have looked up the postcode. It is within Richmond. Your best bet is to argue 'legitimate expectation' i.e. that you have parked this way for years without a pcn and this was ok as per a traffic warden who you had chatted to.
-
Sign allows part off-carriageway parking in marked bays, but these are very worn.
However, if that's your car in the photos, you can see bay markings at the back of it, and you are beyond these, hence the PCN.
-
Hi, thank you in advance for your help.
Today, I parked in a marked bay on the footpath (yes, over the line of the footpath) but within the length of the bay so that cars could still pass up and down the road. However, to my surprise, I received a parking ticket when I returned to my car 30 minutes later.
I have previously spoken to the traffic warden who usually monitors the road, and he mentioned that he would not issue a ticket for parking like that, as the road is quite narrow when a car is also parked on the footpath parallel to mine. This suggests he has either changed his approach or that someone else was on duty today.
Also, not sure if this makes any difference but the road is actually london borough of hounslow but I got a pcn from London borough of Richmond upon thames.
Could you please advise if I have any grounds for an appeal, and if so, what I should write?
I have attached the location & some photos I took at the time.
Thank you again.
https://imgur.com/a/KG6WuMy
https://maps.app.goo.gl/J9EFj3qYrLj89reY8