Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Coldhands on April 02, 2025, 12:13:41 pm
-
TfL didn't take any further action on this PCN, but also didn't send through any correspondence to cancel it. Is there anything else I need to do or is the PCN considered effectively cancelled after any particular length of time?
What is the online status/history of the PCN say?
Online status says on hold, formal reps received.
-
TfL didn't take any further action on this PCN, but also didn't send through any correspondence to cancel it. Is there anything else I need to do or is the PCN considered effectively cancelled after any particular length of time?
What is the online status/history of the PCN say?
-
I'm not suggesting actually doing this without getting a lot more official legal advice than I'm able to offer in my role as a completely unqualified random stranger on the internet, but In your shoes I'd consider a note saying something like:
Dear Parking
Bearing in mind that that putting up a sign that says I can park somewhere then fining me for believing that sign obviously constitutes entrapment, and I've heard nothing from you for a while, I believe my current options are:
1) Hire a legal team, apply to the Court for a stay, and ask the Court to award costs
or
2) Pay up then hire a legal team, prosecute the Council for unlawful enrichment, get my money back and ask the Court to award costs.
...unless of course can you confirm that you've dropped the matter?
-
TfL didn't take any further action on this PCN, but also didn't send through any correspondence to cancel it. Is there anything else I need to do or is the PCN considered effectively cancelled after any particular length of time?
-
Interestingly a week after receiving my formal reps, someone has been to this location and marked out all the faded bays in chalk. And more interestingly have marked the exact area where I was parked as bike parking. Seems TfL may have taken my feedback seriously?
-
As in so-called footway parking signs annotated:
'In marked areas only'
OP, the mandated sign is : 'in marked bays'.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made
Part 2 Sign Table, Item 15, Col (4) refers.
-
I don't think TfL get this issue.
To go back to 1974, London was split into metropolitan roads and borough roads. The GLC was responsible for metropolitan roads alone but with support of London boroughs promoted the GLC General Powers Act prohibiting parking on the footway anywhere within the Greater London area. But they provided a means by which boroughs and now TfL could opt out for any roads in their area.
Disapplication of the GP Act does NOT of itself create parking places on the footway, it simply disapplies the footway parking ban thereby permitting waiting on the footway PROVIDED that there is not another provision restricting this e.g. yellow and, now, RED lines etc.
What TfL have done is:
To exclude those lengths of street(NOT just the footway but the carriageway as well) for those items in Schedule 2A.
But they have placed DRL there.
That's unlawful.
3. General prohibition of stopping
(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3) of this article, and of
articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10, no person shall cause any vehicle to stop on a
red route during the restricted hours.
(2) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this article, and of articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10, no person shall cause any vehicle to stop at any time on a length of red route specified in schedule 4.
(3) The controls specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this article do not apply in respect of any area of or length of road specified in an item in column (2) of the table in schedule 2A.
So, NONE of the 'lengths of road specified in column (2) of the table in Schedule 2A ' may be marked with DRL.
But they are!
My emphasis above. A 'red route' is the whole road and not, as TfL make believe, the carriageway alone.
true but it will not matter at this stage you and I both know TfL think they can make it up as they gp along
-
I don't think TfL get this issue.
To go back to 1974, London was split into metropolitan roads and borough roads. The GLC was responsible for metropolitan roads alone but with support of London boroughs promoted the GLC General Powers Act prohibiting parking on the footway anywhere within the Greater London area. But they provided a means by which boroughs and now TfL could opt out for any roads in their area.
Disapplication of the GP Act does NOT of itself create parking places on the footway, it simply disapplies the footway parking ban thereby permitting waiting on the footway PROVIDED that there is not another provision restricting this e.g. yellow and, now, RED lines etc.
What TfL have done is:
To exclude those lengths of street(NOT just the footway but the carriageway as well) for those items in Schedule 2A.
But they have placed DRL there.
That's unlawful.
3. General prohibition of stopping
(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3) of this article, and of
articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10, no person shall cause any vehicle to stop on a
red route during the restricted hours.
(2) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this article, and of articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10, no person shall cause any vehicle to stop at any time on a length of red route specified in schedule 4.
(3) The controls specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this article do not apply in respect of any area of or length of road specified in an item in column (2) of the table in schedule 2A.
So, NONE of the 'lengths of road specified in column (2) of the table in Schedule 2A ' may be marked with DRL.
But they are!
My emphasis above. A 'red route' is the whole road and not, as TfL make believe, the carriageway alone.
-
Great.
The photos taken by TFL show the back of the sign and the markings though not as clearly as GSV so a formal representation needs be no more than
Formal representation re
PCN number xxxxxxx
VRM number AA 23 ABC
I make formal representation to the council with regard to the above numbered PCN on the basis that
The alleged contravention did not occur;
Your response to my informal challenge was a rejection on the basis that there are no signs or markings at the location. This is not correct. in the attached GSV both a sign and markings can be seen
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5801391,0.061252,3a,20.3y,339.15h,81.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sylXYaT0erfUzkKPVpjnziA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D8.437860915054173%26panoid%3DylXYaT0erfUzkKPVpjnziA%26yaw%3D339.1504367120462!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUxMy4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
As your GLA 2007 314 creates an exemption and the sign and markings specify parking on the pavement as evidenced is allowed the PCN and NTO must be cancelled
Regards
-
Got it i will draft something for you tomorrow evening
Can you confirm your exact parking spot. Is it here?
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5796063,0.0622555,3a,90y,11.49h,93.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPbqZoH9sYRNtRcgQI6DMog!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-3.7444762048315567%26panoid%3DPbqZoH9sYRNtRcgQI6DMog%26yaw%3D11.489395957884511!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUxMy4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
No, this is the exact spot - https://maps.app.goo.gl/sgMCNK5R5iRzPAxv9 - outside 90 Woodford ave
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Got it i will draft something for you tomorrow evening
Can you confirm your exact parking spot. Is it here?
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5796063,0.0622555,3a,90y,11.49h,93.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPbqZoH9sYRNtRcgQI6DMog!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-3.7444762048315567%26panoid%3DPbqZoH9sYRNtRcgQI6DMog%26yaw%3D11.489395957884511!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUxMy4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
-
Got it i will draft something for you tomorrow evening
-
Well I've just looked at the photos and can see a sign and markings on the pavement so lets see the NTO and make formal reps
Thanks for the reply here. NtO is attached earlier in the thread.
-
Well I've just looked at the photos and can see a sign and markings on the pavement so lets see the NTO and make formal reps
-
does the timing of the rejection to informal reps have any bearing on my case?
-
Yes, TfL rejection went to my spam initially so didn't see it until a bit later. Full letter attached.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks. Notice to owner is here - https://imgur.com/a/ej9rowr
PCN - 26th March
Informal rep - 2nd April
Response from tfl - 7th April
NtO - 29th April
Informal representation rejected 7th April and NtO 29th April?
Please post up all of the TFL rejection? Redact your name & address and email address.
-
Thanks. Notice to owner is here - https://imgur.com/a/ej9rowr
PCN - 26th March
Informal rep - 2nd April
Response from tfl - 7th April
NtO - 29th April
-
Please post the NtO (only redact yr name & address - leave all else, especially the date, in).
I think (but do wait and see what others say) you could write something like
I rely on my original challenge and also the exemption to the ban on footway parling granted by your order [give title of Order and date}.
-
I received a joke of a response to my informal representation, below, followed by my notice to owner a bit after. Any advice on anything in particular to include in formal representations?
Thank you for your informal representation regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
Transport for London (TfL) acknowledge the comments raised within your representation stating that as seen in the image
provided, the vehicle was parked in a marked parking bay, similar to the other vehicles parked along this stretch. Although,
the painted lines are very faded. Furthermore given this, you believe there was no contravention.
We issued the PCN because your vehicle was observed parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part
of a road other than a carriageway on the date and time of contravention at the above location. The Highway Code item 244
states that a vehicle "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". Parking on the pavement or verge is
therefore potentially dangerous to pedestrians, and could potentially cause damage to pipes and cables housed under the
paving stones. In the few locations where parking on the pavement is allowed, it is clearly indicated by signs and road
markings. There is no signage or road marking in place at the above location indicating that parking in this manner is
permitted.
It is the legal responsibility of every road user and business operator to identify all the traffic laws that must be complied
with, and to then comply. The relief of congestion and the improvement of traffic flows are of strategic importance to
London. The red routes are by definition roads that are particularly sensitive to the disruptive effect of illegal stopping. As
the Highway Authority with the responsibility for the performance of the red route network, TfL places a very high priority on
achieving full compliance with the restrictions and expects every road user to plan and operate their road use fully within the
law at all times.
The Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) in this case is considered by Transport for London (TfL) as a credible witness. The
Officer is employed by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) as a CEO and was acting on behalf of TfL in enforcing the red
route regulations.
We have considered your informal representation. However we do not consider you have established grounds or suitable
reasons for the Penalty Charge to be cancelled.
-
TfL got back to me. Interestingly an order does exist setting out an exemption that covers this spot. See schedule 2a, item 25.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks, have done that while we wait!
-
Thanks. Seems reasonable.
While you're waiting for a reply, you might submit a request to TfL for a copy of the resolution made under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council(General Powers) Act 1974 which disapplies the provisions of s15 regarding parking on the footway in that part of Woodford Avenue between Collinwood Gardens and Beechwood Gardens, ***(put in post code).
Do not refer to the PCN, this is a request you're entitled to make in any event.
-
In the submission to TfL I said the following:
I believe parking is permitted at this location based on the signage available. The sign seemed to indicate that there were marked bays to the left, although the markings for all of the bays seemed to have all but faded away. Thus I, like any other motorist, was left to deduce the locations of the bays using common sense and what was left of the markings. Given the very faded marking at the front of my car, and the sign some distance from the rear of my car, I made the very reasonable assumption that I was parking in one of the bays referred to by the sign.
-
I thought I'd give you the legal position. Whether TfL's idiocy in this matter spans weeks or decades doesn't matter, the law is the law. (except that the first time anyone gets a PCN for stopping they'd rely upon 'legitimate expectation' anyway). It illustrates collective stupidity. I'm not even certain that footway parking is supported by a resolution of the GLA, how could there be a legal document completely at odds with the Traffic Management Order which underpins the DRL.
Anyway you've submitted informal reps..
...and said what?
-
Leaving aside the legality of allowing off-carriageway parking there the absence of clear bay markings along the road there and position of sign should win this for you IMO. If you step back in time you can see various markings but it's what's there now that counts IMO.
Exactly my reasoning. I've done the initial challenge with TfL now, let's see what they come back with.
-
Motorists aren't allowed to park anywhere there whether within marked bays or not. TfL are idiots.
You cannot have double red lines and footway parking because the effect of the DRL is NO stopping, let alone parking/waiting, at any point between the centre-line of the carriageway and the back of the footway.
I cannot make out what point you're making. I can see that they have tried to leave single vehicle width gaps to allow cars to cross the footway, did you park wholly or in part on one of these?
Interesting, thanks for the reply and no, did not park in any of those gaps used for crossing the footway, neither wholly nor in part.
-
Leaving aside the legality of allowing off-carriageway parking there the absence of clear bay markings along the road there and position of sign should win this for you IMO. If you step back in time you can see various markings but it's what's there now that counts IMO.
-
Well, this line and sign arrangement is of long standing; here is GSV 2008
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GhQfioS38vq3NF6cA
-
Motorists aren't allowed to park anywhere there whether within marked bays or not. TfL are idiots.
You cannot have double red lines and footway parking because the effect of the DRL is NO stopping, let alone parking/waiting, at any point between the centre-line of the carriageway and the back of the footway.
I cannot make out what point you're making. I can see that they have tried to leave single vehicle width gaps to allow cars to cross the footway, did you park wholly or in part on one of these?
-
I've parked in this spot many times over the many years I've lived here usually 9-5 (it's near the station) with no issues. Many others park along this stretch routinely. There's a park on pavement in marked bays only road sign, with an arrow pointing left. I was parked just to the left of this.
Issue is that none of the 'bays' are clearly marked at all, they are all faded. So you'll see that my 'bay' is only marked on one side, and only faintly at that.
Am I able to contest this, on the grounds that any reasonable motorist would believe that this is a valid, albeit faded parking bay (it is to the left of the parking sign, there is a marking visible on one side, and all the other bays here are also faded)?
https://imgur.com/a/IWBxgRV
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HkkKwJ99jkjySDe18?g_st=ac