Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: BMWX123D on June 19, 2025, 11:24:55 pm
-
Response received yesterday:
I refer to your recent correspondence regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
I have investigated your appeal and you are correct that the incorrect contravention code was
used as you were not parked adjacent a dropped kerb.
However, where the vehicle was parked is not a parking space, and I would advise you not to
park in this location in the future.
In view of all the circumstances, I will cancel the PCN on this occasion only, but this PCN will be
served as a warning and any future infringement in the parking regulations may not be looked
upon sympathetically.
This matter is now considered closed ;D
Why are they making it out that they’re doing me a favour by cancelling this PCN? They should stick to the facts and not be personal about it.
-
Which is why they're frustrated. There aren't any waiting or similar restrictions and parking on the footway is not a prohibition, so they make it up as they go along.
-
The counterfactual is what if this were in London, where the contravention Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway would no doubt have been issued.
-
Yes I am.
-
I'd leave out 3 because effectively it's the corollary of 2 i.e. if where you were is carriageway then there is no footway to 'drop'.
Are you the registered keeper with current DVLA details?
-
How is this for a final draft taking in all points above.
I write to challenge PCN number KM22600963 issued for an alleged contravention under Code 27.
The contravention did not occur, for the following reasons:
1. The location is not part of the carriageway.
The surface where the vehicle was parked, including the kerb and blocks, is continuous with the footway. As such, the vehicle was not on the carriageway as required under Section 86(1) of the Traffic Management Act 2004.
2. If the council maintains the vehicle was on the carriageway, then no part of it was parked adjacent to a lowered footway serving a statutory purpose. There is no evidence of a pedestrian crossing, cycle access, or driveway at this location.
3. The lowered kerbs running parallel to the location are not valid for enforcement.
Section 86 applies only to kerbs that serve a crossing or access point. Long stretches of lowered kerb not opposite a corresponding crossing point or access do not qualify.
In the absence of the legal conditions required to support a Code 27 contravention, I request cancellation of the PCN and look forward to confirmation.
-
OP, whether it's a road or not is not at issue and is not in dispute: where you parked is part of a road. 'Footways' and 'carriageways' are both parts of a 'road'.
The issues are:
Is where you were carriageway or footway, and
If carriageway, where's the dropped footway against which you were adjacent? it cannot be that length running parallel to your car. And,
If not, then where's the carriageway on which you were parked which is the first criterion of the prohibition?
-
It's what it is - clearly there is no entrance and it's part of a footway. There's even a tree.
I guess you can lose my point 2 as there is lowering.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/bPCtHP4VRAjdNiF97
(https://i.imgur.com/zp2ROye.png)
-
Was just checking land registry and ordnance survey map shows the area as a road as it’s white.[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks for the inputs. Are the blocks really indicative of a footway? Can see the footpath either side of this lowered area have some sort of drainage blocks and the lowered blocks are there just to cover the drains.
Also as this was a entrance to a road in the past, could it be that the old road was a private road and maybe that’s why they haven’t made a proper footpath in this part?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I would just send this.
-----------------
The contravention did not occur for three reasons.
1. I was parked on what is clearly a footway, not on the carriageway adjacent to a lowered footway.
2. There is no lowered footway.
3. If the council maintains my car was on the carriageway adjacent to a lowered footway there is no statutory purpose for such a contravention in evidence, namely vehicular access, cycle track or pedestrian crossing.
As this PCN has been issued in error I look forward to your early conformation of cancellation.
-
Add to what? The draft is really off the mark and IMO and others should be ditched.
The contravention description:
Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway.
Before you go any further, you have to do some lateral thinking i.e. if it's adjacent to a footway then where exactly is the car?
It's wholly or partly on the carriageway!
The relevant part of the actual statutory prohibition* is:
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—
So, is any part of your car actually on the carriageway? Perhaps a minuscule amount of your offside rear tyre which, IMO, would be considered de minimis.
The kerb is part of the footway as are the blocks under the car.
So, no contravention if where your car was parked is a footway. You could also add that as there isn't a corresponding dropped kerb opposite then (i) doesn't apply either.
But what if it's a carriageway and the dropped footways are fore and aft and not underneath? Then where are the 'dropped' parts of the footway? There aren't any. So bang goes their argument on this point.
It's been issued out of their frustration that your parking was very inconsiderate(which IMO it was) but this isn't grounds to demand a penalty.
*- because the prohibition is statutory, signs and lines are not required, you are presumed to know what you can and cannot do.
-
Looking at it with a fresh pair of eyes, the area I parked in just looks like an ordinary lay-by, a space dedicated for parking. I’ll add that in too.
-
You can junk most of that. Clearly this is not one of the three code 27 contraventions and if anything it looks like you are on what is now a footway and off the carriageway.
I'd say a couple of short points are all you need.
(https://i.ibb.co/RpYckfBh/k4.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/cKvgPyqy/k3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/wFycZVkt/GetImage.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/ynB9kHxF/k1.jpg)
-
Well, first off, you are not "formally appealing", you are submitting an "informal challenge". It's important you know the difference because if your challenge is declined, like over 95% of them are, the next thing you will receive is a Notice to Owner, (assuming you are the owner), against which you can submit formal representations.
Representations against an NtO are usually looked at a lot closer, because councils just want the easy money, so you might get it cancelled at that stage, but many councils know that they can "DNC" (Do Not Contest) an appeal at the TPT having put you through a lot of hassle. OK they lose the case, but the enormous sums of money councils earn with PCNs means they can lose a few.
Secondly, it is almost inevitable that the location isin a Special Enforcement Area, because any council that has powers to enforce parking and traffic contraventions, must have first established a Special Enforcement Area in order to do so. This takes responsibility for enforcement away from the police and hands it to the councils under the Traffic Management Act 2004, plus associated regulations. Virtually the whole of England and Wales is now under decriminalised parking and traffic enforcement.
Of the points in your draft challenge, only 3 and 5 have any value. The disused entrance does not meet the statutory requirement for enforcement, because it serves no purpose as entrance or as a road crossing, so they really should cancel this PCN solely on that basis, but they won't because they know that on receipt of a rejection, most people, as I say above, just cough-up. If you want to succeed, you have to forego the discount option, wait for the Notice to Owner, send in reps against that, get rejected again, then register an appeal at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Are you prepared to do this ? If not, it's game over now.
-
Got a Code 27 PCN in a industrial estate for parking in a unmarked lay-by type of section. No signs or road markings. Cars parked on footpath ahead of me and behind me received no PCN's.
Location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/iuJEaQ5A7T3W4Hyg7
Got a little freind to help draft an appeal letter. Does this sound ok or the points raised are invalid?
Dear Kirklees Parking Enforcement Team,
I am writing to formally challenge PCN number KM22600963, issued to my vehicle YA23 XWD on 18/06/25, for the alleged contravention under Code 27 – “Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway.”
I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled for the following reasons:
1. This Location Is Not a Special Enforcement Area
The area where the vehicle was parked is not part of a special enforcement area, as the footpath terminates before this point. The section in question is a widened part of the carriageway, not a footway, and there is no continuation of pedestrian access beyond the kerb. Therefore, the key condition for Code 27 – adjacency to a footway, verge, or cycle track – is not met.
2. Vehicle Was Over 1.5 Metres from Any Dropped Kerb
The vehicle was parked at a clear distance of more than 1.5 metres from the nearest dropped kerb. It is therefore not adjacent to the dropped section, and does not meet the proximity criteria for this offence under civil enforcement guidance.
This further confirms that the vehicle was not interfering with access or egress at that location.
3. Dropped Kerb Is Disused and Serves No Purpose
The dropped kerb at the location is a legacy feature from a former road entrance which was closed off more than 15 years ago, as verified by Google Earth satellite imagery:
• The 31st December 2020 image shows the original road alignment.
• The 1st June 2009 image already shows the area permanently closed off.
The dropped kerb is not linked to any footpath, cycle track, driveway, or access point, and therefore should not be treated as enforceable.
4. No Obstruction Was Caused
The vehicle was parked fully on the carriageway and not obstructing any pedestrian route, cycle access, or driveway. In contrast, other vehicles parked nearby on the actual footpath created far more obstruction but were not penalised. This points to selective or inconsistent enforcement.
5. No Signage or Road Markings Were Present
There are no signs or painted road markings to indicate that this location falls within a restricted or specially enforced area. This creates confusion and leads to a lack of fair notice for drivers.
6. Officer Error in Applying Code 27
It appears the Civil Enforcement Officer misjudged the site and issued the PCN based solely on the presence of a dropped kerb without considering:
• The distance of the vehicle from it,
• The lack of adjacent footway,
• The non-functional nature of the kerb, and
• The lack of any restriction indicators.
Conclusion:
Given the above, I kindly request that the PCN be cancelled on the grounds that:
• The area is not a Special Enforcement Area,
• The vehicle was not adjacent to any functional dropped kerb,
• The dropped kerb is non-operational and historic,
• The vehicle caused no obstruction,
• And no signage or fair notice was provided.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards
Also checked on Google Earth historic satellite images and it shows this bit of the road was an entrance to an road more than 15 years ago.
See more images here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/4eyvt7eape1jmj83335r2/AA5DJtX9RgHiwMpWM0gc65c?rlkey=ddvg2veacs283eisxmifoxpck&dl=0
Thanks!