Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: osa on July 09, 2025, 02:52:06 pm
-
the hospital nearby.
-
Cause I thought it was okay to as the whole road on pavement parking also in a bit of a hurry.
Hurry for what...
-
Are you the registered keeper with current DVLA details?
-
Cause I thought it was okay to as the whole road on pavement parking also in a bit of a hurry.
-
Why did you park there.
-
Can anything be done?
-
Show how my car blocks the path for less abled people and could damage the pipes in the ground but the car LITREALLY in front is okay to park there
-
Here it is
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
With respect you did not, you received a letter or email.
Pl post exactly what your received(less your personal details).
-
This is what i got back
-
Thank you for writing to us regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice.We have carefully considered what you say but we have decided not to cancel yourPenalty Charge Notice (PCN).You were issued a PCN for parking with one wheel (or more) on the pavement or off theroad. Pavement or off-road parking is not allowed unless signs say otherwise. This ruleapplies 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and is enforced because vehicles:• can get in the way of pedestrians, especially blind people or people with prams; and• can damage paving or underground pipes.This rule applies to disabled badge holders too; it is not a situation where you may useyour disabled badge.
-
the following is my appeal letter is it okay if i reference the case posted by stamfordman if not ill take it off
I am writing to challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that I believed I was parked lawfully and that the signage and road layout at the location are inadequate to clearly indicate any prohibition on footway parking.
I was displaying a valid Blue Badge and parked where I genuinely believed footway parking was permitted. This belief was reinforced by signs placed in the main road that appear to indicate footway parking is allowed. However, the signs used are prescribed for area-wide exemptions (Item 12 of Schedule 7 of the TSRGD 2016), not individual parking places. These signs are not accompanied by any termination signs, so it was reasonable to assume the exemption applied continuously into the adjoining road where I parked.
There are also no compliant signs or markings in Amhurst Gardens to indicate either:
The start or end of any permitted footway parking area, or
That the area I parked in was not covered by the exemption indicated on the main road.
This lack of clarity created a legitimate expectation that footway parking was still permitted at the location. The signage used by the council does not comply with the regulatory requirements under the TSRGD 2016, making enforcement in this context questionable.
If the authority does not intend to cancel the PCN, I request that you provide:
A copy of the council resolution or traffic order that lawfully permits or restricts footway parking in the relevant location, and
Any signage diagrams, markings, or maps showing where footway parking begins and ends, including evidence that appropriate termination signs are in place as required.
I also refer to case 2200184855 (Adam Miller v LB Hounslow) in which the adjudicator found insufficient clarity in the signage and traffic markings in a similar situation.
In light of the unclear and possibly unlawful signage, I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.
-
I have.
I suggest you look at the main road and the signs there.
As I posted, the use of those footway parking signs is NOT prescribed, therefore as a motorist you would be confused.
I've posted before, but I'll give it another go.
The sign used - in the main road - is one prescribed for AREAS not parking places. It is NOT accompanied by an 'end' sign therefore you would be entitled to consider that its effect is NOT limited by the extent of the parking place IN THE MAIN ROAD - and therefore STILL APPLIES where you were parked.
-
Why did you park there. The council must consider needs of a BB holder.
-
Check what Stamfordman said before my last reply
-
You do not have a silver bullet, so no special phrasing.
I've given you a suggested draft:
IMO, all you can do at this stage is say that you thought that footway parking was permitted - indeed you noticed signs in the main road to this effect and you thought that this permission was continuous into Amburst and therefore as you could park on DYL by virtue of your BB you thought it was permissible at the location. If the authority are not minded to cancel then you require them to provide copies of the resolution or orders which give effect to and support the footway parking signs in the area.
-
Could you please advise me on how to phrase my appeal to support my case?
-
There is no 2-wheel up parking in the traffic order for those bays, and in fact no such legend in Hounslow's traffic order as listed on the order map.
This suggests there is no point in wondering about a resolution.
As seen on Maps, the double yellows extend into the parking bays which I think must have given rise to the adjudicator allowing the appeal I posted above.
But an adjudicator looking at wholly parking 2-up on the double yellows is likely to refuse an appeal.
There are several allowed appeals in Amherst Gardens (not in those bays) for footway parking owing to long-standing practice.
(https://i.ibb.co/M5WqPbw6/Screenshot-2025-07-09-at-20-55-13.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/JRmnBrC8/Screenshot-2025-07-09-at-20-55-30.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/Hf4CZgBx/Screenshot-2025-07-09-at-20-56-06.png)
-
I shall appeal tomorrow ill keep you updated
-
Ill try to make a draft but is there there a source to say that you cannot have a footway parking contagious with a DYL on the carriage way.
Nothing to do with your situation directly, I only included it by way of an example of their incompetence.
IMO, all you can do at this stage is say that you thought that footway parking was permitted - indeed there are you noticed signs in the main road to this effect(again in parking places*) and you thought that this permission was continuous into Amersham and therefore as you could park on DYL by virtue of your BB you thought it was permissible at the location. If the authority are not minded to cancel then you require them to provide copies of the resolution or orders which give effect to and support the footway parking signs in the area.
-
Ill try to make a draft but is there there a source to say that you cannot have a footway parking contagious with a DYL on the carriage way.
-
The footway parking signs are improper, but whether this helps I don't yet know.
There are no 'marked areas' as we see with some footway parking permissions, instead there is a discontinuous series of parking places each with its own sign(Res Permit) with a 'blue' sign beneath. This arrangement is not permitted. Where parking places on their own(i.e. not in a continuous footway parking area) allow footway parking then the prescribed sign is Item 3 or 4 in the Part 4 Sign Table here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/4
Notice that the 'P' and vehicle in each case are at the same level.
These must be enclosed within a 'white' background sign.
What the council have done is to use Item 12 in the Part 2 table here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7
These have nothing to do with parking places, they're prescribed for areas/roads. Note that the 'P' and vehicle are at different levels.
Which is all well and good, but you weren't in a parking place. So what could it mean? If they can't get their signs right then maybe the signs indicate some weird hybrid arrangement where the signs should be displayed at the start of the street but that they only want the permission to apply in the parking places, who knows? The cited case suggests that the authority's evidence, certainly at adjudication, is incompatible with the signs.
IMO, all you can do at this stage is say that you thought that footway parking was permitted - indeed there are signs in the main road to this effect(again in parking places*) and you thought that this permission was continuous into Amersham and therefore as you could park on DYL by virtue of your BB you thought it was permissible at the location. If the authority are not minded to cancel then you require them to provide copies of the resolution or orders which give effect to and support the footway parking signs in the area.
*- even these signs are b******s! You cannot have a parking place on the footway contiguous with DYL on the carriageway because DYL mean no waiting 24/7 on the carriageway and footway, which means no parking on the footway!!
-
Sorry, I'm confused. What's this?
This is what I found regarding the footway parking in Hounslow.
In London Borough of Hounslow, footway parking is generally banned, but there are exceptions where it might be permitted if specific criteria are met. These exceptions are outlined in the council's policy, which dictates that a minimum footway width of 1.5 meters must be maintained for pedestrians, and the footway should not be damaged by parked vehicles according to Hounslow Democratic Services
-
The resolution is one factor.
But I think the signage is defective as there are just signs on the bay parking signs and a lot of the road doesn't seem to have bays but footway parking is allowed.
Where does footway parking start and end?
This case suggests Hounslow may struggle to produce a traffic order showing that the yellow lines and bays are properly set out.
---------------
Case reference 2200184855
Appellant Adam Miller
Authority London Borough of Hounslow
VRM HF51ODV
PCN Details
PCN NJ32095724
Contravention date 02 Feb 2020
Contravention time 15:18:00
Contravention location Amhurst Gardens
Penalty amount GBP 110.00
Contravention Footway parking
Referral date -
Decision Date 18 Jul 2020
Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
Under Section 15(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 as amended by Section 76(3)(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 and by Section 15 of the London Local Authorities Act 2000, a contravention occurs if a vehicle is parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was in Amhurst Gardens, or that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued to it, as shown in the photographs/digital images produced by the Enforcement Authority. The images show the vehicle with two wheels on the footway.
The appellant’s case is that the vehicle was displaying his father’s disabled person’s parking permit (Blue Badge), whom he was taking to the nearby hospital.
The Blue Badge dos permit paring on a double yellow line, which the vehicle is shown partially at rest on. It does not extend to footways that are not exempt.
This contravention is often called ‘footway parking’. Footway parking is not allowed anywhere in Greater London unless an exemption applies. There is such exemption for part of the footway at this location. This should be indicated by a rectangular blue sign with a white border. However, if any part of the vehicle that is on the footway is outside the markings of the white line then the vehicle is in contravention of the general prohibition. The restriction applies twenty-four hours a day seven days a week. The footway is all land from the edge of the carriageway to the building line. It includes ‘crossovers’ which give access from the road to adjoining premises.
It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully on each occasion before leaving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they park only as permitted and that this will remain the position for as long as the vehicle will be there. Rule 244 of the Official Highway Code 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.
However, it is also the responsibility of the Enforcement Authority to ensure that restrictions and prohibitions are clearly signed so as adequately to inform the motorist of the requirements. In this case the vehicle is shown to be at the end of the street towards the junction and the plan that the Enforcement Authority have produced shows that, surprisingly, the double yellow line extends into the permitted area. It is not clear what his means or what is enforceable.
The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence actually produced by the parties and applying relevant law.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur.
Accordingly this appeal must be allowed.
-
How should I proceed with that?
-
You've been done for footway parking - nothing to do with yellow lines.
Looks like footway parking is allowed in the bay adjacent to where you were.
We can look at a possible challenge on all the footway being exempt owing to a council resolution.
-
PCN IS NJ42443860
ref LT12DFL
PCN is NJ42443860, reference LT12DFL. I only have this picture of the PCN, as I am working right now, but the code is 622.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Where's the PCN?
Also change the thread title as per:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
-
Hi all,
I received a ticket for parking on a road where I thought it was acceptable to use my blue badge. I need assistance in appealing this ticket. Was I in the wrong, and what would help my case better?
Here is a Google Maps link to the road where I parked on the right-hand side:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Amhurst+Gardens,+Isleworth/@51.4741406,-0.3273614,3a,66.6y,313.78h,73.1t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sXyNiFz-PJ_vMwGXRw0nLVg!2e0!5s20250401T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D16.903855503979415%26panoid%3DXyNiFz-PJ_vMwGXRw0nLVg%26yaw%3D313.78238376751193!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x48760d007d90d61d:0x7548b00d0fa8a214!8m2!3d51.4747945!4d-0.3298749!16s%2Fg%2F1vyxhx0t?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDcwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
[attachment deleted by admin]