Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: gahbes on August 18, 2025, 11:51:18 pm
-
What did you finally submit?
I sent the following..
I make representations against this PCN on the ground that the contravention did not occur.
The prohibition in law applies only where a vehicle is parked on the carriageway more than 50cm from its edge. The CEO’s photographs and the current traffic order (see attached) show that my vehicle was not on the carriageway but on the paved hard-standing (footway) beyond it, the edge of the carriageway being clearly defined by the raised setts/kerbstones. On that basis, the statutory conditions for this contravention were not met.
In the alternative, even if the authority were to assert that the paved area is part of the carriageway, the vehicle was stationary for less than two minutes solely for unloading purposes. Loading and unloading is a recognised statutory exemption, and the stop was both brief and necessary.
For these reasons, the contravention alleged did not occur and the PCN should be cancelled.
And attached this image..
[attach=1]
-
The current traffic order on Enfield's site puts you on the footway and those double yellows should be around that paved footway area so no contravention.
The other case was a correct contravention according to the order but their silly layout makes this not enforceable for anything in my view.
So basically, the council haven't properly implemented their own traffic order !
-
What did you finally submit?
@stamfordman, good find with TRO. QED.
-
The current traffic order on Enfield's site puts you on the footway and those double yellows should be around that paved footway area so no contravention.
@stamfordman
This is great, thank you so much for looking into this! Appeal has been submitted, fingers crossed.
-
The current traffic order on Enfield's site puts you on the footway and those double yellows should be around that paved footway area so no contravention.
The other case was a correct contravention according to the order but their silly layout makes this not enforceable for anything in my view.
(https://i.imgur.com/0gPSlvf.png)
-
I'd include details of what you were loading to add credibility.
-
@Incandescent
Thank you, that makes sense. Would you say going with my last draft would be ok then to cover both arguments?
Basically, the council, in painting those double-yellow lines at the back of the paved area accept that it is carriageway, because you can't have DYLs anywhere else. So I would stick with the loading argument. You can provide, (hopefully) details of the bulk and weight of the item, and the fact that you had to park there to load as there were no other spaces available. If you say you were not on the carriageway, the council will say you were and point to the double-yellow lines and even provide the TRO. As the loading exemption allows parking beside other vehicles you have, in my view, a good appeal argument.
-
@Incandescent
Thank you, that makes sense. Would you say going with my last draft would be ok then to cover both arguments?
-
Basically, whether this paved area is carriageway or not carriageway will only be determined by looking at the Traffic Regulation Order that established the double-yellow lines painted at the back of the paved area. This indicates the paved area is carriageway. Others on here say it's not, but paving doesn's make it off-carriageway,as there are plenty of streets all around the UK where paving is used instead of tarmac.
-
@Hippocrates @H C Andersen @Pastmybest @Incandescent
Thank you all for your input. How about this hybrid approach?
I make representations against this PCN on the ground that the contravention did not occur.
The prohibition in law applies only where a vehicle is parked on the carriageway more than 50cm from its edge. The CEO’s photographs show that my vehicle was not on the carriageway but on the paved hard-standing beyond it, the edge of the carriageway being clearly defined by the raised setts/kerbstones. On that basis, the statutory conditions for this contravention were not met.
In the alternative, even if the authority were to assert that the paved area is part of the carriageway, the vehicle was stationary for less than two minutes solely for unloading purposes. Loading and unloading is a recognised statutory exemption, and the stop was both brief and necessary.
For these reasons, the contravention alleged did not occur and the PCN should be cancelled.
-
Derek sent me a Kingston case a few days ago @ Kingston Road - similar size and I have all the 19 cases allowed.
@Hippocrates Sorry, I'm not sure what this means.
Should I challenge the PCN on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur or that I was unloading?
Any advise would be much appreciate as I have to file the appeal before midnight.
Thanks!
-
for a half metre cubed parcel the loading exemption would come into play if its from amazon you can get a picture of it and the return label this would be good evidence of loading
Ok, but should I add this to the appeal or would that just weaken the statutory-based argument?
-
Derek sent me a Kingston case a few days ago @ Kingston Road - similar size and I have all the 19 cases allowed.
-
for a half metre cubed parcel the loading exemption would come into play if its from amazon you can get a picture of it and the return label this would be good evidence of loading
-
It all comes down to whether the area with a completely different surface treatment from the rest of the carriageway and which is physically separated by raised kerbstones is, none the less, part of the surrounding carriageway. ;)
-
IMO this has nothing to do with parcels and everything to do with:
@H C Andersen Thank you, this is very interesting. I guess it comes down to whether the paved land is private or highway land (carriageway, footway, verge). Or is that irrelevant?
Below is a draft for the appeal. Would this be ok to send or should I add more detail?
I wish to challenge this PCN on the ground that the contravention did not occur.
The relevant prohibition applies only where a vehicle is parked on the carriageway. The CEO’s own photographs show that my vehicle was not on the carriageway, but on the paved hard-standing beyond the clear edge of the carriageway (defined by the raised setts / kerbstones).
-
How big or heavy was the parcel loading is defined based on the need to use the vehicle
It was a small freezer (~0.5m3).
-
Carriageway is not defined by misplaced DYL!
-
Ah, but it is carriageway, because the council have painted double yellow lines on it at the back of the area. These are clearly shown on the photos and also on GSV.
-
IMO this has nothing to do with parcels and everything to do with:
1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway in such a way that no part of the vehicle is within 50 centimetres of the edge of the carriageway.
The car was not 'on the carriageway' therefore the contravention, which is based in statute and is absolutely clear, did not occur, irrespective of the contravention description used by London Tribunals and the Mayor of London. Enforcement authorities should know the statutory provision which underpins this description.
The contravention can only occur if a vehicle is on the carriageway, which the CEO's photos show it was not
The authority seems to have conflated and confused the London-wide prohibition of parking on the footway, which refers to ROAD, with the TMA prohibition which does not. In the alternative, they seem to consider the DYL, which have been misplaced on the footway, to represent the edge of the carriageway, unless it is believed that it is lawful to place more than 30 2-feet long and 2-inch high unmarked obstructions in the carriageway. Clearly not. These mark the edge of the carriageway and what lies beyond cannot be on the carriageway.
The alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN must be cancelled.
-
How big or heavy was the parcel loading is defined based on the need to use the vehicle
-
Dear @Hippocrates, would you be able to offer any advice on this matter?
My deadline to appeal is on Monday.
Many thanks!
-
CEO has got the correct code on the PCN. Your only wayout is to convince the council that you were engaged in loading, but just returning a small package on a personal basis will probably fail the test of loading. So why didn't you just park in a parking bay ?
Apart from the above, there may be a 'technical' appeal based on council mismanagement of the enforcement process. Hippocrates is the resident expert on these so wait a bit to see what he says. He's a busy man, so don't wait so long you miss the deadline to pay or appeal or it's game over.
Thank you, hopefully Hippocrates can comment before time runs out.
Any tips on what could be seen as a more legitimate loading case?
-
It's Mr, and no, I have never been to this location, and hope never to have to drive and park in London. Problem with London is it hasn't enough roadspace to take all the vehicles that want to park. It seems that there must be a permanent fleet of vehicles in motion trying to find a space, a bit like Musical Chairs.
[/quote]
Yes, it really is and if it weren't for the kids I would probably not bother driving in London anymore. It really is no fun driving anywhere in London anymore.
I didn't park in a bay because none were available but also because I have used that same spot for over a decade without ever getting a ticket there.
-
So why didn't you just park in a parking bay ?
ah ha, I can tell you have not been to "the green" in Winchmore hill mr (or ms) Incandescent lol
It's Mr, and no, I have never been to this location, and hope never to have to drive and park in London. Problem with London is it hasn't enough roadspace to take all the vehicles that want to park. It seems that there must be a permanent fleet of vehicles in motion trying to find a space, a bit like Musical Chairs.
-
So why didn't you just park in a parking bay ?
ah ha, I can tell you have not been to "the green" in Winchmore hill mr (or ms) Incandescent lol
-
CEO has got the correct code on the PCN. Your only wayout is to convince the council that you were engaged in loading, but just returning a small package on a personal basis will probably fail the test of loading. So why didn't you just park in a parking bay ?
Apart from the above, there may be a 'technical' appeal based on council mismanagement of the enforcement process. Hippocrates is the resident expert on these so wait a bit to see what he says. He's a busy man, so don't wait so long you miss the deadline to pay or appeal or it's game over.
-
This is the other case, but that time the contravention was footway parking.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/parking-pcn-enfield/
Thank you, this is interesting. Op in this thread was successful with their appeal due to wrong code I assume. PCN had code 62 code (parked on footpath) but should have been code 01 due to DYL.
Unfortunately in my case CEO appears to have used the correct code. Can I use this case in any way? I.e. even CEO's are not sure if this spot is carriage way or pavement?
-
> as you were doing commercial deliveries so have to move on quickly to the next delivery.
Sorry if this wasn't clear, this was not a commercial delivery. I simply returned an Amazon package at the corner shop which just required dropping off. Should I add a screenshot of the Amazon return label to the appeal?
> you should be aware that 'drive-aways' were given a new process in the Traffic Management Act 2004 whereby if a CEO is preparing a PCN but the driver drove off before it could be served, they can serve a postal PCN.
Thank you, that is good to know. I didn't actually know if the CEO had already started taking pictures or not but I assume if there are no pictures then there is no proof, right?
-
This is the other case, but that time the contravention was footway parking.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/parking-pcn-enfield/
-
@Incandescent
you are correct we saw this location not long ago. not sure of outcome and can't find thread atm.
-
Submit reps that you were engaged in delivering a parcel, therefore the loading exemption for the double-yellow lines applies, and submit copies of relevant paperwork. You can also state that you were there for a very short time, (a few minutes), as you were doing commercial deliveries so have to move on quickly to the next delivery.
OK, I get the delivery explanation, but you should be aware that 'drive-aways' were given a new process in the Traffic Management Act 2004 whereby if a CEO is preparing a PCN but the driver drove off before it could be served, they can serve a postal PCN. In your case, the council would seem to have acted properly.
-
Thank you for the quick reply!
In my draft letter I don't mention the 2 min, instead it says "the stop was extremely brief and caused no obstruction. The principle of de minimis applies – a momentary unloading stop is too trivial to justify enforcement."
Should I still cut this out or could it still be helpful?
> Any explanation for the driveaway ?
Driver drove away thinking that the PCN had not been issued yet and from past experience talking to traffic wardens yields nothing other than giving them more time to issue the PCN.
Is that a problem?
-
I'm sure we've seen this one before. Although they have put up a sign saying No Parking, there are double-yellow lines on the block-paved area thus indicating it is carriageway. If they had been painted round the block-paved area then this area would be off-carriage way. HOwever, being carriageway, and with no kerb blips or signs for loading restrictions, then loading is permitted. So your contention that as you were delivering goods, your appeal text is correct, although I think I'd cut out the 2 minutes clause. We have often seen OPs say "I was only there a couple of minutes when it was clearly not possible, and the time was longer". Anyway it's irrelevant to your case.
So submit what you have prepared, but don't expect them to roll-over and cancel. The only place you'll get this PCN cancelled is London Tribunals.
Any explanation for the driveaway ?
-
Hi, I'm looking for advice to appeal this PCN with code 26. Car was parked on a hard-standing which has been used for parking by driver for at least 10 years and a small no parking sign was only recently added (but was there during the event). Does code 26 even apply here?
(https://i.imgur.com/yNVJ9oQ.jpeg)
Vehicle was stationary for less than two minutes while driver was dropping off a package. When driver returned to car the traffic warden had started taking pictures but had not placed a PCN on the vehicle yet (not sure if this is relevant). The car can be seen driving off on the last picture. PCN was received by post today.
(https://i.imgur.com/sKdzBZt.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/i2vFuYL.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/wyibq6Z.jpeg)
Google maps does not yet show the sign and satellite pics show that this spot has been used for parking.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/a1EzV1SfzoAsmb497
(https://i.imgur.com/ZAh18mf.png)
I've drafted the following appeal. What are my chances?
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: PCN [Reference], Vehicle [Registration], The Green N21
I wish to challenge the above PCN on the ground that no contravention occurred.
On the date in question, my vehicle was stationary for under two minutes solely to unload goods. The Traffic Management Act 2004, Schedule 7 provides that the “double parking” prohibition (code 26) does not apply when a vehicle is stopped for the purpose of loading/unloading, provided the activity is continuous and necessary – which was the case here.
Furthermore, the stop was extremely brief and caused no obstruction. The principle of de minimis applies – a momentary unloading stop is too trivial to justify enforcement.
In addition, the hard-standing opposite 32–34 The Green has been openly used for parking and loading for over a decade without restriction. Only very recently has a small “No Parking” sign been erected. In the absence of clear markings or prior warning, drivers had a legitimate expectation that unloading there was permitted. Sudden enforcement without adequate notice is unfair and contrary to the principles of clear signage and consistent enforcement under the TMA 2004.
For these reasons – (1) statutory unloading exemption, (2) trivial duration, and (3) inadequate notice/legitimate expectation – I respectfully request cancellation of this PCN.
Appendix – Supporting Evidence for PCN Appeal (Code 26, The Green N21)
1. Location History (Opposite 32–34 The Green, Enfield N21 1AY)
This hard-standing area has been used as an informal parking/loading spot by residents and delivery drivers for over ten years.
Until very recently, there was no restriction signage or road markings indicating that stopping was prohibited.
2. Street View Evidence (Prior to PCN date)
Google Street View, September 2024:
Images show cars parked at the same location with no “No Parking” sign visible.
Confirms that the location was treated as a normal stopping/parking place until very recently.
(Insert Street View screenshots with captions, e.g. “Figure 1 – Sept 2024, no signage present.”)
3. Council’s PCN Evidence (August 2025)
Enforcement photos (provided with the PCN) now show a new, small “No Parking” sign installed at the site.
This demonstrates the restriction was only introduced recently, without sufficient prior notice to motorists.
(Insert PCN images with sign circled, e.g. “Figure 2 – Aug 2025, small sign newly added.”)
4. Legitimate Expectation
Drivers developed a legitimate expectation that parking/unloading here was permitted, based on more than a decade of unrestricted use.
A sudden change, signposted only by a single small sign, is inadequate to overturn long-standing practice without warning.
5. Summary
Street View (Sept 2024): No signage, long-standing use.
PCN Photos (Aug 2025): New sign appears for the first time.
This supports the argument that signage was recently added and not clearly communicated, making enforcement unfair.