Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Mana on January 20, 2026, 05:59:39 pm
-
I did this which is better. They'll probably reject at this stage though.
-----------
I am challenging the PCN as the contravention did not occur. No part of my vehicle was adjacent to a part of the footway lowered for the purposes set out in the legislation.
As you can see from your CEO’s pictures, only a trivial portion of my car extends beyond the sloping kerb to the fully lowered part, and I enclose my own picture showing that this sloping kerb is adjacent to a pedestrian gate and is at the opposite end of the lowered portion of the footway.
At the other end is a vehicle access gate but my car was not in any way adjacent to this. It is clear that the lowered area extends beyond where it should be.
I only parked there briefly while I collected an iPad from a friend and I was careful to ensure I was well away from the vehicle gate.
I trust that given no contravention occurred you will cancel the PCN and look forward to your early confirmation.
-
How is it not quite right, if I may ask?
-
This isn't quite right. I'll tweak it later.
-
Here it is:
PCN Number:
Vehicle Registration:
Date of Issue: 20 January 2026
Location: Seacourt Road, Abbey Wood
Subject: Formal Challenge against PCN [no].
I am writing to challenge the above-mentioned Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for the alleged contravention: "Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway."
I believe the PCN was issued incorrectly for the following reasons:
1. No Obstruction to Pedestrian or Vehicle Access
The dropped kerb in question appears to serve a small pedestrian gate. My vehicle was positioned in a way that left "more than enough space" for pedestrians, including wheelchair users, to enter or exit the gate unimpeded. Furthermore, the vehicle was not parked in front of the primary large gates nearby, which are used for vehicle access.
2. Lack of Clarity and De Minimis
There are no road markings (such as a white "H-bar") or signage indicating that this specific area is a restricted "special enforcement area". Given that the overhang is entirely trivial and does not interfere with the purpose of the lowered kerb (pedestrian crossing or vehicle access), I request that this PCN be cancelled on the grounds of de minimis.
The vehicle was only stationary for approximately 6-7 minutes while I collected an item from a nearby property. In light of the evidence showing no actual obstruction and the wheels remaining on the standard kerb line, I trust you will find it appropriate to cancel this notice.
Is this a good start?
-
Draft a challenge and we'll tweak it.
A picture at a right angle to the area of contention would be best.
I'll start working on it now.
-
Draft a challenge and we'll tweak it.
A picture at a right angle to the area of contention would be best.
-
In my experience Bexley aren't very good at parking law
-
Does this help, Stamf?
(https://i.ibb.co/m5Cxc0z6/2026-01-20.png) (https://ibb.co/k2gdSJcQ)
-
Can you reload it on https://imgpile.com - the image disappears for me.
I can see it's good news as the sloping kerbstone looks to go part-way adjacent to the small gate so there's no way you were by an area that should be relevant to the law, but you may have to tough it out with the council.
-
Is this perfect?
https://ibb.co/k2gdSJcQ
-
I can see from Maps it's a recent development with a new dropped footway as the most recent view shows building work.
The contravention concerns access across the footway from the carriageway and can only be for three things - pedestrian crossing, vehicle access, cycle track. I'd say that small part where you were is none of these and the slight overhang is trivial (the sloping kerbstone doesn't count).
Can you get a picture of the kerb and gate taken from the carriageway - ie the first of the pics I posted but without a car.
-
Those gates (both of them) were closed when I arrived, and when I returned.
My car is not close to obstructing the main gate, where a vehicle can come in or out, but the small gate where pedestrians can enter...MORE than enough space for them to go through it, especially a wheelchair.
-
The rear of your car is a bit over what looks like a longish historical dropped footway and only by a small gate whereas a large gate is further along.
I'd say this is challengeable.
Are those gates in use.
(https://i.ibb.co/fVSLbq6C/b3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/8nZG40mv/b2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/p6JDxqkT/b1.jpg)
-
Post the PCN.
What is the VRM - the PCN number is useless alone.
https://ibb.co/ZzDb4f00
https://ibb.co/HTCQ6cXB
-
Post the PCN.
What is the VRM - the PCN number is useless alone.
-
Bexley PCN Number: XL2635676A
Ran to collect my iPad from a friend for 6-7 minutes from the block of flats behind...only to get this.
This is the first time I got penalised for this...no signs (apart from "BEWARE OF DOG" and no parking in front of the gates...which I clearly wasn't), no yellow, red or white lines...nothing, to get a £70-£140 charge for this feels criminal.
Advice?