Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote

thanks and apologies but still not sure what is the minor design error here? e.g. what does '50mm' and '40mm' mean?

Not wishing to overthink this because it may turn out to be irrelevant. But before I answer this question, please confirm the photo of the sign you posted was from Google Street View (GSV). If so, it would be better to take your own photos of the sign, one for context and one close-up, then post them here. Sometimes GSV is out of date.

The upright sign in this case is critical for the contravention to be made out. The road markings alone are not enough. Once I’m sure what sign(s) were in place, I’ll give a more detailed answer. In the meantime I suggest you follow HCA’s advice/text.

Perhaps add that the contention that the contravention can only apply to the centre of the carriageway is supported by parking bays on the side on which you parked

Pl don't overthink this.

Contravention did not occur

The markings shown in the council's video are those prescribed for use at Item 10 of Part 4 of Schedule 7 to the Traffic Signs etc. Regulations 2016 which apply in this case. The prohibition is as follows:

Part of the carriageway outside an entrance where....vehicles should, or must, not stop.

Therefore in this case the only issue at large is whether I was stopped on 'part of the carriageway' to which the sign applies.

The answer is in the authority's own evidence which is a video showing my car parked on that part of the carriageway beyond the centre-line and therefore not a part of the carriageway to which the restriction applies.

If the authority considers that any part of my car was parked on that part of the carriageway to which the prohibition applies then they must reject these representations.

However, the council's video and this extract from a recent decision of adjudicator Michael Burke (ETA case reference 2250155724) would suggest that to take such a position would be at best frivolous and at worst an abuse of the council's power:

'The school markings indicate a prohibition which extends to the mid-point of the carriageway.
The Appellant could have pulled over to the left-hand side of the road in order to drop off his passenger but he remained in the centre of the carriageway with a significant section of the vehicle on the side of the carriageway prohibited by the school markings.'

The PCN must be cancelled.

Hi,

I've just posted another reply to your Facebook posts, copied here...

This is an interesting case and a very difficult one to call. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (as amended), Schedule 7, Part 6, para 3 states, “...a person driving a vehicle must not cause it to stop on that marking...”. Technically you weren’t stopped on the marking, but how would an adjudicator interpret this?

As a side issue, there’s a minor design error in the upright sign on the photo you posted. The x-height of “No stopping” should be 50mm and “Mon - Fri” should be 40mm. It looks wrong to me, but probably not substantial enough for the PCN to be cancelled on this alone.

This case ruled on by one of the toughest adjudicators says the restriction extends to the mid-point of the carriageway as I indicated so Mr Andersen may well be right that your car was outside what can be ruled as the restriction.

----------------

Case reference 2250155724
Appellant xxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Barnet
VRM DE21FYH
 
PCN Details
PCN AG47309883
Contravention date 29 Nov 2024
Contravention time 08:35:00
Contravention location Southover
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Stopped in a restricted area outside a school etc
 
Referral date -
 
Decision Date 25 Jul 2025
Adjudicator Michael Burke
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was stopped in a restricted area outside a school, a hospital or a fire, police or ambulance station. The Appellant does not in fact dispute this although he asserts that the vehicle was not actually on the road markings. He says that the signage indicates the prohibition on the school markings.
The enforcement camera evidence shows a brief but clear example of the contravention with the vehicle apparently stopping to allow a passenger to alight. The prohibition is not limited to vehicles touching the actual markings. If it was then the Appellant would have been entitled to park and leave his vehicle there. The school markings indicate a prohibition which extends to the mid-point of the carriageway.
The Appellant could have pulled over to the left-hand side of the road in order to drop off his passenger but he remained in the centre of the carriageway with a significant section of the vehicle on the side of the carriageway prohibited by the school markings.
There is a strict prohibition on stopping in the restricted area outside a school. There is no boarding/alighting exemption.
The brevity of the stop amounts only to mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion but Adjudicators have no power to direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.

Quote from: Vince138 on June 13, 2024, 10:33:46 pm

however that is still quite far from Chandos road, am i wrong in thinking that the council should have put up the event information signage on Chandos road itself?

also i really cannot remember seeing any event date signage at the control point but i could be wrong....not sure how to go back and check 11th June

@Vince138 well you could go back and check what the sign says now. It's important to remember that if you go to the tribunal the council has to prove the signs were there on the 11th, it's not up to you to prove that they were not. Therefore no issues about signage should be raised until after the council's evidence pack has come in at the tribunal stage, as you don't want to forewarn them that they'll be put to proof.

Another argument that can be made is that CPZ signs relate to waiting restrictions, you had no intention of parking on a single yellow line, so the CPZ sign was not strictly relevant.

For now I'd recommend sending the council off the scent with a representation as follows:

Dear London Borough of Newham,

I challenge liability on the ground that the allegation on the face of the PCN is bad for duplicity. In Andrew David Rush v London Borough of Southwark (2120562288, 5 January 2013) adjudicator Austin Wilkinson held that:

"It is quite clear from Mr Rush' communication of 13th June that he had no notion of why the Penalty Charge Notice had been issued.

I see that the allegation in the Penalty Charge Notice is the standardised and rather complex wording of a "12" allegation. It consists of 36 words and encompasses the possibility of application to three different types of parking location and four different ways in which a contravention might occur.

The reason for this standardisation relates to how the Mayor of London authorises rates of penalty.

However this does not exempt the local authority from the legal necessity of giving to the Appellant an adequate description of why the claim to penalty is being made: he must be able to make an informed decision as to whether to pay the discount rate or dispute the PCN.

The PCN did not, in my judgement, adequately explain to Mr Rush that his displayed voucher was not valid in a permit bay.

I regard this as a procedural impropriety and I allow the appeal."

This was followed by adjudicator Carl Teper in Natalie van Dijk v London Borough of Islington (2150275729, 23 September 2015), and in Marian Bostan v City of London (2170116728, 13 April 2017) adjudicator Anthony Chan held that "A PCN should allege no more than one contravention and putting two contraventions in the alternative does not get round this rule."

In this instance the allegation on the face of the notice is clear as mud, there is no actual explanation of what the alleged wrongdoing supposedly is.

In light of this the PCN is invalid and must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

Send the representation online and take a screenshot of the confirmation page.