Free Traffic Legal Advice

The key parts of the quoted decision is that the edge of the carriageway can be construed as being a barrier, this being the case then the first limb of the contravention in your case fails and the contravention did not occur. The adjudicator also clarified the issue 'not in a parking place' which is not how Westminster interpret matters.

Mr Rowling is an idiot. If the vehicle is not more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway then consideration as to whether there's a parking space is irrelevant: were they to use the same reasoning in any formal rejection would IMO be grounds for procedural impropriety as well, not that you'd* need this!

IMO, wait for the NTO. Are you the registered keeper?

This case won by our admin is better but as I said we don't usually cite cases at informal challenge stage as it's too confrontational and also makes a challenge too formal.

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

Case reference 2240321907
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM DX16 UDN
PCN Details
PCN PN37747431
Contravention date 14 Jan 2024
Contravention time 05:00:00
Contravention location Gallions Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked more than 50 cm from edge of carriageway
Referral date -
Decision Date 02 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Belinda Pearce
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons
As a result of a Statutory Declaration/Witness Statement, sworn by the Appellant at the Traffic Enforcement Centre, an Order was made by Northampton County Court cancelling the Charge Certificate but not the original Penalty Charge Notice.

It falls to me now to determine this matter on the evidence presently before me, adduced by both parties.

A Telephone Appeal Hearing was scheduled for 9 a.m. today, 2nd November 2024; I spoke with the

Appellant's representative, Mr I. Murray-Smith on the contact number provided.

1. The Enforcement Authority assert the whereabouts of the said vehicle at the relevant time on the material date, to have been parked otherwise than within 50 centimetres of the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking space.

2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of his challenge as initially stated and subsequently comprehensively set out in the Skeleton Argument submitted by Mr Murray-Smith, which challenge Mr Murray-Smith reiterated and further detailed during the Telephone Hearing.

3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so parked contrary to the operative restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-

The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises copy Penalty Charge Notice, contemporaneous notes attributable to the Civil Enforcement Officer together with contemporaneous photographic evidence: 5 images showing the said vehicle in situ, unoccupied and unattended.

4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was examined to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the representations advanced on the Appellant's behalf.

The contemporaneous photographic capture reveals the said vehicle positioned adjacent to a metal fence, behind which there appears to be no viability of public (pedestrian or vehicular egress); no designated parking space demarcation is discernible.

5. Neither limb of the allegation (both elements of which are requisite by virtue of the use of the conjunction 'and') is evident; the contravention is not proved.

The evidential burden does not pass to an Appellant unless and until that evidential burden is discharged satisfactorily by the Enforcement Authority.

Evidentially I cannot find the alleged contravention occurred.

This Appeal is Allowed.

In which case I'd reorder and rephrase your informal reps.

Surely you're trying to set out a compelling argument for the authority to exercise discretion(could be 'circumstances beyond your control...but I'm not going to get too exercised about the distinction), therefore perhaps....

On *** my son, aged **, developed a temperature and therefore I went to the (surely local, although you've said that you're not a resident of Richmond) pharmacy to buy some ***** (IMO, medicine is too vague). I parked as can be seen and saw the CEO to whom I explained the situation and who KINDLY! allowed me to park for 5 minutes without paying.

As luck would have it, **** pharmacy could not accept card payments and therefore as I did not have cash on me I had to go to the nearest ATM and then return to the pharmacy. This detour caused me to be late getting back to my car where I found the PCN, perhaps understandably.

Given the circumstances, I would ask the authority to exercise discretion on this occasion. I would also suggest that the actual wording of the contravention cannot be correct in that the parking place accepts phone payment and therefore not displaying something whose display is optional cannot be correct, surely. Likewise the sign doesn't reflect the option to pay by phone, but I hope that it won't be necessary to examine these issues in further detail in this case.

Some thoughts. Pl fill in the blanks and post a draft here first.