Free Traffic Legal Advice

See evidence pack uploaded - took a little while to figure out best way to upload given the volume of pictures.

To answer your question, it would be the CPZ sign that is dotted around the whole area and what everyone follows/understands to be the allowed parking times for the footway parking bays but given what you've just shared about the signs it does make this all the more strange!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Upon reflection not clearly at all no, only referenced that parking on footway is allowed on this junction and around this area of Dagenham and could tell she didn't quite grasp that point. As a newbie I mistakenly had assumed it would be common knowledge that a footway resolution has been passed here because the adjudicator acknowledged the other cars parked on the footway in the marked bays.

Would it be right to assume any grounds for a review would depend on digging out the resolution?

An update, the appeal was refused.

Contrary to previous appeals (Lorna Jennifer Whittick v London Borough of Merton 2160383659, 10 October 2016 for full context) where it said 'There is no rule that says that anybody parking on the pavement must be parked within a marked bay. The Authority can decide to use pairs of blue signs to indicate where pavement parking is allowed'

 I got  'The car was parked on the footway adjacent to the zigzag lines of a pedestrian crossing. There are marked bays for permit holders on the footway but I find that the evidence shows that there was no marked bay where the appellant's car was parked. I find that the sign for resident's permit holders did not indicate that cars were permitted to park on any part of the footway.'

'I accept Mr xxx evidence that his car was parked in a line of other vehicles however there was no marked bay where his car was parked. The council does not have to establish that a vehicle caused any obstruction'

Rather confusing on the whole marked bays interpretation, my adjudicator essentially took the view anything outside of the marked bays on footway is essentially footway parking but also she stated from above 'I find that the sign for resident's permit holders did not indicate that cars were permitted to park on any part of the footway.'

Appreciate the responses. I will need to submit the appeal today given the time frames. It sounds like there isn't much else I can add to the original appeal.

Hi All,

Received a PCN for code 62 parking on a footway. I appealed this and got rejected. My main reasons being footway parking on this junction is very much allowed and where I parked there were no signs to indicate that I can only park in the marked bays. 

I have attached the appeal and mainly sighted reasons from this thread - https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/barking-dagenham-contravention-code-62/ using the successful overturns at tribunal. I am looking to take this to the tribunal but would really appreciate to know if its worth while or not and whether I have missed anything obvious that I can add to this.

PCN number for ease of reference - BZ64006299
Car registration - LV59 VWY

Here are the images of the letter received.








facebook website link image

PCN image -


GSV link of area/junction - https://maps.app.goo.gl/HL7uAiNKNgnAYMS16 (between tree and lamppost)

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]