Recent Posts81
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Waltham Forest - 86 parked incorrectly within the markings of a bay - Stocksfield Road Estate E17
« Last post by tommytbone on Yesterday at 09:42:54 pm »So no council car park terms.
Draft a challenge - make two points.
Contravention did not occur. For an off-street contravention the terms of the car park must be displayed including what can be penalised and no such terms are posted at the location.
The alleged contravention is at the end of the bay and parking places used to be set out diagonally. As a resident here for x years I simply made a trivial mistake on autopilot according to the old layout and did not take any space in an adjoining bay.
Thanks so much for your help here @stamfordman. Does this sound ok? Used ai as not my forte
I wish to challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.
1. Contravention did not occur – inadequate signage and unclear terms
The alleged contravention is an off-street parking contravention under Code 86: “Not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space.”
For an off-street car park, the terms and conditions of use — including what constitutes a contravention and what may be enforced by way of a penalty — must be clearly displayed at the location. At this site, there is no signage setting out the parking terms or explaining how bays must be used or what constitutes incorrect parking for the purposes of enforcement.
In the absence of clearly displayed terms and conditions governing the use of parking bays, the authority has not properly conveyed the restriction, and therefore the alleged contravention cannot be said to have occurred.
2. Trivial deviation / de minimis
The allegation relates to parking at the end of a bay. Historically, parking bays at this location were marked diagonally. As a resident of approximately [X] years, I parked out of habit in accordance with the former layout.
Any deviation from the current bay markings was minimal and entirely unintentional. Crucially, my vehicle did not encroach into or prevent the use of any adjoining bay, nor did it cause obstruction or inconvenience. The vehicle was parked wholly within the available parking area.
Given the trivial nature of the deviation, the principle of de minimis applies, and enforcement under Code 86 in these circumstances is disproportionate.
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,