DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 113368--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of Westminster - PCN Contravention code 26 -Parked in a
special enforcement area
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 16, 2026, 5:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Take out the toilet sentence.
Put a line spaces above and below points 1 and 2.
We wouldn't usually suggest quoting cases at this stage and I
think we have a better case to quote - I'll see if I can find
it.
#Post#: 113440--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of Westminster - PCN Contravention code 26 -Parked in a
special enforcement area
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 16, 2026, 2:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
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.
#Post#: 113478--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of Westminster - PCN Contravention code 26 -Parked in a
special enforcement area
DIR By: Johnsmith86
Date: March 16, 2026, 5:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok noted.
I have removed the cited case from the appeal and submited it to
the Council.
I will revert once I hear back.
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 114062--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of Westminster - PCN Contravention code 26 -Parked in a
special enforcement area
DIR By: Johnsmith86
Date: March 23, 2026, 5:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
As expected the appeal has been rejected (see below):
HTML https://ibb.co/5W2mCYSz
HTML https://ibb.co/5W2mCYSz
In terms of the next steps, do I go ahead and proceed with a
formal representation based on the same argument and should I
quote the adjudicator case (2240321907) mentioned in Stamford
man's post?
Thanks
#Post#: 114072--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of Westminster - PCN Contravention code 26 -Parked in a
special enforcement area
DIR By: tincombe
Date: March 23, 2026, 6:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
#Post#: 114077--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of Westminster - PCN Contravention code 26 -Parked in a
special enforcement area
DIR By: Johnsmith86
Date: March 23, 2026, 6:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> 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?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes I am the registered keeper.
So I should not bother with a formal challenge and wait for the
NTO?
#Post#: 114082--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of Westminster - PCN Contravention code 26 -Parked in a
special enforcement area
DIR By: tincombe
Date: March 23, 2026, 6:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You cannot make formal representations until a NTO has been
served.
For info, this is the full enforcement process:
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/parking-penalty-charge-notice-enforcement-process
#Post#: 114098--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of Westminster - PCN Contravention code 26 -Parked in a
special enforcement area
DIR By: Johnsmith86
Date: March 23, 2026, 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> You cannot make formal representations until a NTO has been
served.
>
> For info, this is the full enforcement process:
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/parking-penalty-charge-notice-enforcement-process
>
--- End Quote ---
Noted.
I will revert once I have received the NTO
#Post#: 116795--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of Westminster - PCN Contravention code 26 -Parked in a
special enforcement area
DIR By: Johnsmith86
Date: April 23, 2026, 8:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
I have now received the NTO and intend to submit a formal
representation.
My question is: do I just re-submit my exact previous appeal but
include the similar case (2240321907) that was won by one of the
administrators on the forum. Anything else I need to add to the
representation?
Thanks,
#Post#: 116854--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of Westminster - PCN Contravention code 26 -Parked in a
special enforcement area
DIR By: tincombe
Date: April 24, 2026, 3:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, I wouldn't waste too much time or ink on your reps because
the issue is clear and narrowly defined.
As the council's evidence shows, I was parked immediately
adjacent to metal barriers which GSV shows have been in situ
since at least ****.
De facto, these represented the limit and therefore edge of the
carriageway.
Adjudication decision ****** makes it clear that in such
circumstances these represent the 'edge of the carriageway' as
regards s85 of the Traffic Management Act. It therefore follows
that the contravention did not occur as my car was at all times
parked within 50cm of the 'edge of the carriageway'.
Either the council accepts this reasoning or it does not.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page