DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 116083--------------------------------------------------
Hillingdon PCN Contravention 62 Elers Rd -signs totally
misleading!
DIR By: marybilly
Date: April 16, 2026, 12:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
I was given a PCN on 14/3/26 for parking on the pavement under a
sign that implies it is allowed! There were cars in front and
behind me. I have attached an image. Obviously can provide more
details if needed. I have already appealed, and just been sent a
letter explaining to me that it was correctly enforced but does
not address my point about the sign being misleading. So my
question is should I carry on appealing or pay the discount? On
the reverse of the sign in the photo there is the same image
with a red line through (according to their correspondence) but
I did not see it as i approached from Mildred Avenue. If I
continue and fail do I pay the full amount?
Thanks for any help on this!
HTML https://i.ibb.co/TDjv9VsB/car-image-2.jpg
#Post#: 116086--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hillingdon PCN Contravention 62 Elers Rd -signs totally
misleading!
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: April 16, 2026, 12:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
For me, the sign is very misleading for someone approaching in
the direction you came. One sees the sign and assumes it is OK
to park partly on the footway. However, you really need to check
the TSRGD to see what the sign means: -
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/contents/made
There have been a few updates since 2016 that you may have to
plough through.,
#Post#: 116088--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hillingdon PCN Contravention 62 Elers Rd -signs totally
misleading!
DIR By: tincombe
Date: April 16, 2026, 12:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand your misunderstanding.
As I understand it, the sign signifies the entrance to an area
where, when other restrictions allow, parking with 2 wheels on
the footway is permitted beyond the sign i.e. within the area.
The sign with a red diagonal is its matching pair i.e. in your
direction you're entering the area and in the opposite leaving.
But whether there's a corresponding council resolution to this
effect which specifies that the area starts at the sign is an
unknown.
We need more info pl.
#Post#: 116146--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hillingdon PCN Contravention 62 Elers Rd -signs totally
misleading!
DIR By: marybilly
Date: April 17, 2026, 4:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think it is misleading because approaching from that
direction, all you can see is a sign which appears to allow
parking on the pavement, and there were a line of cars already
parked. There were no road markings that I could see and did not
look (or think I needed to look ) at the other side of that
where it appears to restrict parking. Road markings would have
been a clue. There were others behind me who obviously thought
the same.
Has this cropped up before and is it likely to be successful if
appeal further?
#Post#: 116147--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hillingdon PCN Contravention 62 Elers Rd -signs totally
misleading!
DIR By: tincombe
Date: April 17, 2026, 5:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Has this cropped up before - often.
and is it likely to be successful if appeal further? With your
argument, not with the adjudicator.
Your argument is based in your misunderstanding of the traffic
sign(and the default position in London where footway parking is
subject to a blanket prohibition unless signed* otherwise).
You weren't at the sign. Other drivers' similar misunderstanding
is not a defence, other than mitigation(which an adjudicator may
not consider).
IMO, your best option is to submit reps saying that you made a
mistake, were misled by the actions of other drivers
etc....sorry, would they consider cancelling on this occasion.
If we knew more about where you were our posters could research
whether permitted parking actually starts at the sign or whether
it encompasses the whole length of the road(due to sloppy
drafting) and that,for convenience, the council has simply used
an existing post to save a few £. This also often happens.
#Post#: 116154--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hillingdon PCN Contravention 62 Elers Rd -signs totally
misleading!
DIR By: marybilly
Date: April 17, 2026, 6:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your help and speedy reply. They have replied to my
initial appeal that the sign marks the cut off between what is
and isn't allowed, but whether that is true is another matter it
sounds.
If I were to reply as you suggested, what is the process? do I
wait for the NtO and make formal representation to the council
thereby risking the full fine?
#Post#: 116169--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hillingdon PCN Contravention 62 Elers Rd -signs totally
misleading!
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: April 17, 2026, 7:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The history here is the signs used to be as per the pic below
and there were marked bays.
What I think has happened is they abandoned maintaining markings
and changed the signage to simple extent.
This document says footway parking in Elers Road is subject to a
'Formal scheme with signs and lines'.
HTML https://modgov.hillingdon.gov.uk/documents/s64484/SCOPING%20REPORT%20-%20A%20REVIEW%20OF%20SUSPENDED%20PARKING%20ZONES%20IN%20HILLINGDON.pdf
There are two adjudications, both refused - simple one posted
below. Note the adjudicator has said 'supported by a Council
resolution' but I wonder if this countermands the signage along
the entire road, and given that markings have gone.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/C5gczh3p/Screenshot-2026-04-17-at-13-09-55.png
-------
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
within 28 days.
Reasons
The Appellant’s case is essentially that the signage indicating
the Area where the Council had exercised its powers to allow
footway parking was unclearly signed. I am unable to agree. The
small blue signs (prescribed by Regulations and supported by a
Council resolution) are positioned in accordance with
recommendations of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 in that
the sign showing footway parking to be permitted is mounted
facing oncoming traffic; and in a similar way, for example, to a
speed limit sign, applies to the area beyond the sign not in
front of it. The line of vehicles parked on the footway beyond
that sign might have given the Appellant a clue as to its
meaning if he was in any doubt. The sign with the red line
through it indicating the end of the exempted area likewise
applies to the area beyond the sign not to the area facing it.
This method of signing exempted areas is widely applied
throughout London. I note that the Appellant has produced a
photograph of what he describes as correct signage. This is in
fact a very unusual (based on 30 year’s experience) example of
incorrect use of the signs.
As a result of what was no more than a misunderstanding on the
Appellant’s part the vehicle was not parked within the exempted
area and was therefore in contravention. It cannot be said the
PCN was issued anything other than lawfully.
#Post#: 116178--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hillingdon PCN Contravention 62 Elers Rd -signs totally
misleading!
DIR By: marybilly
Date: April 17, 2026, 8:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thankyou for your time on this. The previous signage and
markings were pretty clear, far clearer than the new version.
You can see both sides for starters. I think my case therefore
is stronger than the example you kindly posted, but given past
history I don't think they will agree their new signs need work.
#Post#: 116185--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hillingdon PCN Contravention 62 Elers Rd -signs totally
misleading!
DIR By: tincombe
Date: April 17, 2026, 9:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Footway parking in Hillingdon has evolved over decades, with
over 400 roads
historically exempted from enforcement. Many of these exemptions
were informal or
temporary, often lacking compliant signage or markings
..and as regards only some roads only to be reported to Cabinet
for a decision on 22 April 2026 until which time 'lacking
compliant signage etc.' would persist.
And the meeting's on 23rd and I cannot find this item on the
agenda.
IMO, make reps on the grounds that the resolution for this road
disapplies the provisions of the 1974 Act for the whole road
therefore the position of the signs is incorrect, my location
was exempted and the contravention did not occur.
#Post#: 116205--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hillingdon PCN Contravention 62 Elers Rd -signs totally
misleading!
DIR By: marybilly
Date: April 17, 2026, 1:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much for this- So is the case that the rule for Elers
road is it should have a formal scheme with signs and markings,
and having no markings invalidates the position of the sign?
Therefore the whole road is included ?
Thankyou- sorry if this is a daft question!
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page