DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 120751--------------------------------------------------
Council Redbridge - PCN
DIR By: DearyDiora
Date: June 4, 2026, 1:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I have been issued a PCN under contravention code 62(2).
I am a blue badge holder and I parked my car legally within the
understood requirements based on the councils signage and road
traffic laws.
My car was parked with two wheels mounted the kerb, as the blue
information signage across that side of the road implies this is
the standardised expectation of the council.
I have drafted the below as a template for appealing the PCN.
Your advice on its grounds and wording would be greatly
appreciated.
"
Ground for Challenge:
The contravention did not occur due to conflicting, ambiguous
signage / Failure of the council's statutory duty of clarity.
Dear Parking Enforcement Team,
I am writing to formally challenge the issuance of the above PCN
for an alleged Contravention Code 62(2) (footway parking) on
Virginia Gardens Road.
At the time of the alleged offense, the vehicle was lawfully
utilizing a statutory exemption by displaying a valid Disabled
Blue Badge and parking clock on double yellow lines. The
council's own photographic evidence uploaded to the portal
explicitly confirms the presence and clear visibility of this
Blue Badge on the dashboard. I request that this PCN be
cancelled immediately due to a severe technical fault and
irreconcilable ambiguity in the council’s localised traffic
signs.
1. Material Facts of the Conflicting Signage
A review of the signage on this exact side of Virginia Gardens
Road reveals that the council has erected highly contradictory
informational signs, creating a legal ambiguity that invalidates
enforcement:
• Sign A (Closest to my vehicle): Displays a "P" with a
two-wheel mounted car illustration, the restrictive wording "In
marked bays", and a directional arrow pointing away from the
double yellow line section.
• Sign B (Further down the same side): Displays a "P" with a
two-wheel mounted car illustration, but contains no restrictive
wording regarding marked bays.
By omitting the "In marked bays" restriction on Sign B, the
council has officially communicated to motorists that footway
parking is permitted generally on this side of the street,
without a universal requirement to be within a white lined bay.
2. Breach of the Duty of Clarity (TSRGD)
Under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
(TSRGD) and established binding principles from the London
Tribunals, a local authority cannot enforce a restriction where
its own signs present a conflicting message.
Because Sign B permits general footway parking on this side of
the road, and because there are no terminal signs or prohibitive
markings at the top of the road where the double yellow lines
sit, a Blue Badge holder is left with a highly ambiguous layout.
The physical layout (double yellow lines bracketed by dropped
kerbs) paired with a street-wide footway parking profile implies
that mounting the kerb is the required method to avoid blocking
the carriageway while utilizing the yellow line exemption.
3. Public Sector Equality Duty (Equality Act 2010)
As the CEO's (Civil Enforcement Officer) photographs confirm the
presence of a valid Blue Badge, the London Borough of Redbridge
is under a strict statutory obligation under Section 149 of the
Equality Act 2010 to consider the needs of disabled motorists.
Enforcing a highly technical and ambiguous "marked bay"
restriction—where the council’s own adjacent signs fail to
maintain consistency—constitutes a failure to provide
accessible, transparent parking instructions for vulnerable road
users.
Conclusion
The presence of Sign B proves that footway parking on this side
of Virginia Gardens Road is not strictly confined to marked bays
by default. The lack of specific exclusionary signage on the
double yellow line section means the restriction cannot be
legally sustained.
Please cancel this PCN. If you choose to reject this
representation, please provide the specific text of the Traffic
Management Order (TMO) defining the exact boundaries of the
marked bay restriction, and confirm that you have fulfilled your
PSED obligations regarding this decision. If necessary, I will
comfortably escalate this matter to the independent London
Tribunals.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Number]
________________________________________
#Post#: 120756--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Redbridge - PCN
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: June 4, 2026, 1:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please to post up both sides of the unredacted PCN and a GSV
lonk to the location.
For guidance on posting images see
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
#Post#: 120758--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Redbridge - PCN
DIR By: DearyDiora
Date: June 4, 2026, 1:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi [member=3203]John[/member] UK
Please find attached as requested.
PCN Images front and back
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/azc6xk2.jpeg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/0DD0dD8.jpeg
google location link:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/QTo6WmRJ2iupcdyK6
Thanks
#Post#: 120792--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Redbridge - PCN
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 4, 2026, 5:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So, in relation to the GSV view, showing a grey car parked in a
marked bay that is part-on the footway, where was your car
parked ?
#Post#: 120820--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Redbridge - PCN
DIR By: DearyDiora
Date: June 5, 2026, 4:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I was parked exactly here per this location link (on the double
yellow lines, which have dropped kerbs in front and behind.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/utMbxk48dytCv9t47
Additional photo's
1. Sign A (first sign closest to my parked car)
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/GvT615m.jpg
2. Sign B (further down the road, by blue car)
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/OCPjcqi.jpg
3. Side of my car, also showing red car (sign A) and blue car
positions (sign b).
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/KbAfOy3.jpg
4. Front of my car (parked on double yellow line, part of foot
way between two drop kerbs)
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/MKi3m2s.jpg
5. Back of my car (parked on double yellow line, part of foot
way between two drop kerbs)
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/KW0fAfw.jpg
Hope that helps provide some further clarity.
Thank you :)
#Post#: 120822--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Redbridge - PCN
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 5, 2026, 4:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes it does and my immediate opinion is that you misread the
signs. Any sign allowing off-carriageway parking obviously has
no applicability to double yellow yellow lines because they bar
parking 24x7. You as a BB holder can, however, park on DYLs but
only on the carriageway.
Sign A applies to the single bay, and has an arrow pointing left
on it to indicate applicability. You parked to the right of it.
The other sign is by an unmarked length of carriageway.
Frankly, I think you need to "mug-up" on where, as a BB holder,
you can park. If you'd parked where you did, but wholly on the
carriageway, you would not have received a PCN.
Wait a bit for others, but I don't think you have any chance of
a win here.
#Post#: 120825--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Redbridge - PCN
DIR By: rsg444
Date: June 5, 2026, 4:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The council would in theory have applied to disapply the ban on
parking on the footpath. If they have this usually applies to
the whole road - therefore they are unlikely to have a TMO that
says kerb parking is only permitted beyond the arrows that are
normally present under the kerb signs in Redbridge (the arrows
are usually at the beginning and end of where the council say
kerb parking is permitted).
Here is the TMO that applies to Virginia Gardens:
HTML https://store.traffweb.app/redbridge/documents/parkmap/sched/1.%20The%20Redbridge%20(Waiting,%20Loading,%20Stopping%20and%20Street%20Parking%20Places)%20Consolidation%20Order%202021.pdf
I couldn't see anything about pavement parking on there but that
is likely to the poor search function on the PDF. Def worth
waiting for those with far more expertise and experience than
me.
#Post#: 122003--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Redbridge - PCN
DIR By: DearyDiora
Date: June 16, 2026, 1:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
Thank you for your messages. I wonder whether anyone had
anything further on the appeal before I have to wrap it up and
send an appeal?
Many thanks
#Post#: 122005--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Redbridge - PCN
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: June 16, 2026, 1:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Post your draft here for comment before submitting.
#Post#: 122014--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Redbridge - PCN
DIR By: DearyDiora
Date: June 16, 2026, 3:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi [member=3203]John[/member]
Please see below draft for appeal:-
I have drafted the below as a template for appealing the PCN.
Your advice on its grounds and wording would be greatly
appreciated.
"Ground for Challenge:
The contravention did not occur due to conflicting, ambiguous
signage / Failure of the council's statutory duty of clarity.
Dear Parking Enforcement Team,
I am writing to formally challenge the issuance of the above PCN
for an alleged Contravention Code 62(2) (footway parking) on
Virginia Gardens Road.
At the time of the alleged offense, the vehicle was lawfully
utilizing a statutory exemption by displaying a valid Disabled
Blue Badge and parking clock on double yellow lines. The
council's own photographic evidence uploaded to the portal
explicitly confirms the presence and clear visibility of this
Blue Badge on the dashboard. I request that this PCN be
cancelled immediately due to a severe technical fault and
irreconcilable ambiguity in the council’s localised traffic
signs.
1. Material Facts of the Conflicting Signage
A review of the signage on this exact side of Virginia Gardens
Road reveals that the council has erected highly contradictory
informational signs, creating a legal ambiguity that invalidates
enforcement:
• Sign A (Closest to my vehicle): Displays a "P" with a
two-wheel mounted car illustration, the restrictive wording "In
marked bays", and a directional arrow pointing away from the
double yellow line section.
• Sign B (Further down the same side): Displays a "P" with a
two-wheel mounted car illustration, but contains no restrictive
wording regarding marked bays.
By omitting the "In marked bays" restriction on Sign B, the
council has officially communicated to motorists that footway
parking is permitted generally on this side of the street,
without a universal requirement to be within a white lined bay.
2. Breach of the Duty of Clarity (TSRGD)
Under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
(TSRGD) and established binding principles from the London
Tribunals, a local authority cannot enforce a restriction where
its own signs present a conflicting message.
Because Sign B permits general footway parking on this side of
the road, and because there are no terminal signs or prohibitive
markings at the top of the road where the double yellow lines
sit, a Blue Badge holder is left with a highly ambiguous layout.
The physical layout (double yellow lines bracketed by dropped
kerbs) paired with a street-wide footway parking profile implies
that mounting the kerb is the required method to avoid blocking
the carriageway while utilizing the yellow line exemption.
3. Public Sector Equality Duty (Equality Act 2010)
As the CEO's (Civil Enforcement Officer) photographs confirm the
presence of a valid Blue Badge, the London Borough of Redbridge
is under a strict statutory obligation under Section 149 of the
Equality Act 2010 to consider the needs of disabled motorists.
Enforcing a highly technical and ambiguous "marked bay"
restriction—where the council’s own adjacent signs fail to
maintain consistency—constitutes a failure to provide
accessible, transparent parking instructions for vulnerable road
users.
Conclusion
The presence of Sign B proves that footway parking on this side
of Virginia Gardens Road is not strictly confined to marked bays
by default. The lack of specific exclusionary signage on the
double yellow line section means the restriction cannot be
legally sustained.
Please cancel this PCN. If you choose to reject this
representation, please provide the specific text of the Traffic
Management Order (TMO) defining the exact boundaries of the
marked bay restriction, and confirm that you have fulfilled your
PSED obligations regarding this decision. If necessary, I will
comfortably escalate this matter to the independent London
Tribunals.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1