DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 125549--------------------------------------------------
Re: Atherton Road, Redbridge PCN contravention 62(2)
DIR By: fox10
Date: July 23, 2026, 6:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Hope you are well. As expected rejection received from
Redbridge - please review and advise. thanks
HTML https://iili.io/COacSpf.md.jpg
HTML https://iili.io/COacgI4.md.jpg
#Post#: 125609--------------------------------------------------
Re: Atherton Road, Redbridge PCN contravention 62(2)
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 24, 2026, 9:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As expected they've ignored the request for the resolution. If
you go on with this and they do the same at formal stage you'll
have a failure to consider.
They also refer to parking near a junction - this is irrelevant
as if you'd been on the carriageway there was no contravention.
If they want to prevent this they can paint double yellow lines.
#Post#: 125616--------------------------------------------------
Re: Atherton Road, Redbridge PCN contravention 62(2)
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 24, 2026, 11:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, their reference to the Highway Code and distance from the
junction is a procedural impropriety because it conveys the
impression that extraneous and extra-regulatory factors were
taken into account by them in reaching their decision:
'In light of these factors the contravention is upheld'!!!
From the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance:
The process of considering challenges, representations and
defence of appeals is a legal process that requires officers
dealing with these aspects to be trained in the relevant
legislation and how to apply it.
Enforcement authorities should give proper consideration and
respond to these challenges with care and attention
#Post#: 125643--------------------------------------------------
Re: Atherton Road, Redbridge PCN contravention 62(2)
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 24, 2026, 1:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with tincombe but a PI will carry more weight if it's
carried over into a notice of rejection to the NTO.
I would go on with this but not my punt.
Case below possibly helpful on signage but the resolution is key
and we rarely see this put to the test at the tribunal.
----------------
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
Owner.
Reasons
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued
for footway parking (Code 62).
2. This is a postal appeal.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is set out in detailed representations.
4. The Appellant has provided photographs showing signage
permitting kerb parking in the relevant road. The Appellant’s
understanding was that the signage put in place by the EA,
showing the kerb parking was allowed in the location, meant that
he was entitled to park as they had done. The photograph
provided shows signage an arrow pointing along the road. The
Appellant also produces a photograph of other vehicles parked on
the kerb, alongside the EA permission sign.
5. The Appellant makes further point under the following
headings, 1. The contravention did not occur – inadequate and
misleading; 2. Legitimate expectation created by enforcement
layout; 3. The presence of another vehicle (a white van) parked
in an identical mirrored position across the road creates a
legitimate expectation that parking was permitted at that
location; 4. Proximity to junction – irrelevant and unsupported;
5. Failure to properly consider representations; 6. The Notice
of Rejection is generic, formulaic, and fails to meaningfully
engage with the specific representations made; 7. Burden of
proof: The burden rests entirely on the Enforcement Authority to
prove that: The restriction was clearly & lawfully signed. The
contravention occurred beyond reasonable doubt Given the
misleading signage, comparative parking evidence & lack of
obstruction/that burden has not been met.’
6. In these circumstances the Appellant asks for the PCN to be
cancelled.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
7. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on the evidence of the
Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) to demonstrate the
contravention, and submit the photographs taken by the CEO
further support that the contravention occurred.
8. The EA state the Appellant’s vehicle was observed parked with
one or more wheels on or over a footpath or carriageway. The
Highway code Rule 244 which all motorists should be aware of
states; You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in
London and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it.
Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience
pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments
and people with prams or pushchairs.
9. The EA state that the signs in the relevant road ‘indicate
that footway parking is permitted in certain areas. The signs
are quite clear in that they include a directional arrow
depicting from which direction parking on the footpath is
allowed.’
10. The EA state the Appellant was parked on the wrong side of
the sign permitting kerb parking, and was in close proximity to
the junction, so dangerous.
11. The EA respond to each of the Appellant’s points, and do not
accept there has been a legitimate expectation created, ‘de
minimis’ does not apply, that there is no basis to transfer
liability to any other individual, the original notice complied
with all regulations and all representations were considered.
12. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations and
does not wish to exercise their discretion.
13. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
14. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully.
15. The EA's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in
breach of the prohibition against "footway parking". Under
Section 15(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act
1974 as amended, a contravention occurs if a vehicle is parked
anywhere in Greater London with one or more wheels on or over
any part of a road other than a carriageway or on or over a
footpath, unless an exemption applies.
16. I am satisfied the enforcement of the contravention of
'footway parking' by the EA is underpinned by this legislation,
created by Parliament, and so does not require a Traffic
Management Order.
17. I have considered the photographs provided by both parties.
On balance, I accept there is signage at the relevant road that
expressly permits footway parking. I further accept there is a
directional sign under the ‘icon’ showing footway parking.
However, I am unable to satisfy myself that there is any signage
to state that any vehicle parking on the kerb must remain within
a particular area, or bay, or side of the road. I am unable to
satisfy myself that there is any signage indicating the times
during which kerb parking may take place, or that it is anyway
restricted by time.
18. Therefore, on balance, I consider the EA has given
permission for parking on the footway at this location, meaning
this road, since I am unable to satisfy myself that there is any
clear signage in place to indicate otherwise.
19. Further, for the avoidance of doubt, on balance, I do not
consider there to be signage indicating that, having permitted
footway parking by way of the signage, it is not allowed at the
location in which the Appellant parked. I do not consider that a
directional arrow on a sign permitting kerb parking is
sufficient for a reasonably diligent motorist to understand that
kerb parking is not permitted on the entire road, without any
further clear signage to confirm any restriction on the
permission given.
20. On balance I find it reasonable that the Appellant
understood that they were entitled to park as they did because
of the EA signage indicating that kerb parking was allowed, and
the fact that there was no restriction times or other clear
signage in place indicating otherwise.
21. For these reasons I find a contravention has not occurred
and the PCN has not been validly issued.
22. Because I have allowed the appeal on this basis, it is not
necessary for me to deal with the other points raised.
Decision
23. The appeal is allowed for the reasons outlined.
#Post#: 125644--------------------------------------------------
Re: Atherton Road, Redbridge PCN contravention 62(2)
DIR By: fox10
Date: July 24, 2026, 1:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks and I agree. I am happy to take this further but we are
not the registered keeper (the finance company is) and I suspect
if they receive the NtO then they may be pay it and then charge
us for it + admin fee
#Post#: 125646--------------------------------------------------
Re: Atherton Road, Redbridge PCN contravention 62(2)
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 24, 2026, 1:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK that rather spoils things - you need to find out about how
they handle PCNs and whether they'll get it assigned to you but
a hefty admin fee may mean it's less pain to bail out at
discount.
#Post#: 125713--------------------------------------------------
Re: Atherton Road, Redbridge PCN contravention 62(2)
DIR By: fox10
Date: July 25, 2026, 7:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, whilst I check with the finance company is it possible
to pay the £80 and continue to appeal/take it to tribunal? I am
just trying to avoid paying the finance company an admin charge.
Thanks
#Post#: 125723--------------------------------------------------
Re: Atherton Road, Redbridge PCN contravention 62(2)
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 25, 2026, 10:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is the vehicle leased or hired for a period of less than 6
months?
#Post#: 125728--------------------------------------------------
Re: Atherton Road, Redbridge PCN contravention 62(2)
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 25, 2026, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: fox10 link ---
>
> Thanks, whilst I check with the finance company is it possible
to pay the £80 and continue to appeal/take it to tribunal? I am
just trying to avoid paying the finance company an admin charge.
Thanks
>
--- End Quote ---
Unfortunately not
#Post#: 125730--------------------------------------------------
Re: Atherton Road, Redbridge PCN contravention 62(2)
DIR By: fox10
Date: July 25, 2026, 10:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> [quote author=fox10 link=topic=11340.msg125713#msg125713
date=1784984181]
> Thanks, whilst I check with the finance company is it possible
to pay the £80 and continue to appeal/take it to tribunal? I am
just trying to avoid paying the finance company an admin charge.
Thanks
>
--- End Quote ---
Unfortunately not
[/quote]
oh dear, its on a 4 year lease which is coming to an end this
September
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page