DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 128935--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 62g (grass verge)
DIR By: Gardener
Date: August 26, 2026, 8:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's the google street view link.
Google Street View
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5543872,0.0519242,3a,55.9y,339.13h,72.6t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sEwzKjQqjR0hKLVKCtlAVyQ!2e0!5s20250801T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D17.400485021867%26panoid%3DEwzKjQqjR0hKLVKCtlAVyQ%26yaw%3D339.12589304727817!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDgyMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
It's at the transition between Aldersbrook Road and Rabbits Road
A116.
#Post#: 128950--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 62g (grass verge)
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 26, 2026, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks.
I'd go with the obvious which is that as can be seen in the
CEO's photos you were not parked on a 'grass verge' but instead
on a metalled surface; the PCN is therefore incorrect in this
regard and should therefore be cancelled.
#Post#: 128952--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 62g (grass verge)
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 26, 2026, 10:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It looks like it could be misleading as off-carriageway parking
owing to the posts.
Only one case (multiple PCNs) on tribunal some with grass verge
and My Burke wasn't bothered.
---------
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
on 23.06.26 I adjourned this case, writing in the following
terms:
“The Adjudicator has to consider appeals against 8 PCNs issued
to the Appellant’s vehicle in similar circumstances over the
period 22.09.25 to 18.10.25. The allegation in each case is that
the vehicle was parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway. In 6 of
the cases the PCN adds (on grass verge). The Appellant disputes
that the vehicle was parked in contravention with the argument
that it was not parked on a grass verge.
Since 1974 there has been a London-wide prohibition on ‘footway
parking’. The Highway Code advises that
‘You MUST NOT park anywhere partially or wholly on the pavement
in London…’
The precise definition has been amended on several occasions and
is presently expressed so that the contravention occurs if the
vehicle is parked ‘with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
or any part of a road other than a carriageway’. As the
prohibition applies across London, there is no requirement for
signage at any particular location.
The Adjudicator is satisfied that on each occasion the vehicle
was parked as alleged on part of a road other than a carriageway
and will set out full reasons in due course. He is satisfied
that the vehicle had been moved and reparked between the issue
of the first PCN 22.09.25 and the issue of the second on
02.10.25. The Enforcement Authority have therefore established 2
separate contraventions and are entitled to enforce 2 separate
PCNs. However, it is not clear to the Adjudicator that the
vehicle had moved between 22.10.25 (sic) and the issue of the
last PCN on 18.10.25.
The Adjudicator’s provisional view is that this is a continuing
prohibition and that a vehicle which remains parked in a
continuing single contravention. As such the Enforcement
Authority would not be entitled to enforce any of the last 6
PCNs as separate contraventions. He has adjourned the cases to
afford the Enforcement Authority the opportunity either to
establish that the vehicle had moved in between PCNs or to
establish that separate contraventions were committed. They
should note that it will not be sufficient for them to point out
the PCN were issued on different days.
If they choose to make further submissions the Enforcement
Authority must do so within 14 days.
The Adjudicator will also consider any further submissions from
the Appellant should he choose to make any.”
On 14.07.26 I further adjourned in the following terms:
“The Adjudicator has considered the Enforcement Authority
response to his letter of 23.06.26. The only point which he
considers may have merit in these particular cases is point 3.2.
He directs that if the Enforcement Authority continue to seek
enforcement of the last 6 PCNs they provide an annotated
schedule establishing the photographic evidence which they say
shows the vehicle had moved between PCNs. ”
The Enforcement Authority have now responded to indicate that
they accept my recommendation in relation to the final 6 PCNs. I
had not made any recommendation: I merely given an indication of
my provisional view of the cases but I am grateful to the
Enforcement Authority for the indication that they no longer
seek enforcement of the final 6 PCNs.
The Appellant has not provided any further submissions or
evidence. He had originally provided photographs and video
footage, which I considered together with the photographic
evidence provided by the Enforcement Authority.
The suffix “on grass verge” was unnecessary and potentially
confusing. The vehicle was parked on a verge but there is no
grass to speak of on the verge. However, it was clearly parked
on part of a road other than a carriageway. I am satisfied the
PCNs remained substantially compliant and even if I took a
different view this would only have resulted in me refusing the
2 cases involving PCNs which did not mention the grass verge
(the first and fifth rather than the first and second). However,
the Enforcement Authority may wish to avoid the use of
unnecessary and inaccurate suffixes as another Adjudicator might
take a different view
The Appellant should also note that even if the vehicle had not
been parked on part of a road other than a carriageway it would
still have been parked in contravention as it was within the
restrictions indicated by the adjacent double yellow line.
It follows from all the above that I refuse the appeals in the
first 2 cases but allow the appeals in relation to the final 6
PCNs.
#Post#: 128958--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 62g (grass verge)
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 26, 2026, 11:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If the authority knows its stuff then as I posted earlier I
doubt whether the OP would succeed. But IMO the OP should at
least test their mettle with the issue of London Councils'
contravention description suffixes because it's obviously not a
grass verge.
#Post#: 128981--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 62g (grass verge)
DIR By: Gardener
Date: August 26, 2026, 6:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is Google Street View in 2014. Is it just me or does the
area in question look like part of the carriageway?
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/PAMGGs2_wm.webp
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/KuP6G9L
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page