DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 129393--------------------------------------------------
Barnet PCN, code 27, Woodberry Grove, N12 , North Finchley -
Appeal based on Failure to consider
DIR By: astawastaken
Date: September 2, 2026, 10:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello everyone,
I recently informally appealed a Barnet PCN contravention code
27. I used this forum and others for help in writing my appeal.
I just got the decision back, and unfortunately it was rejected.
However, the appeal seems to be a generic response rather than
one based on a reading of my appeal and the attached evidence.
I read on the forum before that, to appeal in a way that lets
you see whether they considered your appeal or not, e.g., a
tracked link/video, etc. In my response, I attached 2 photos of
evidence, some tribunal decisions, and asked them to explain a
couple of points as a way to see if they considered my appeal or
if it was a generic automatic response.
I want to know what to do next and if I should pay the £80 or if
I can get the PCN rejected based on failure to consider?
This was my appeal that I used.
--- Quote ---
>
>
> I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge
Notice on the basis that the alleged contravention did not
occur.
>
> The vehicle was parked adjacent to the raised kerb, rather
than alongside the lowered section of the footway. The lowered
kerb at this location provides access to the driveway, and my
vehicle was positioned between the two immediate drops of the
kerb. The wheels of the vehicle remained alongside the raised
section.
>
> I acknowledge that the rear of the vehicle slightly overhung
the rear transition point of the dropped kerb. However, this was
only a very minor intrusion into the driveway area. The vehicle
was not substantially parked across the lowered section, and the
vast majority of the driveway access remained completely clear.
>
> I have included a contemporaneous photograph showing the rear
of the vehicle in relation to the driveway. This photograph
clearly demonstrates the limited extent of the overhang and the
substantial amount of driveway access that remained available.
It should be considered alongside the CEO's photographs when
assessing the actual position of the vehicle.
>
> There is also an important feature of the physical layout of
this particular driveway which I ask the Council to take into
account. The kerb arrangement is not symmetrical on both sides
of the driveway. On the side immediately behind the rear of my
vehicle, the kerb drops immediately, whereas on the opposite
side of the same driveway there is a sloping transition before
the kerb reaches the raised/level section.
>
> I therefore ask the Council to consider the actual geometry of
the kerb and identify precisely where it considers the lowered
section begins and ends. The distinction between the raised
kerb, any sloping/transition section and the actual lowered
section is important when determining whether the vehicle was
parked adjacent to the lowered section for the purposes of
contravention code 27.
>
> This issue has been considered by the parking adjudicator in
Right Contract Services Ltd v London Borough of Hillingdon
(2160311942, 17 August 2016). In that case, the authority argued
that the contravention occurred because the vehicle was parked
beyond the point where the kerb started to slope. The
adjudicator expressly stated that this was an incorrect
understanding of the law. I ask the Council to take this
decision into account when assessing the precise position of my
vehicle in relation to the raised, sloping and lowered sections
of the kerb.
>
> In any event, if the Council considers that the small rear
overhang technically constitutes an intrusion into the area of
the lowered kerb, I ask that the principle of *de minimis* be
applied.
>
> The circumstances here are particularly minor. The vehicle's
wheels were positioned between the two immediate drops, the
vehicle was predominantly alongside the raised kerb, and only a
small portion of the rear extended beyond the rear transition
point. The contemporaneous photograph I have provided
demonstrates the limited extent of this intrusion and the
substantial driveway access that remained available.
>
> I also ask the Council to consider all photographs that I
personally took at the time the PCN was being issued. These
photographs were taken contemporaneously and provide additional
evidence of the exact position of the vehicle, the location of
the wheels, the raised kerb, the two immediate drops, the
asymmetric kerb arrangement and the extent of the rear overhang.
>
> I would also ask the Council to take into account the
perspective and positioning of the CEO's photographs. The angle
from which the photographs were taken gives a misleading
impression of the extent of the rear overhang, making it appear
considerably greater than it actually was. When viewed from a
more representative perspective and alongside my contemporaneous
photographs, the actual intrusion can be seen to be minor.
>
> I therefore ask that the CEO's photographs are not considered
in isolation and that they are assessed alongside the
photographs I have provided, particularly the photograph showing
the rear of the vehicle in relation to the driveway and the
amount of access that remained available.
>
> These photographs and the points raised above are directly
relevant to whether the alleged contravention occurred, and I
expressly request that they are reviewed before a decision is
made.
>
> If the Council decides to reject this representation, I
request that the Notice of Rejection provides full and specific
reasons addressing the material points and evidence raised in
this appeal, rather than simply stating that the vehicle was
adjacent to a dropped kerb.
>
> In particular, I ask the Council to explain:
>
> * why it considers the vehicle to have been adjacent to the
lowered section;
> * precisely where it considers the lowered section begins and
ends;
> * how it has assessed the position of the vehicle's wheels;
> * how it has assessed the different kerb arrangements on the
two sides of the driveway;
> * the extent to which it considers the rear of the vehicle to
have overhung the lowered section;
> * why it considers this minor overhang to be more than *de
minimis*;
> * how the contemporaneous photograph showing the driveway and
remaining access has been considered;
> * how my other contemporaneous photographs have been
considered;
> * how the adjudicator decision cited above has been
considered; and
> * the specific evidence relied upon in reaching its decision.
>
> I make this request to ensure that all of the evidence and
representations submitted with this challenge are properly
considered. If the Council rejects the representation without
addressing the material points and evidence raised, I reserve
the right to rely on any such failure to consider as a ground in
any subsequent appeal to the independent adjudicator.
>
> I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.
>
> If the Council nevertheless decides to reject this
representation, I request a full Notice of Rejection setting out
the reasons for that decision and the information necessary for
me to exercise my right to appeal to the independent
adjudicator.
>
>
>
--- End Quote ---
And this was the Email response from Apcoa-barnet
--- Quote ---
>
>
> Traffic Management Act 2004 (as amended)
> RE: Informal Challenge for Penalty Charge Notice (PCN):
> Thank you for your correspondence received on 27/08/2026, in
which you
> challenged the above PCN that was issued for the following
contravention:
>
> Contravention Date and Time: 14/08/2026 at 15:50
> Vehicle Registration:
> Location: Woodberry Grove, N12 , North Finchley
> Contravention: 27: Parked in a special enforcement area
adjacent to a footway,
> cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the
carriageway
>
> We have carefully considered the evidence you have supplied
and decided not to
> cancel your PCN. The reason for this decision is due to your
vehicle being parked
> adjacent to a dropped kerb.
>
> The Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) observed your vehicle
parked adjacent to a
> dropped footway. The Traffic Management Act (TMA) 2004 allows
for enforcement
> action (issue of a Penalty Charge Notice - PCN) to be taken
when a vehicle is parked
> adjacent to a dropped footway. This covers any dropped footway
including those
> which allow vehicles to cross the footway and those which
assist pedestrians
> crossing the road as well as cyclists to join/exit the
carriageway and supported by
> photographic evidence.
>
> Please be advised that a dropped kerb contravention applies to
the entire lowered
> section of the kerb, beginning at the point where the kerb
first starts to slope down
> from its full height. If a vehicle is parked adjacent to any
part of the kerb from this top
> point where it begins to lower, through to the fully lowered
section, a contravention
> occurs. As such, it is not necessary for a vehicle to block
the fully lowered section
> itself; parking alongside any part of the sloping kerb is
sufficient for a Penalty Charge
> Notice to be issued.
>
> On this occasion we have decided to give you the opportunity
to make payment at
> the discounted amount of £80.00 within 14 days of the date of
service of this letter. If
> you decide not to take up this offer, please see below ‘What
happens next’.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
If there is anything else/more information required, let me
know!
Thank you in advance ;D
#Post#: 129395--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet PCN, code 27, Woodberry Grove, N12 , North Finchley -
Appeal based on Failure to consider
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: September 2, 2026, 10:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> If there is anything else/more information required, let me
know!
--- End Quote ---
Please post up as usual
Both sides of the unredacted PCN,
any council photographs
and
a GSV link to the location.
What was the date of your challenge and what was the date of
their rejction?
#Post#: 129397--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet PCN, code 27, Woodberry Grove, N12 , North Finchley -
Appeal based on Failure to consider
DIR By: astawastaken
Date: September 2, 2026, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
>
> [quote]If there is anything else/more information required,
let me know!
--- End Quote ---
Please post up as usual
Both sides of the unredacted PCN,
any council photographs
and
a GSV link to the location.
What was the date of your challenge and what was the date of
their rejction?
[/quote]
Unfortunately, I don't have a photo of both sides of the PCN on
me at the moment as I am abroad for the next couple of days.
However, here is the PCN number: AG93550616
Number plate: WJ17GGP
All Photos from the council:
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1x6gSipYZl6_pVjA0pNX2IChO2GtSfcPm?usp=sharing
All photos named "media" are from the council; the other photo
is mine, which I took to show a proper angle of the overhang.
Google Street View link:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/Sgnf6ipyzDGtDBbM8
Appealed 27/18th August
Rejection received 2nd September
#Post#: 129455--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet PCN, code 27, Woodberry Grove, N12 , North Finchley -
Appeal based on Failure to consider
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: September 3, 2026, 5:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Rejection received 2nd September
--- End Quote ---
What was the date of the NoR, rather than the date you received
it?
#Post#: 129457--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet PCN, code 27, Woodberry Grove, N12 , North Finchley -
Appeal based on Failure to consider
DIR By: astawastaken
Date: September 3, 2026, 5:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
>
> [quote]Rejection received 2nd September
--- End Quote ---
What was the date of the NoR, rather than the date you received
it?
[/quote]
02/09/2026 on the PDF
#Post#: 129461--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet PCN, code 27, Woodberry Grove, N12 , North Finchley -
Appeal based on Failure to consider
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: September 3, 2026, 5:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, served by email. I am not sure how that affects the
convention that date of service = two days from date of letter,
but someone here will know.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1