DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 77283--------------------------------------------------
Kingston- 24 not parked correctly
By: Vada_nevada Date: June 19, 2025, 6:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all. Today I parked on off street parking and focused on the
side markings making sure I was as close to the curb as
possible, trying to squeeze between front and back parked cars,
I returned within paid time to get a ticket for not parking
correctly. Soon after I realized that was to do with the
horizontal boarder and I seemed to be between 2 spaces. I had a
baby on the front seat and trying to avoid the post to the left
was sort of juggling how to park to have access to the boot to
get my baby’s buggy. Either way, it was not my intention to take
2 spaces for sure,is there a chance to appeal for markings not
being clear? Or any other valid reasons?
HTML https://imgur.com/a/wJmYEk9
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 77284--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston- 24 not parked correctly
By: fraser.mitchell Date: June 19, 2025, 7:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please post a GSV link to the exact location where you parked.
Photos show you seem to be straddling two bays, so we need to
see the bay.
#Post#: 77316--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston- 24 not parked correctly
By: Vada_nevada Date: June 20, 2025, 4:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/grw5RjAT2fFSyLY67
This is 26 The Bittoms, Kingston upon Thames. My car is parked
next to the post.
#Post#: 77326--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston- 24 not parked correctly
By: H C Andersen Date: June 20, 2025, 5:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As the photos show you straddled 2 spaces I fear that all you
have at this stage is an appeal to their good nature. There's at
least one other poster to the forum who would attest to sympathy
being in short supply at Kingston and is often accompanied by
procedural incompetence. But to test this you would need to be
prepared to risk the full penalty.
Are you the registered keeper with current DVLA details because
the next stage would involve them receiving a Notice to Owner
for the full penalty.
#Post#: 77333--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston- 24 not parked correctly
By: stamfordman Date: June 20, 2025, 5:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would challenge asking for discretion as the primary point but
there are cases allowed at the tribunal on no signage about
parking within bay markings being present so you could put them
on notice about this and we can look at the traffic order..
-----------
Case reference 2240374029
Appellant Neel Bacheta
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM N333ELB
PCN Details
PCN HG21326104
Contravention date 13 Nov 2023
Contravention time 18:04:00
Contravention location High Street
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Not parked correctly within markings of bay/space
Referral date -
Decision Date 13 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Alastair Mcfarlane
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to
Owner.
Reasons This case comes before me following the making of a
witness statement and I therefore consider the merits afresh.
The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was not
parked correctly within the markings of the bay in Romford High
Street on 13 November 2023. A penalty charge notice was issued
at 1804.
The Appellant states that there was no error with his parking
and that he did park within the bay provided and explained the
difficulties were caused by a lorry in front of him and a car
behind him. He refers to front tyre being out of the bay.
The Council rely upon the evidence of its civil enforcement
officer. Whilst these are dark, it can be seen that the entire
front wheel of the Appellant's vehicle is within the adjacent
loading only bay.
However there is no evidence before me any condition to park
fully within the bay has been communicated to the motorist. The
Council describe the bay as a parking bay and that the vehicle
was straddling into a loading bay. However it is a requirement
for delegated legislation that the obligation to park fully
within the bay must be communicated.
As there is no evidence before me as to how this was done for
the bay in question, the appeal must be allowed.
---------
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
Mr Rafique.
His case is essentially that he parked in good faith and that
there was no notice requiring him to park within the bay
markings.
It is certainly, in my view, common sense that if a parking
place is divided into parking places by white lines within the
bay the motorist is expected to park within those lines. What
else, after all, are they there to indicate? However the issue
is whether the lines of themselves indicate that they are there
not merely for guidance but that it is a legal requirement that
vehicles park within them. Although it is not uncommon it is
(and I speak from experience) by no means universally the case
that Traffic Management Orders create such a legal requirement
and it seems to me the motorist is entitled to be put on notice
in a case where the particular TMO imposes such a requirement.
In the circumstances I am not satisfied that it can be said the
restriction relied on was sufficiently clearly indicated and the
Appel is therefore allowed.
#Post#: 77893--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston- 24 not parked correctly
By: Vada_nevada Date: June 24, 2025, 7:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, thanks for your reply. Please could you walk me through how
do I mention those cases exactly in the appeal?
#Post#: 77904--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston- 24 not parked correctly
By: stamfordman Date: June 24, 2025, 8:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You don't need to cite cases at this stage.
Draft something on the circumstances of your parking (parking
with baby, access to buggy etc), and kindly ask for discretion
in this case. Post here first.
But add:
I would appreciate it if you would also direct me to signage
that would have alerted me to the contravention as I don't think
there is any at this location.
#Post#: 78056--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston- 24 not parked correctly
By: Vada_nevada Date: June 24, 2025, 6:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
To: Parking Services
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: PCN Number QT10697229 – Vehicle Registration RJ74 HWR
Issued: 19 June 2025 | Location: The Bittoms
I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge
Notice.
I parked my vehicle at approximately 12:45. At that time, there
were cars positioned both in front and behind me, which
significantly limited visibility of bay markings and space to
manoeuvre. These cars had left by the time the photographs were
taken at 14:42, creating a misleading impression of how the
vehicle was positioned at the time of parking.
Moreover, the bay markings in the provided photos are not
clearly visible, suggesting that the lines may have been either
very worn or not present at all in certain areas. This made it
even more difficult to assess the exact boundaries when parking.
In addition, I am a parent of a small baby, who was seated in a
rear-facing car seat on the front passenger side. As visible in
your photos, there is a fixed post near the front passenger
door, which made it physically difficult to open the door fully.
I needed to allow sufficient space to safely remove the car seat
and take my baby out of the vehicle. I also required clear rear
access to retrieve the buggy from the boot. These considerations
impacted the exact positioning of the car, and I did my best to
park safely and responsibly within the conditions presented.
I wish to emphasise that my vehicle was not obstructing the road
or footpath, and I made every reasonable effort to park
correctly, safely, and with consideration for others.
In light of the above circumstances — including the poor marking
visibility, presence of other vehicles at the time of parking,
physical obstructions, and the genuine need for accessibility as
a parent — I respectfully request that this penalty charge be
cancelled.
Thank you for your understanding.
#Post#: 78473--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston- 24 not parked correctly
By: Vada_nevada Date: June 27, 2025, 7:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi stamdordman, please could you have a look at what I drafted
and advise further? Thanks
#Post#: 78577--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston- 24 not parked correctly
By: stamfordman Date: June 27, 2025, 1:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll look at this tomorrow. It can be tweaked.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page