DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 101045--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: mickR
Date: December 4, 2025, 2:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Should this point not be argued also.
>
> IMO, no. Obstruction is subjective, so how could you argue
your opinion with any hope of success and why give them the
chance to waffle on about 'obstruction'.
>
--- End Quote ---
by the same token what makes you think the Authority can argue
obstruction??when there appears to be photographic evidence that
the OP wasn't causing an obstruction.
#Post#: 101055--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 4, 2025, 4:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Each to their own, however I prefer to stick with objective
argument in this case. But if the OP feels compelled to raise
the issue that in their opinion they were not causing a (in law
undefined) contravention of 'obstruction', then include in their
reps.
#Post#: 101056--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: EvaporatedMilkCoffee
Date: December 4, 2025, 4:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In the response to the informal challenge, they didn’t
necessarily say that I was causing an obstruction. They just
outlined the “terms” for the “car park” in which it said if
there are no lines for the bays then you must park without
causing obstruction to pedestrian’s emergency vehicles etc blah
blah, they didn’t explicitly say that I was in contravention of
that and that’s the reason they upheld the PCN, so I can see why
it doesn’t need to be brought up.
This is just what I’ve gathered
#Post#: 101057--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: EvaporatedMilkCoffee
Date: December 4, 2025, 4:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Nevermind what I said, they did actually say in the rejection to
the informal appeal, “you were issued a PCN for causing an
obstruction”
#Post#: 101073--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 5, 2025, 3:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You said in post #1: I received a PCN this time for being
“parked causing an obstruction”,
Can I also ask what you meant by “costs award”. Surely there’s
no costs award with these types of matters, or have I
misunderstood?
Lots of questions peripheral to the main issue.
Costs
13.—(1) An adjudicator must not normally make an order awarding
costs and expenses.
(2) But, subject to sub-paragraph (3), an adjudicator may make
an order awarding costs and expenses—
(a)against a party (including an appellant who has withdrawn an
appeal or an enforcement authority which has consented to an
appeal being allowed), if the adjudicator considers that—
(i)the party has acted frivolously or vexatiously, or
(ii)the party’s conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an
appeal was wholly unreasonable;
(b)against an enforcement authority, where the adjudicator
considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable.
(3) An order must not be made against a party unless that party
has been given an opportunity to make representations against
the making of the order.
(4) An order must require the party against whom it is made to
pay to the other party a specified sum in respect of the costs
and expenses incurred by that other party in connection with the
proceedings.
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348231564
They're very limited and the threshold is high, but IMO the
authority are just being ignorant and obdurate here.
2024/2025 Stats for Parking at London Tribunals:
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ETA%20Annual%20Parking%20Stats%202024-25%20final%20%28PWS%20version%29.xlsx
#Post#: 101082--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: EvaporatedMilkCoffee
Date: December 5, 2025, 4:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes that is the reason stated on the PCN for being issued.
I just thought it’s important to understand what I’m sending,
hence I asked.
I understand everyone is giving up their own time to help me out
here and it’s truly appreciated.
I will submit the formal appeal via Notice to Owner and send an
update in any case.
#Post#: 101089--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 5, 2025, 4:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Post a draft here first pl and keep a copy of what you send.
Just re-read the thread. Is the ridiculous 'Permit holders only
beyond this point' sign still in place?
#Post#: 101090--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: EvaporatedMilkCoffee
Date: December 5, 2025, 4:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’m just going to send what you sent, I won’t alter it.
Yes that sign is still in place.
Also is the formal representation the same portal as the
informal representation? As it’s giving me the option to make a
representation there, but it seems the same as the informal
representation. Just want to make sure.
Thanks
#Post#: 101100--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 5, 2025, 5:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest this amendment:
Such a requirement, assuming one exists as a provision in a
traffic order, MUST be conveyed in writing on site: it does not
exist simply because the markings are present or because
untrained officers in the enforcement authority say so. There
is no basis on which a motorist is presumed to have this
knowledge because the Traffic Signs etc. Regs and the Highway
Code apply to 'roads' as defined and not car parks. As further
proof of the council's confusion regarding the status of this
piece of land, it has erected a sign stating 'Permit holders
only past this point' which is displayed prominently at the
entrance to the area.
But this has effect ONLY when placed on a road and not an
off-road car park, unless brought into effect by Terms and
Conditions which explicitly refer to this sign and its meaning.
So yet again, the authority's signage fails to meet regulatory
requirements which deficiencies cannot be ignored simply by
stating that 'everything is in accordance with regulatory
requirements'.
#Post#: 101121--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council Issued PCN for “Parked causing an obstruction”
Location “Outside Garages”
DIR By: EvaporatedMilkCoffee
Date: December 5, 2025, 7:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve submitted the appeal.
Here is EXACTLY what I’ve sent:
“The contravention did not occur.
The basic facts of where my vehicle was parked are not in
dispute and therefore I hope the authority would not belabour
this aspect in their response.
This is a matter of law and how it applies to the council's
demand for a penalty.
In order for the council to treat this area as an off-street car
park and to demand penalties for failure to comply with its
terms and condition of use, those conditions MUST be conveyed
clearly to users. Accepted practice is to erect a board setting
out those terms and what may happen if a motorist fails to
comply. In addition, if the car park is marked then it is the
council's duty to convey to a motorist that, as you glibly wrote
in your letter dated 5 November, 'in a car park with marked
spaces or areas you [ the motorist] need to park so that your
entire vehicle is inside these lines.'
Such a requirement, assuming one exists as a provision in a
traffic order, MUST be conveyed in writing on site: it does not
exist simply because the markings are present or because
untrained officers in the enforcement authority say so. There
is no basis on which a motorist is presumed to have this
knowledge because the Traffic Signs etc. Regs and the Highway
Code apply to 'roads' as defined and not car parks.
As further proof of the council's confusion regarding the status
of this piece of land, it has erected a sign stating 'Permit
holders only past this point' which is displayed prominently at
the entrance to the area.
But this has effect ONLY when placed on a road and not an
off-road car park, unless brought into effect by Terms and
Conditions which explicitly refer to this sign and its meaning.
So yet again, the authority's signage fails to meet regulatory
requirements which deficiencies cannot be ignored simply by
stating that 'everything is in accordance with regulatory
requirements'.
Given that the authority failed to have regard to my previous
representations, I do not hold out an expectation that this
might change with formal representations. But I have not totally
abandoned hope that the authority will not insist on taking this
matter to adjudication at which my appeal would be allowed and
favourable consideration given to making a costs award.
The contravention (as defined under para. 2(1)(c) of Part 1 of
Schedule 7 to the Traffic Management Act 2004) did not occur
because 'any provision made by or under an order relating to the
parking place' must be conveyed adequately.“
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 12
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page