DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 105855--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN challenge declined but with strange google pic and no
proof
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 14, 2026, 7:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"He either fears his fate too much
Or his deserts are small
Who fears to put it to the touch
To win, or lose it all"
Earle of Montrose
#Post#: 105863--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN challenge declined but with strange google pic and no
proof
DIR By: JoCo
Date: January 14, 2026, 7:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Shabby behaviour by council to include a picture which was not
the OP's car.
Particularly as it was a similar colour car, and the fact it was
illustrative rather than evidence of contravention was not
mentioned.
A casual reader might well assume this was a council picture of
contravention, and throw cards in.
Anyway. Act on facts.
Is the location local to OP?
Surely the simplest way to establish the truth is to retrace
your steps and park in the same position.
Then take two photos, one perpendicular to kerb to illustrate
you were parked outside No. 7;
and one from the perspective of the council's photos, to show
that parking position the same as one cited in PCN.
Perhaps come back for an opinion then?
If OP entirely in front of no 7, job's a goodun.
If the OP was overlapping a little, de minimus could still
prevail.
If OP more than a little, I'd be inclined to gamble, with
original argument that council have not demonstrated a
contravention. Especially due to council's behaviour, which I'm
sure an adjudicator would take a dim view of.
#Post#: 105881--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN challenge declined but with strange google pic and no
proof
DIR By: RichardW
Date: January 14, 2026, 9:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In the GSV current pic there is a square manhole behind the Audi
- and in the council pic of the front of the OP's car you can
just see the edge of the manhole. Going back to 2019 in GSV is
close to a square on view of the 5/7 gates - the edge of the
manhole looks to be more or less level with the gatepost of no 5
(not the 5/7 gatepost). So it looks like the OP's car was over
the dividing line by perhaps 30-50cm. Would really need a site
visit to measure. Given the lack of any markings in the parking
bay seems a good case of de minimis, but it's the OP's money.
#Post#: 105910--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN challenge declined but with strange google pic and no
proof
DIR By: catevary
Date: January 14, 2026, 12:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RichardW link ---
>
> In the GSV current pic there is a square manhole behind the
Audi - and in the council pic of the front of the OP's car you
can just see the edge of the manhole. Going back to 2019 in GSV
is close to a square on view of the 5/7 gates - the edge of the
manhole looks to be more or less level with the gatepost of no 5
(not the 5/7 gatepost). So it looks like the OP's car was over
the dividing line by perhaps 30-50cm. Would really need a site
visit to measure. Given the lack of any markings in the parking
bay seems a good case of de minimis, but it's the OP's money.
>
--- End Quote ---
Good catch! - yes i may have been protruding a bit (which i
believe i wrote) - im not trying to avoid the fine when i
deserve it but just dont want to be unjustly fined.
Now is 30~50cm is enough of a contravention in a typical case
like this. Am i correct in assuming 'de minimus' means that the
adjucator says that is so minor that im gonna throw out the case
and cancel the fine?
Now I wonder what the chances of it being chalked up as such is
high enough to gamble. I was thinking if it is 80% or up i'd
gamble it but if it is more like 50/50 ill just pay the 80.
really trying to access the collective knowledge/experience of
the forumites.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page