2 PCNs in 2 Days

originally001

Hi all,

Apologies in advance if this is a slightly length post! I was wondering if i could get some advice as to whether i should pay these parking tickets i have received within 2 days of eachother. 

The first PCN (PCN1) was received on 07/02/25 noting contravention 62c which is where you are 'parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway'. In the picture attached you can see that i am parked on the dropped curb with a part of my wheel overhanging to the end of the driveway which my family and a number of neighbours have always done over the last 50 years that we have been living here. My initial response was that maybe i was too far hanging over the back of the drive and that is what the ticket was for. When i had a look online i couldnt really see any examples of someone receiving a ticket with my scenario and saw more examples where people were parked half on the drive and half on a normal footpath and not a dropped curb, Again, to emphasise, my family have lived here for decades and have never had an issue parking like this in the past so this was a bit of a shock. 

Because i thought that the ticket was for hanging too far back over the end of the driveway i continued to park on the dropped curb but made sure that my wheel wasnt overhanging on to the end of the drive. This is when to my surprise i had received a ticket 2 days later again quoting contravention 62c. To emphasise, my interpretation was that they were thinking i am overhanging onto the end of my driveway especially given that pictures for both PCNs focused on the back and side of the car.

My appeals to the PCNs essentially highlighted that if the ticket is for me overhanging onto the end of the driveway this wouldn't make sense as only we are allowed to park at the end of the drive - it doesn't block any pedestrians or other vehicles as it doesn't go onto the road. I also mentioned that where my car is parked doesn't block pedestrians at all - there is ample space for the public to walk and for my car to be parked. 

Both appeals were rejected and have been moved to Notice to Owner stage. Interestingly, in the rejection from PCN1 they specifically call out that my 'vehicle was causing an obstruction at the time of the contravention and blocking the footway as 1.2m was not left available for pedestrians'. Firstly, there is definitely more than 1.2m - according to my measurements there is between 1.8-2m and secondly, images show no evidence that 1.2m was not left and like i mentioned earlier, the majority of images provided where from behind/side of the car. 

PCN2 they have rejected 'Under Section 15(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 as amended Section 76(3) (d) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 and by Section 15 of the London Local Authorities Act 2000, a contravention occurs if a vehicle is parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway. This is often called footway parking but the prohibition extends to all land from the edge of the carriageway to the building line and includes crossovers, which give access from the road to adjoining premises. There is no requirement for signage and the vehicle need not to becausing any obstruction'. 

I wanted to get any advice on whether i should fight one, both or none of these PCNs - thanks in advance!

marcia_

 You have completely blocked the footpath. How are pedestrians meant to pass? Walk in the road? 

originally001

marcia_ said:

 You have completely blocked the footpath. How are pedestrians meant to pass? Walk in the road? 

I definitely wasn't - the pics in my original post dont show it clearly. Hopefully this does..

Kim_13

Park further up where the driveway is - it was clearly available per image 2 and 3. Anything beyond that paving is the footpath and was blocked. Your highlighted area makes it look even more so. No one should be forced to change course and walk around the boot of your car to get by, especially when the overhang was avoidable.

prettyandfluffy

The bit you have highlighted yellow and written "CAR" across is not your property.  You are allowed to drive across it to and from your drive, not to park on it or cause an obstruction.  Park on your drive or parallel park on the road as per the vehicles opposite as long as there are no restrictions.

Car1980

Crikey. Do cars have to swerve around your Tesla? Surprised nobody has swiped it.

prowla

There may be some mileage in contesting the use of the terms "obstruction" and "blocking".

If the car indeed was within the area yellow area (ie. not protruding across the edge of the triangular grass verge to the left and onto the footpath), which their pictures you've attached in the OP appear to confirm, then it clearly wasn't blocking the footpath and thus in no way impeding or preventing progress (google the dictionary term "obstruction").

I would certainly go through the appeals process and read up on the precise laws they assert have been transgressed.

They may not know the law.

For illustration..

• We recently went through a PCN where the authority asserted the vehicle was causing an obstruction, but others (including a bike) were going past unhindered, plus they invented new wordings of TSRGD by splicing together partial statements and presenting them as if they were the law; whilst ours was a completely different (and unrelated) scenario, the point is that the authorities may concoct claims.
• In our case we had to take it to the appeals tribunal, who concluded that "It is very alarming that the author of the enforcement authority (EA)'s case summary (4 pages of verbiage) and notice of rejection of the appellant's representations fundamentally misunderstands the regulation" in question and instructed the authority to cancel the PCN and refund any payments made.

Whilst I would observe that your parking is somewhat unusual, I would suggest that their basis for the PCN is questionable, for example.

• Does that ramp area between the road and the footpath comprise part of the road they've mentioned?
• As you point out, the 3-slabs width of the footpath is 1.8m, then not having impinged onto it could not have reduced it to 1.2m.

It's up to you whether you want to take it further, and presumably also establish your right to continue to park that way on an ongoing basis.

(I'm not a lawyer, but then again neither is the person who issued the PCN!)

Kim_13

Looking again at image 3, it would appear the most natural way across the path was just about unblocked -i.e. where pedestrians wouldn’t have to go onto the grass part to cross. For me it would depend on whether the car would, if parked on the driveway, have overhung that more natural path instead. If it would, then I could see why OP parked where they did, as it would then become the least inconvenient place for pedestrians.

Where your boot was might attract others blocking you in if you had parked further up - of course due to the dropped kerb people shouldn’t parallel park in there, but some probably would if there were no other spaces on the road, as parking appears limited.

But I can’t see any PCN issuer having much sympathy with “my car is too big for my driveway and would have created a worse overhang if I used it.” The motorist is a cash cow, and the PCN issuer probably takes one look at the type of car and thinks you can easily afford to pay.

Le_Kirk

Who issued the PCN, was it council or PPC?  Contravention 62c makes it read as if council.