The parking order did not support the bay-marking allegation (2026)
Case 2250181269 / 2025-06-25 / Adjudicator Edward Houghton
The Drive
Edward Houghton accepted that the vehicle was marginally outside the bay. The appeal succeeded because the order's particular wording did not support the contravention alleged on the PCN.
“The contravention for which the PCN was issued is not supported by the TMO and the Appeal is therefore allowed.”
Edward Houghton, case 2250181269
The vehicle was marginally outside the bay markings. That physical position was not the successful point of dispute. The adjudicator examined the traffic management order governing how vehicles had to stand in the parking place.
Edward Houghton read the order's unusual wording as restricting its within-bay requirement to payment bays. For other parking places, the wording instead imposed requirements concerning distance from the carriageway edge and related positioning matters.
Whether another condition might have been breached did not establish the different contravention actually alleged. The appeal was allowed because the bay-marking allegation was not supported by the order, not because marginal encroachment was automatically too small to enforce.
For a comparable case, identify the exact parking place, applicable order clause and allegation. This finding depends on the wording of this order; it is not a general exemption for vehicles protruding beyond marked spaces.
Source and case reference
Search for 2250181269 in the London Tribunals register to read the decision. This case explains how the adjudicator assessed its evidence; another appeal depends on its own facts and applicable restriction.
Find the official decision