The authority did not resolve markings suggesting permitted footway parking (2026)
Case 2250333185 / 2025-10-10 / Adjudicator Martin Hoare
Redruth Walk
Martin Hoare allowed the appeal where the photographs showed a textured strip and faint bay line. The authority's account did not adequately distinguish that position from nearby permitted footway parking.
“The appeal is allowed.”
Martin Hoare, case 2250333185
The authority alleged footway parking and said the vehicle was outside a designated exemption bay. The driver disputed this, pointing to markings on the pavement and apparently similar arrangements nearby.
Martin Hoare examined the officer's photographs. They showed a different surface texture beside the walkway and a faint white line parallel to the vehicle, denoting a bay marking.
The authority said footway parking was permitted on a neighbouring road but not at the disputed position. It did not supply evidence of contrasting signs that resolved the distinction. The adjudicator found its evidence did not establish the absence of permitted-parking markings and allowed the appeal.
The useful comparison is the unresolved relationship between the vehicle, markings, signs and the authority's plan. The decision did not declare that any faint line or different paving creates lawful permission to park on a footway.
Source and case reference
Search for 2250333185 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