Paid the Penalty, Then Won the Appeal: Why Missing Kerb Markings Sank a City of London Loading Ban PCN

Imagine paying a parking fine, assuming the matter is closed, and then finding out the council could not prove you did anything wrong. That is broadly what happened in this City of London tribunal case. A driver was accused of breaching a loading ban, a penalty was paid, and the adjudicator then ruled that the council's own photographs failed to show the restriction existed.

Loading bans catch out plenty of drivers, but this case shows the other side of the story. Councils must prove that the restriction was clearly marked, and sometimes they cannot.

The case: what happened

The Authority was the City of London. The contravention was "parked or loading/unloading during a loading ban", which the adjudicator described as a Code 2 type of contravention, meaning a breach of yellow line restrictions where a loading ban was in force.

The ticket reached the driver by post rather than being placed on the windscreen. The council explained that the civil enforcement officer had begun preparing the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) but the vehicle was driven away before the officer had finished or served it.

The tribunal summary also records that £65 had been paid towards the penalty. The council was seeking the full penalty charge, meaning another £65. The summary does not explain exactly how the payment and the balance came about, so we should not speculate. The outcome, though, was clear. The appeal was allowed, and the council was told to make a refund.

The arguments

The published reasons are short and do not set out the driver's arguments in detail, so I will not invent them. What we can say is what the tribunal focused on.

The council's position was that a contravention had occurred. It explained why the PCN was posted: under the Traffic Management Act 2004, a PCN can be served by post on the vehicle's owner if the vehicle was driven away before the officer finished the process. In those circumstances, the council said, the PCN also acts as the Notice to Owner. It also wanted the full penalty charge.

The driver's side of the case, judging by the outcome, was that the contravention had not been proved. The adjudicator went straight to the question of whether the restriction was visible in the council's evidence.

The decision

The adjudicator allowed the appeal. The reasoning came down to one point about evidence:

• The council's officer photographs did not show any kerb blips.
• They did not show any white plate that would indicate a loading ban.
• As a result, the council's evidence did not sufficiently prove the contravention alleged.

Because the appeal succeeded, the council had to refund what had been paid.

The legal reasoning in plain English

The council has to prove its case

In a PCN appeal, the burden sits with the council. The standard is the "balance of probabilities", which simply means more likely than not. A driver does not have to prove innocence. The council has to show, with evidence, that the contravention happened and that the restriction was properly in place.

Here the council's evidence fell short. The adjudicator did not decide that the driver had done nothing. The decision was that the council had not shown enough to establish the contravention.

Why kerb blips and white plates matter

Yellow lines on the road generally tell you about waiting restrictions. Loading restrictions are shown differently. They are indicated by short yellow marks on the kerb, often called blips, together with a nearby sign plate setting out the days and times the ban applies.

This distinction catches many drivers out. A driver who sees yellow lines and thinks "waiting is restricted but I can load" may be wrong, because the kerb marks and signs can tell a different story. In this case the problem was reversed. The council's pictures did not show the kerb marks or the sign plate that would make the loading ban visible and enforceable.

Restrictions need to be properly marked and signed to be enforceable. If the markings that create a loading ban cannot be shown in the evidence, the council has a hard time arguing the ban applied at that spot. That is the principle behind this decision, and it is why the adjudicator focused on what the photos did not show.

The postal PCN was not the problem

The council's explanation of postal service was accurate, and the adjudicator treated it as such. Under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and its regulations, if an officer has begun preparing a PCN but the vehicle is driven away, the PCN can be sent to the registered keeper by post. In that situation the PCN doubles as the Notice to Owner, which is the document that normally comes later in the process.

This matters because drivers sometimes assume a postal PCN is somehow invalid. Generally it is not, if the circumstances fit the rules. The decision shows the procedure was not what sank the council. The weakness was in proving the contravention itself.

A tribunal decision is not a rule for every case

A single adjudicator's decision turns on its own facts. It does not bind other adjudicators in the same way a court precedent might. This case was won on the specific photographs in front of the adjudicator at that location. It does not mean that every loading ban PCN without a close-up of a kerb blip will fail.

Lessons for drivers

These are general observations from the case, not advice for any particular ticket.

1. Read the council's evidence, not just the PCN. The key finding here came from what the council's own photographs did and did not show. Evidence packs are often where cases are won or lost. It is worth looking carefully at every image and asking whether it shows the restriction as well as the vehicle.

2. Know the difference between waiting and loading restrictions. Yellow road lines, kerb blips and sign plates all do different jobs. Understanding how they work together helps you judge whether a restriction was clearly communicated. Our guide to understanding PCN codes explains how contraventions are categorised, and our piece on how to use unclear parking signs as a defence looks at signage in more depth.

3. Your own photographs can matter. Dated pictures of the kerb, the markings and any signs nearby can support or contradict the council's version. If you are in the City of London, our overview of City of London parking tips and regulations is a useful starting point.

4. Think carefully before paying if you have doubts. In this case a payment had been made and a refund followed, but that is an unusual detail and should not be read as a general rule. Paying a penalty charge can affect your options, and the position can depend on the stage of the process. If you are unsure, check the guidance on the PCN and the tribunal's own information, and consider professional advice where the stakes are real. If you have already paid something you believe you should not have, our guide to the parking fine refund request process outlines how refunds generally work.

5. A postal PCN is not automatically a bad PCN. Do not assume the way a ticket arrived is the way to defeat it. The more promising question is usually whether the council can prove the contravention and the restriction. If you are putting your case in writing, our guide to formal representations for PCNs explains how to structure it.

Key takeaway

A loading ban is only enforceable if the council can show it was there. If the evidence does not clearly show the kerb blips and the sign plate, the adjudicator may decide the contravention is not proved, and in this case that meant a refund.

This article is general commentary on a published tribunal decision and is not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. If you are facing a PCN, check the official guidance from the issuing authority and the relevant tribunal, and consider professional advice where a significant sum is involved.