When "We Were Working" Isn't Enough: The Loading Bay Case That Every Tradesperson Must Read

Picture this. Your work van is parked in a loading bay. You've got barriers out, equipment deployed, and a genuine emergency job underway. You think you're covered. Then a parking ticket lands on your windscreen anyway — and when you appeal, you lose.

That's exactly what happened in a recent City of London tribunal case, and the outcome contains a lesson that goes far beyond tradespeople. It cuts to the heart of how parking exemptions actually work in practice, and why good intentions — or even genuine work — are not always enough to beat a Penalty Charge Notice.

The Case: A Sewer Emergency in the Square Mile

The vehicle at the centre of this appeal belonged to a company responding to what they described as an emergency blockage in a main public sewer serving a hotel. The van was parked in a loading place — a bay marked with yellow kerb blaze markings and signs indicating it is reserved for vehicles actively loading or unloading goods.

The contravention? "Parked in a loading place without loading." This is one of the most commonly disputed parking contraventions in London, and it catches out an enormous number of drivers and operators every year.

The City of London is one of the most tightly enforced parking zones in the country. Its Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) are thorough, and the evidence they gather carries significant weight at tribunal.

The Arguments: Both Sides Had a Point

What the appellants argued

The company appealed the Penalty Charge Notice on the basis that they were genuinely engaged in exempt activity. Their case rested on several points:

• They were responding to an emergency drainage job — a blockage in the public sewer
• The van needed to be in that specific position to use its onboard jetting equipment
• They submitted a copy jobsheet as documentary evidence of the work
• They provided photographs showing plastic barriers and a hose at the rear of the vehicle
• They explained that the active use of equipment might not always be visible from the outside at any given moment — for example, between jetting cycles or while assessing the blockage

These are reasonable points. Emergency drainage work is exactly the kind of activity that loading bay exemptions were designed to accommodate. You can't always jet a sewer from the other side of the street.

What the council argued

The City of London relied on the observations of the Civil Enforcement Officer who attended the scene. Their evidence showed:

• The CEO first logged the vehicle at 7.46am
• The PCN was not issued until 15 minutes later — a notably extended observation period
• Photographs taken by the CEO showed the plastic barriers, but also clearly showed the hose was not in use
• The CEO recorded no exempted activity during the entire observation window

The Decision: Appeal Refused

The adjudicator refused the appeal. In plain terms: the PCN stands, and the company must pay.

The adjudicator acknowledged the evidence submitted — the jobsheet, the photographs, the explanation about intermittent use of equipment. None of it was dismissed out of hand. But ultimately, the adjudicator was not satisfied that the vehicle was in actual use in connection with any exempt activity at the time the PCN was issued.

That phrase — at the time of issue — is doing enormous legal work here, and it's worth understanding why.

The Legal Reasoning: What the Law Actually Requires

Loading bays are not general-purpose work bays

Under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the associated regulations governing on-street parking, loading bays are designated for a specific purpose: the active loading or unloading of goods (or, in some cases, passengers). The exemption for vehicles parked in a loading bay is not a blanket permission to park there because your work is nearby or related to the street.

The key word is "active." The vehicle must be genuinely and observably engaged in the exempt activity. Parking the van, setting up barriers, and then walking away to assess a drain cover — even as part of a legitimate job — may not meet that threshold if, at the moment the CEO observes the vehicle, nothing is visibly happening.

The burden of proof falls on the appellant

Here's something many drivers don't realise: once a contravention is recorded, the burden shifts to you to prove an exemption applies. The council doesn't have to prove you weren't loading. You have to prove you were.

The adjudicator made this explicit. The appellants had not established, to the adjudicator's satisfaction, that the vehicle was in actual use at the relevant time. The jobsheet and photographs were helpful context, but they didn't definitively show what was happening at 7.46am to 8.01am — the precise window that mattered.

Fifteen minutes of observation was significant

One of the most important details in this case is that the CEO waited 15 full minutes before issuing the PCN. The adjudicator noted this was likely because the scene suggested the possibility of exempt activity — the barriers, the hose, the work van configuration. The CEO gave the benefit of the doubt for a quarter of an hour.

That extended observation period actually strengthened the council's case. It demonstrated that the CEO had not acted hastily, and that during a reasonable window of observation, no active exempt work was recorded.

Lessons for Drivers and Operators

Whether you're a tradesperson, a delivery driver, or simply someone who occasionally parks in a loading bay, this case contains genuinely important lessons.

1. Visible activity matters — not just the presence of equipment

Having barriers out and a hose attached to your van does not, by itself, prove you are actively loading or working. What matters is what is visibly happening at the moment of enforcement. If your equipment is idle — even briefly — you may be vulnerable.

2. Document everything in real time

If you are engaged in genuine exempt work, photograph and timestamp your activity throughout the job — not just at the start and end. A jobsheet is useful background evidence, but it doesn't prove what was happening minute by minute. Video footage, timestamped photographs of equipment in active use, or a contemporaneous note from a second operative can make all the difference.

3. Understand that "emergency" doesn't automatically mean "exempt"

The word "emergency" carries emotional weight but limited legal weight on its own. The exemption still requires active engagement with the task at the time of enforcement. An emergency job that is paused — however briefly — may not satisfy the test.

4. The burden of proof is on you

If you appeal a PCN on the basis of an exemption, you must prove the exemption applies. Reasonable explanations and plausible evidence are not always enough. The adjudicator must be satisfied — and that's a meaningful standard.

5. Extended CEO observation can work against you

If a CEO watches your vehicle for 15 minutes and sees nothing happening, that observation period becomes evidence in itself. Don't assume that a patient CEO is a sympathetic one.

The Key Takeaway

Parking in a loading bay is only lawful if you are actively and observably using it for its permitted purpose at the time of enforcement — not just before, not just after, and not just in theory.

Good intentions, genuine work, and even a legitimate emergency do not override the need for visible, provable activity at the critical moment. If you're a tradesperson working from a van, treat every loading bay stop as if a camera is watching — because it probably is.

This case was decided by a London Tribunals adjudicator under the Traffic Management Act 2004. All PCN appeals are decided on their individual facts and evidence.