Three Strikes and Out: How an Ealing Driver Won on Wrong PCN Code, Doubtful Evidence and a Disputed Handover

Most drivers who get a parking ticket assume the council has done its homework. The Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is printed, official-looking and confident. But a recent Ealing appeal shows how much has to go right for a council to make a PCN stick, and how many things can go wrong.

In this case the adjudicator found three separate problems with the council's case. Any one of them would have been enough to cancel the ticket. Here is what happened, why it matters, and what drivers can take from it.

The case: a shared use bay and a disputed ticket

The London Borough of Ealing issued a PCN for the contravention described as being "in a residents shared use place without permit." In other words, the council said the vehicle was parked in a bay reserved for residents (and, in a shared use bay, other permitted users such as pay-and-display customers) without the right authorisation on display.

The driver challenged the PCN, the council held its ground, and the dispute went to an independent adjudicator. The adjudicator allowed the appeal, which means the PCN was cancelled and nothing was payable.

The published reasons are brief, but they pack in three distinct legal points. It is unusual to see a council fall down on all three in one case.

The arguments: what each side was saying

The adjudicator's reasons do not set out the parties' arguments in detail, so we should be careful not to invent them. We can still work out the broad shape of the dispute from what was decided.

The council's position was, in essence, that the vehicle was parked in a residents' shared use bay without a permit, that the PCN was correctly issued, and that it had been handed to the driver at the time.

The driver's position appears to have been a three-pronged challenge. They questioned whether the PCN was valid on its face, whether the vehicle was really in a residents' bay at all, and whether the notice was ever handed to them as the council claimed.

The final point turned into what the adjudicator called a "clash of hearsay evidence." Each side had a version of events, and neither had firm backing.

The decision: appeal allowed, on three independent grounds

The adjudicator was explicit that each ground stood on its own: "any one of which, standing alone, would suffice for the appeal to be allowed." Here they are in plain English.

1. The PCN was invalid. The adjudicator took the view that the contravention code used on the ticket (Code 12) was not appropriate for an allegation of parking in a residents' bay, and that Code 15 should have been used.
2. The evidence did not show the vehicle was in a residents' bay. The adjudicator was not satisfied, on the evidence before them, that this was where the car was parked.
3. The council could not prove the PCN was handed to the driver. With two conflicting accounts and nothing to break the tie, the council had not met its burden of proof.

Because the appeal succeeded on these grounds, the adjudicator did not need to go further. They noted they would otherwise have needed to call for the Traffic Management Order (TMO), the legal document behind the restriction, to rule on what they called the "fluttering ticket" issue. That question was left undecided.

The legal reasoning, unpacked

Ground one: the wrong code can sink a PCN

A PCN is not just a demand for money. It is a formal legal document, and the rules say what it must contain, including the reason the council believes a penalty is payable. Contravention codes are shorthand for those reasons.

The adjudicator's view was that the code used here did not fit the allegation. The council said the car was in a residents' bay, yet the PCN was issued under a code the adjudicator considered inappropriate for that. If a PCN does not accurately state the contravention alleged, it may be defective, and a defective PCN cannot be enforced however sincere the council's belief.

To be clear, this is one adjudicator's view of the particular PCN in this particular case. Adjudicators decide each appeal on its own facts, so it should not be read as a rule that every similar PCN is invalid. It is, however, a good illustration of why the wording and code on a PCN deserve a careful read. For background on what these codes mean, see our guide to understanding PCN Code 12, and our explainer on PCN codes generally.

Ground two: the council must prove where the car was

In civil parking enforcement, it is for the council to show that the contravention happened. The standard is the "balance of probabilities," meaning more likely than not.

Here the adjudicator was not satisfied that the vehicle was in a residents' bay. That is a reminder that the case rests on evidence: photographs, the civil enforcement officer's notes, bay markings and signs. If that material does not clearly show the vehicle inside a properly marked bay of the type alleged, the contravention is not proven. Residents' bays and shared use bays can be sited close to other kinds of restriction, and an officer's notes or photographs may not make clear which one the car was in.

Ground three: "handed to the driver" is a factual claim the council must prove

This is the most interesting point. When a PCN is issued at the roadside, the officer can either fix it to the vehicle or hand it to the person in charge. The method matters, because it affects what the council can do next and what procedure follows.

If the council says the PCN was handed to the driver, that is a factual assertion. If the driver disputes it, someone has to prove it. The adjudicator described the evidence on each side as hearsay, meaning second-hand accounts rather than direct testimony, and with "no supporting evidence either way" the council had not discharged its burden.

The burden of proof sits with the council, not the driver. A driver does not have to prove a negative, such as "nobody gave me a ticket." The council has to show it did what it says it did.

The "fluttering ticket" point

A "fluttering ticket" argument typically involves a notice said to have been fixed to a vehicle, where the driver says it was never there or was not properly attached. The adjudicator did not decide that issue here, saying only that the TMO would have been needed to adjudicate on it. This is a good example of how adjudicators work: they decide what they must to resolve the appeal, and stop once an issue is dispositive.

Lessons for drivers

This is general commentary on one decision, not legal advice. With that in mind, here are some practical points the case illustrates.

1. Read the PCN carefully, including the code and the stated contravention. The PCN is the council's formal case against you. Check that the description of the contravention and the code match the allegation. Mismatches are not always fatal, but as this case shows, they can be. Our guide to formal representations explains how challenges are structured at that stage.

2. Remember who has to prove what. The council has to prove the contravention occurred, where it occurred, and (where relevant) how the PCN was served. You do not have to disprove everything. Where the evidence is thin or evenly balanced, that works against the council.

3. Scrutinise the council's evidence. Ask for, and look carefully at, the photographs, officer's notes and any other material the council relies on. Do they clearly show the vehicle in the bay alleged? Are the bay markings and signs visible? Gaps in the evidence can decide an appeal.

4. How the PCN was served can matter. If you dispute that a PCN was handed to you or fixed to your car, say so clearly and early. The question may well turn on what evidence the council can produce. Keep your own records as well, such as photographs of your windscreen when you returned to the vehicle, or a note of what happened.

5. Do not assume a win is automatic, and get help where the stakes are high. Every appeal turns on its own facts, and this decision does not mean similar PCNs are always unenforceable. If the amount at stake is significant, or the case is legally complicated, consider seeking professional advice. The official guidance on the independent tribunal process is a good place to start, and our walkthrough of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal process covers the basics, although a London borough's appeals are heard by London Tribunals.

Key takeaway

A PCN is only as strong as the council's proof. The right code, clear evidence of where the car was, and proof of how the notice was served all have to line up. In this Ealing case, the council fell short on all three, and the adjudicator made clear that any single failure would have been enough for the driver to win.

This article is general information and case commentary about UK parking law. It is not legal advice, and each case depends on its own facts. If you are dealing with a PCN, check the guidance published by your local authority and the relevant tribunal, and consider independent advice where the stakes are real.