When the Warden's Own Notes Blew Up the Council's Case

A Kingston parking appeal that every driver needs to read

Imagine this: you're a builder, parked on a residential street because a neighbour has blocked your customer's driveway. You come outside, spot a civil enforcement officer tapping away at his device, and politely tell him you'll move the car. He rides off on his moped. Job done, you think.

A few weeks later, a Penalty Charge Notice lands on your doormat — not because you were caught red-handed, but because the council claims the officer couldn't hand it to you. Worse still, the PCN states you drove away before the notice was ready. The problem? The officer's own notes say nothing of the sort.

This is exactly what happened to Mr Osahan in a recent appeal against the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames. He challenged the PCN at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal — and won. The reasons why reveal something important about the rules councils must follow when serving parking tickets, and how a single factual inconsistency can unravel an entire case.

The Case: Builder, Blocked Driveway, and a Moped-Riding Warden

Mr Osahan was working for an elderly customer with Alzheimer's disease. A neighbour had parked across the customer's driveway, forcing him to leave his vehicle in a nearby resident and shared-use permit bay. He had no permit for that bay — that much was clear from the officer's photographs, which showed the car parked in an adequately signed permit zone without a valid permit displayed.

The contravention itself — "Parked in a resident/shared use bay without a valid permit" — was not seriously in dispute. The real battleground was something more procedural, but no less important: how the PCN was served, and whether that service was legally valid.

The Arguments: Two Very Different Accounts

What Mr Osahan said

Mr Osahan's account was straightforward. He came outside while the officer was entering his vehicle's details into his handheld device. He told the officer he would move the car. The officer then rode away on his moped. That was it. No threats. No aggressive behaviour. No driving off before the notice was ready. He said he had two witnesses who could back this up.

The PCN itself told a different story. It stated that the vehicle had been driven away before the officer had finished preparing the notice, affixed it to the vehicle, or handed it to the driver. This wording is significant — it's the legal trigger that allows a council to send a PCN by post rather than in person.

What the council said

Kingston argued that the officer had been unable to serve the notice by hand — essentially, that circumstances beyond his control had prevented proper in-person service, justifying postal delivery instead. They did not attend the video hearing to elaborate on this position.

The officer's own contemporaneous notes recorded something rather different from a drive-away scenario. According to those notes, the PCN had already printed by the time the confrontation occurred. The officer said he told Mr Osahan the notice had been printed and offered it to him. He claimed Mr Osahan became offensive and threatening, and ultimately ignored him. Crucially, however, the officer's notes made no mention whatsoever of the vehicle being driven away.

The Decision: Appeal Allowed

The adjudicator allowed the appeal — but not because Mr Osahan's parking was lawful. It was not. The appeal succeeded on a narrower, but legally decisive, point: the council had failed to establish a valid basis for serving the PCN by post.

The Legal Reasoning: Why the Officer's Own Notes Were Fatal to the Council's Case

This is where it gets genuinely interesting, and where the law rewards careful attention to detail.

Postal service is not a free pass

Under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the associated regulations governing civil parking enforcement in England, a PCN can be sent by post in specific circumstances — for example, where a vehicle is driven away before the notice can be prepared or handed over. But the council bears the burden of proving that those circumstances actually existed. It is not enough to simply assert them.

The PCN's stated reason didn't match the officer's notes

The PCN claimed the vehicle was driven away before the notice was ready. Yet the officer's own notes recorded that the notice had already printed, and that he had offered it to Mr Osahan. These are two very different situations. If the notice had printed and been offered to the driver, then by the officer's own account, it was ready — and the vehicle had not been driven away at the point of that offer.

In plain English: the council's ticket said one thing happened, but the officer's own contemporaneous record described something entirely different. That is a significant internal contradiction.

No corroboration of the threat or the drive-away

The officer alleged that Mr Osahan became threatening. Mr Osahan flatly denied this and said he had witnesses. The adjudicator noted that there was no corroborating evidence of any threat, and — critically — no evidence of a drive-away either. When evidence conflicts and the council provides nothing to tip the balance, the burden of proof matters enormously. That burden rests with the authority, not the driver.

The result: invalid service, invalid PCN

Because the council could not establish that the circumstances justifying postal service actually occurred, the legal foundation for the ticket crumbled. The adjudicator did not need to decide who was telling the truth about the alleged threat. The officer's own notes, taken at face value, contradicted the basis on which the PCN had been issued and served. The authority had, in effect, undermined its own case.

Lessons for Drivers: What This Case Teaches You

1. How a PCN is served matters as much as why it was issued

Even if you were genuinely parked in contravention — as Mr Osahan was — the council must follow the correct legal process to issue and serve the ticket. If they get that wrong, the PCN can be cancelled regardless of the underlying parking breach. Procedure is not a technicality; it is the law.

2. Always request the officer's notes and evidence pack

When you challenge a PCN, you are entitled to see the council's evidence — including the civil enforcement officer's contemporaneous notes, photographs, and any device logs. In this case, those notes directly contradicted the PCN's own stated grounds. You cannot spot that kind of inconsistency without reading the evidence carefully.

3. The council must prove its case — not the other way around

Many drivers assume they have to prove their innocence. In civil parking enforcement, the burden of proof lies with the issuing authority. If the council cannot establish the factual basis for the ticket — whether that's the contravention itself, or the method of service — the appeal should succeed.

4. If you have witnesses, say so early and clearly

Mr Osahan stated from the outset that he had two witnesses who could corroborate his account. He did not need to produce them in this instance, because the council's own evidence was inconsistent. But mentioning witnesses puts the authority on notice that your version of events is not simply your word against the officer's.

5. Postal PCNs are not automatically valid

Receiving a parking ticket in the post can feel more official, more final, more difficult to challenge. It is none of those things. Postal service is only lawful in defined circumstances, and the council must be able to demonstrate that those circumstances applied. If they cannot, the ticket falls away.

The Key Takeaway

A council cannot paper over the cracks in its own evidence. In this case, the officer's notes directly contradicted the PCN's stated grounds for postal service — and the council paid the price for that inconsistency at tribunal. When you receive a PCN, especially one delivered by post, always ask why it was posted rather than handed to you or fixed to your vehicle. If the answer doesn't hold up against the evidence, you may have a winning appeal — even if you were, technically, parked in the wrong place.

The law is not just about what you did. It is also about what the council can prove, and how they went about proving it.