"I Drove Away Before the Ticket Went On": How One Driver Beat a Westminster PCN

Most drivers assume that if a parking attendant says they issued a ticket, that is the end of the matter. This case shows why that isn't true. A council has to prove each step of the process, including something as basic as how the ticket reached the driver. When the evidence on that point is evenly balanced, the council can lose.

This appeal against a Westminster Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) turned on a single question: was the ticket ever actually issued?

The case: a Christmas trip to the toyshop

The driver, Mr Riches, parked in a Westminster meter bay. The contravention was recorded as "parked in a meter bay showing penalty time". In older style wording, that means the meter had run out and was displaying a penalty period.

His account of the day was vivid. It was his monthly contact visit with his son, and he had taken the boy to Hamleys toyshop for Christmas. When they returned to the car, the meter was not in penalty. He saw the parking attendant standing at the front of the vehicle. Nothing was said between them. He and his son got in and drove away.

He knew nothing of any ticket until a Notice to Owner arrived roughly a month later. That is the formal letter a council sends to the registered keeper when a PCN has not been paid.

The attendant's records told a different story. They logged the vehicle details, said the meter was 10 minutes into penalty, and stated that a PCN had been fixed to the windscreen.

The arguments

The driver's case was not that he had paid, or that the signs were confusing. His argument was simpler and more technical: he had driven away before the PCN was issued, so the notice was never validly served on him or his vehicle. He said no ticket was handed to him and none was on the windscreen when he left.

The council's case rested on the attendant's evidence. The attendant had recorded the relevant details, asserted that the meter was in penalty, and said the PCN was affixed to the windscreen. In effect, the council asked the adjudicator to accept the official record as proof that everything had been done correctly.

The decision

The adjudicator allowed the appeal. The PCN was cancelled and nothing was payable.

The reasoning was short. The adjudicator found Mr Riches "a credible and honest witness". There was, in the adjudicator's words, a direct conflict of evidence. Having considered it all, the adjudicator was not satisfied that the PCN had been lawfully issued.

The legal reasoning in plain English

1. A PCN has to be properly given to be enforceable

The adjudicator relied on Section 66(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1991. Under that framework, a PCN must be either handed to the driver or fixed to the vehicle. A PCN that was written but never delivered in one of those ways is not valid.

Since this decision, much of the civil parking enforcement regime has moved to the Traffic Management Act 2004 and its regulations. The principle remains familiar: there are specific permitted ways of serving a PCN, and the council must follow them. The detail of the current rules is worth checking in official guidance, but the underlying idea, that service is a legal step and not a formality, has not disappeared.

2. The burden is on the council

The adjudicator was clear that the burden of proving proper issue lies with the council. This is a key point that many drivers miss. In a parking appeal, the driver is not generally required to prove the ticket was never put on the car. The authority has to show it was.

The standard is the "balance of probabilities", meaning more likely than not. It is a civil standard, not the "beyond reasonable doubt" test used in criminal courts. If the adjudicator is left unsure, the council has not discharged its burden.

3. Why a "direct conflict of evidence" mattered

Here the adjudicator had two accounts that could not both be true: the attendant said the ticket went on the windscreen, and the driver said it didn't, and that he left before it could. The adjudicator had to decide who to believe.

The attendant's note was a written record. Mr Riches gave oral evidence and was assessed in person (or at least on his testimony). The adjudicator found him credible, and credibility is often decisive in a case like this. The detailed, specific and memorable circumstances he gave, a monthly contact visit and a Christmas trip with his son, supported the finding.

It is worth noting what the adjudicator did not say. There was no finding that the attendant was dishonest or careless. The decision was that, on the evidence, the council had not satisfied the adjudicator that the PCN was lawfully issued. That is a different thing from calling the attendant a liar.

4. What about the "driving away" rule?

Generally, parking enforcement rules allow a council to send a PCN by post in certain circumstances where an attendant has begun to issue the ticket but the vehicle is driven away before it can be fixed or handed over. That is a well-known route in the regulations, and the timing and conditions matter.

In this case, the council's evidence was that the PCN was actually affixed to the windscreen. The decision rests on the finding that this had not been proved. This is a good illustration of how the method the council says it used becomes the thing it has to prove.

Lessons for drivers

This is general commentary on one decision, not advice on any individual case. Every PCN turns on its own facts, and each adjudicator decides on the evidence presented. With that in mind, here are some practical takeaways.

1. Service of the PCN is a separate issue from the contravention. Many drivers focus only on whether they were parked correctly. This case shows a second question: was the notice validly issued? It is a procedural point, but procedure is exactly what the law requires councils to get right. Our guide to formal representations for PCNs explains how procedural grounds fit into the wider appeals process.

2. Specific, consistent detail carries weight. Mr Riches did not simply say "I never got a ticket". He explained why he remembered the day, where the attendant was standing, and what happened. A clear, consistent and believable account is generally more persuasive than a bare denial. Of course, honesty is the foundation. A account should only ever describe what actually happened.

3. Raise the point at the earliest stage. Mr Riches only learned of the PCN a month later, when the Notice to Owner arrived. If you believe a ticket was never served on you or your vehicle, that is typically something to raise in your challenge, rather than leaving it unsaid. The traffic penalty tribunal process guide sets out how the stages fit together.

4. Any evidence helps, even if it is circumstantial. In a "word against word" case, other evidence can matter: receipts, time-stamped photographs, shop purchases, parking app records, or dashcam footage. We cannot say what would have changed the outcome here, but corroboration can strengthen an account. Such material is worth keeping where you can.

5. Do not assume the council's paperwork is the last word. An attendant's notes are evidence, not a final answer. An adjudicator is independent of the council and weighs everything on the facts. At the same time, do not assume a procedural argument will always succeed. It won, in this case, because the adjudicator believed the driver. Where the stakes are significant, you may want to consider professional advice or the official guidance published by the tribunal and your local authority.

A note on realism

It would be wrong to read this decision as a loophole. Most appeals that rely only on "I didn't see a ticket" will not succeed, particularly where the vehicle was still present and the PCN was clearly on it. This outcome depended on a finding about credibility, in a case where the account of the driver and the attendant directly conflicted and the burden sat with the council.

Also, an adjudicator's decision on one set of facts does not bind other adjudicators. Treat it as an illustration of how the reasoning works, not as a guarantee.

If you are planning a visit to central London, it is also worth understanding the broader picture of zones and restrictions. Our guide to Westminster parking zones is a useful place to start.

Key takeaway

A parking ticket only counts if it was properly issued, and the council is the one who has to prove it.

When a driver gives a credible, detailed account that the PCN was never handed over or fixed to the vehicle, and the council can only point to its attendant's record, an adjudicator may decide the council has not met its burden. In Mr Riches's case, that was enough to have the PCN cancelled.

This article is general information and case commentary about UK parking law. It is not legal advice. If you are facing a PCN or an appeal with significant consequences, consider consulting the official guidance from your local authority or the relevant tribunal, or seeking professional advice.