Thank you all for your guidance. I could not get the exact zoomed in link of the street view so I printed it and have attached the pdfStreet view.pdf (please read the notes on the pdf)
As Bernie rightfully said and what I now understand that no signs are required within M25 (london) to prohibit footpath parking. Signs are required to allow parking.
If the pdf can be viewed you will see there is no such sign BUT It is a closed street where everybody parks on this particular pavement to allow plenty of space for cars to pass by. This is done to prevent any inconvenience to the passing cars which are mostly neighbours. Parking this way does not obstruct traffic in any way. But this seems to be a very weak grounds of appeal. I have actually been seeing cars being parked this way for atleast the last 6 years i.e. since I moved here. No warden has ever come in the street and it now seems being considerate has costed me.
Michael Brown - Yes Michael, you are correct the last "2" of the "622" is most likely for the number of wheels on the footpath and this is probably what the rejection of appeal might say. But it is actually the way it is written that causes the ambiguity.
Contravention Code 622
All in one line, no dash (62-2) or slash (62/2). Other examples of the same kind of PCNs on various other websites clearly only write code 62.
So if is there is no code 622 how can it be contravened (sounds strong grounds of appeal?) unless this is an acceptable way of writting the contravention in which case this would also be a weak ground of appeal. Any information guidence on this point?