We won the appeal. Reasoning from the adjudicator is below. Thanks for all the help on here!
This appeal was submitted on behalf of Mrs Boyd by Mr John Boyd, who appears to have been driving at the time. Mr Boyd submitted that the signage for the motorcycle bay was not clear. In particular he said that: -
There was no sign visible as he entered the car park or the car park space.
There were no clear signs visible within the space indicating that it was a motorcycle space.
The main car park signage makes no mention of motorcycle parking areas.
The sign itself is ambiguous as it states ‘Motor Cycles Only’ and beneath that states ‘Free Parking’ and ‘No overnight parking or camping’. He submitted that this could be interpreted as indicating that motorcycles could be parked for free, but payment was required for other vehicles.
The area concerned is not marked out as a bay and, in the absence of any boundary markers or other indicators that the area was reserved for motorcycles it was not possible to know which areas were reserved for specific vehicles.
Mr Boyd concluded by saying that he had parked in good faith and with the intention of complying with the parking regulations.
The council said that the car park is surfaced with grass and gravel which can become soft in wetter conditions so they do not use bay markings, but merely ask drivers to park in orderly rows. The small paved area where Mr Boyd parked is, however, reserved for motorcycles. They submitted that the restriction was clearly signed and that it was up to drivers to look out for parking information when parking in a restricted car park.
The council must provide signage which is adequate to let drivers know which restrictions apply and where. In a car park, drivers do not need to see all the signs from a moving vehicle as they are able to park, then check the signs and the information board and move their vehicle if necessary.
However, the sign board contains no information about motorcycles and there is no mention that any part of the car park is reserved for motorcycles or any other specified vehicles, so there was no reason for Mr Boyd to be looking out for any further restriction signs. I also accept that the sign is a little ambiguous. As Mr Boyd suggested, it could be read to mean merely that motorcyclists did not need to pay to park.
Mr Boyd did park the car within an orderly row, without apparently obstructing any other vehicles. He also paid to park and put his ticket on display as required, so it appears that he did comply with all the main conditions set out on the board which were relevant to him.
In the absence of any information in the sign board or any markings on the motorcycle parking area, and taking into account the ambiguous wording, I find that the signage was not adequate to let Mr Boyd know that he could not park a car in that position. It follows that I find that the contravention did not occur and I allow the appeal. There is nothing for Mrs Boyd to pay.
