Free Traffic Legal Advice

I don't know who put the cones out unfortunately.

Would love feedback on the draft representation I've made please - thanks in advance!

How does this sound:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to make a formal representation against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.

At the location where my vehicle was parked, a number of traffic cones had been placed in a manner that reasonably gave the impression that parking within that area was permitted. The cones were arranged in such a way that they appeared to define or mark a space in which a vehicle could park. I therefore reasonably interpreted their placement as an indication or invitation that parking within that coned area was acceptable.

In your response to my initial challenge, you stated that vehicles are only permitted to park within clearly marked bays along this road. However, this restriction is not clearly conveyed by the signage present at the location.

On 28 January, I revisited the location and took photographs of the signs along the road. These photographs demonstrate that the signage does not clearly indicate that parking is restricted solely to marked bays. As such, the restriction relied upon in your response is not adequately communicated to motorists.

For a parking restriction to be enforceable, it must be clearly indicated by appropriate signs and road markings so that a reasonably diligent motorist can understand the restriction. In this case, the signage along the road fails to clearly convey the requirement that vehicles must park only within marked bays, and the placement of the cones further contributed to the reasonable belief that parking in that position was permitted.

Given the lack of clear signage indicating this restriction, and the misleading placement of the cones, I believe the alleged contravention did not occur and that the Penalty Charge Notice has been issued incorrectly.

I therefore request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled. Please find attached the photographs taken on 28 January which show the signage present along the road at the time.

I look forward to your confirmation that this notice has been cancelled.

Something like this:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to make a formal representation against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.

For the purposes of these representations I am assuming that the cones which are shown clearly in my photos were placed by or with the permission of the council. Their presence had the effect of reducing the size of the bay by some 2m such that what remained had a length far less than the statutory minimum. But instead of suspending the use of what was now a redundant and unlawfully sized rump, the council chose to penalise a driver who tried their level best to fit within the space which remained.

Of course, if the cones were not placed as above, then the CEO should have removed them and invited the driver to reverse in order to regularise the situation.

In your response to my initial challenge, you stated that vehicles are only permitted to park within clearly marked bays along this road. However, this restriction is not clearly conveyed by the signage present at the location.

On 28 January, I revisited the location and took photographs of the signs along the road. These photographs demonstrate that the signage does not clearly indicate that parking is restricted solely to marked bays. As such, the restriction relied upon in your response is not adequately communicated to motorists.

For a parking restriction to be enforceable, it must be clearly indicated by appropriate signs and road markings so that a reasonably diligent motorist can understand the restriction. In this case, the signage along the road fails to clearly convey the requirement that vehicles must park only within marked bays, and the placement of the cones further contributed to the reasonable belief that parking in that position was permitted.

Given the lack of clear signage indicating this restriction, and the misleading placement of the cones, I believe the alleged contravention did not occur and that the Penalty Charge Notice has been issued incorrectly.

I therefore request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled. Please find attached the photographs taken on 28 January which show the signage present along the road at the time.

I look forward to your confirmation that this notice has been cancelled.

How about this:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to make a formal representation against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.

At the location where my vehicle was parked, traffic cones had been placed in a way that appeared to mark out a space. Their positioning reasonably gave the impression that parking within that area was permitted, and I therefore understood this to be an acceptable place to park.

In your response to my initial challenge, you stated that vehicles are only permitted to park within clearly marked bays along this road. However, this restriction is not clearly indicated by the signage present at the location.

On 28 January, I revisited the road and took photographs of the signs along it. These photographs show that the signs do not clearly state that parking is restricted to marked bays only.

For a restriction to be enforceable, it must be clearly communicated through signs and road markings. In this case, the signage does not clearly convey the requirement to park only in marked bays, and the placement of the cones added to the impression that parking in that location was permitted.

In light of this, I believe the alleged contravention did not occur and I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

Please find attached the photographs taken on 28 January showing the signage along the road.

Yours faithfully,

Latest from the council. Letter in the links:




As always, any advice welcome. Thanks in advance.