Free Traffic Legal Advice

It may be same place and could be ten yards down the road.
The signs may be the same and may not be.
Council may have found the resolution
CEO may only patrol once a year.

Point is that to you it may seem the same but to us, it is a brand new one, similar at best.

Any council photos pls?

Ta
Seems like CEO used burst mode on his camera LOL
Only one shows the lack of road markings.
I suspect that the cable box and lack of space between car and box will be the reason a PCN was served but notoriously difficult to make that stick where footway parking is allowed or normally tolerated.

Streetview date is May 2022.... no changes since then like parking bays repainted or post signs put up??

There does seem to have been some repainting of the marked bays since 2020. There is no GSV viewe for 2021.

Your last case was won because B & D offered no evidence so you won by default. Note that this was not a DNC, as B & D did not send a DNC advice to LT.  Would B & D do this again ? Clearly, the only way to find out is to take them to London Tribunals again.

The council apparently rely on:

The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (Charged-For Parking Places) Consolidation Order 2016.
Map tile V10.

None of that is a resolution under section 15(4) of the 1974 Act, but even if it were, the council has not erected signs saying footway parking is permitted "in marked bays only" as required by section 15(5), so their case fails on that point, as per Lorna Jennifer Whittick v London Borough of Merton (2160383659, 10 October 2016) and Aliecee Cummings v London Borough of Lewisham (219023696A, 18 July 2019)

@cp, what is it that the council are claiming? Is it that there are designated parking places in Amidas in the places indicated on the map tile? If so, did they provide the legend? Is their argument that these are parking places and not 'marked bays'** and therefore parking within is lawful pursuant to the order and that there can be no presumption as regards the rest of Amidas where there aren't markings, which seems to be the OP's argument, with perhaps some legitimate expectation thrown in?

As it stands, none of these parking places is a lawful parking place, see 3(1) and 3(2) of the order. None of these is signed(which is a condition under 3(1)) therefore they are not parking places.

IMO, the OP would need to make an argument as to why they believed that they could park where they did, which didn't have any markings, because I'm not certain that simply proving that what they think are parking places aren't would necessarily succeed. However, it could do just because of the embarrassment factor which could cause the authority to DNC or simply bury their heads as they did last time.

** As I posted in a different thread, 'marked bays' are optional and cannot extend to the carriageway because it's not the carriageway which is at issue, it's the extent of permitted parking on the footway. Markings on the carriageway could only indicate the presence of parking places. But unlike the other thread where these were signed, albeit incorrectly, these so-called parking places aren't signed at all! What a shambles. But would this shambles sway an adjudicator given that the OP wasn't parked within marked bays? IMO, they must be clear on why they did what they did and not just have target practice against the sitting duck which is the council.

Have you checked the online status?

Yes still active.