@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.
