Obviously make reps.
I refer to the above PCN and your rejection letter dated 27 June.
My representations against the NTO dated 28 July are under the grounds that the contravention did not occur for the following reasons.
Before setting these out I would like to establish the important contextual facts as regards the location:
1. The parking bay extends for 25m and is not marked with perimeter or intra-bay white lines;
2. There is a single traffic sign situated at one extreme of the bay;
3. My car was parked at the other end of the bay, 25m away;
4. There appears to be a slight difference in the surface treatment of the bay compared to the main carriageway which is uniform throughout the bay.
The above mean that:
If the bay's markings are substantially compliant with legal requirements then the whole bay is reserved for disabled BB holders and is subject to the restrictions in the sign.
I dispute that the markings are compliant and therefore the bay was not lawfully marked, its restrictions have no legal effect and, contrary to the point belaboured in your rejection, a motorist is not obliged to look for a traffic sign after parking.
Consequently, the contravention did not occur and the PCN must be cancelled.
If the authority dispute the above, then in any rejection they must establish their grounds for substantial compliance which, given the absence of compliant white lines, could only be based upon the bay being 'varied to contrast, in pattern or colour, from the surrounding parts of the road and any adjoining bays' (para. 2(3) of Part 5 of Schedule 7 to the Traffic Signs etc. regs refers). In this respect, I would refer the authority to the attached photos which are snapshots of the location taken from GSV over the period ** to 2023 which show that the once pristine white lines have been allowed to deteriorate and that the differential surface treatment, such as it is, has remained the same throughout.
For comment.
