Free Traffic Legal Advice

just before i draft a representation please confirm you are the grey van

Convert this to PDF after completing the bits you need to fill in then send to the council

Representation against the imposition and continued enforcement of

PCN number xxxxxxxx

VRM AA23 BCD
(your details )

I make formal representation against the above numbered PCN under the statutory ground that

The contravention did not occur.

This comes about due to the failure to comply with the requirements of s18 The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996

18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure

(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;

(b) the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force;

The council have failed to maintain signage in compliance with s18 and thus cannot enforce the order and demand a penalty

I approached the,what can only be described as a lay-by from the direction of South St the lay-by/bay being on my right. There were no road markings and the road surface of the lay-by was,allowing for wear and tear identical to the main carriageway. This being the case I crossed over the carriageway and parked outside number 23 Trinity St. Exiting my van I looked along the length of the lay-by, no signage was visible. The lay-by has all the appearance of an unrestricted section of  carriageway set aside for parking.

Upon return to my vehicle I was somewhat confused to find a PCN so undertook some research originally at the site. I discovered a disabled parking sign at the other end of the bay outside number 11 this sign was set back against the wall of the building and blended in to such a degree as to make it invisible unless looking from directly in front.

That this was the only sign and absent any road markings there was no need to investigate the whole of the lay-by,for as said from all appearance the was not a regulated lay-by.

Further research lead me to TSRGD 2016 and it is allowable that only signs or road markings can be used to indicate a restriction, that TSRGD 2016 is complied with is not the end of the story however.  The requirements of LATOR 1996 s18 must be met. In this case they were not.

Only one sign in at one end of a bay of approx 25 meters without any road markings cannot comply.
Further research with the highways department of the authority indicates that they are aware that the signs and markings are not to standard and that the markings require rectification (copy of email enclosed)
For this reason the PCN should be cancelled 

Well the discount is not on offer so there's absolutely no point in paying now, as you can't end up any worse off by appealing.

It might be that @Pastmybest is available to represent you, if not I'll pick this one up.

As the authority were foolish enough to put their ignorance of LATOR in the NOR, IMO they haven't a hope in hell at adjudication.

LATOR were made by the Secretary of State pursuant to powers in the RTRA, they therefore import the definitions and meanings of 'traffic signs' in the Act:

64General provisions as to traffic signs.

(1)In this Act “traffic sign” means any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for conveying, to traffic on roads or any specified class of traffic, warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description—

(a)specified by regulations made by the [F1relevant authority] , or

(b)authorised by the [F1relevant authority] ,

and any line or mark on a road for so conveying such warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions.  (a point made by others in this thread).

(my emphasis)

IMO, the debate has moved on from whether the road markings were adequate, although this could still be put forward, it's their failure to give proper consideration to your reps because of their use of the wrong legal context - see paras 2 and 3 on p2 of the NOR from to 'I have noted.to...guidance'.

Whoever considered has obviously not understood that Signs in LATOR means any traffic signs and includes lines.... which as HCA explains, makes Failure to Consider a solid point to include.

To repeat myself but as they go on about the duty of motorists to check pole signs, there is no duty if the motorist is unaware that they are in a parking bay due to the authority not bothering to maintain lines...which have faded to the point of invisibility

I am today registering the appeal on two grounds the contravention did not occur and also procedural impropriety i will not make a detailed submission just yet whilst we see if the council contest or not

Your appeal has been submitted
and allocated reference number FA00059-2309

Thank you again for your time.