Free Traffic Legal Advice

I'm trying to make my mind up over this.
Back in 2014 it was definitively a carriageway, complete with DYLs and give way markings.
These disappeared when new tarmac was laid.
And the building development has since been completed.

It now seems like a vehicle crossover, which is not part of the carriageway.
However, I suspect that this a CPZ and fails in that "all parts shall be marked with yellow lines or parking bays"
Not in the sense that Herron tried to claim in Sunderland but immediately, this is a patch of highway where its purpose is not obvious.
Further opportunity to mislead with the no entry sign, which would normally, though not always, be on a carriageway.

The buy a plan picture...where does this come from?

If it's not a carriageway, why have they retained the No Entry sign ? Either way they fail the test of making restrictions clear to the motorist.

I've received the NTO today, do I just appeal again?

This is the NTO



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

OP, you posted: I've received the NTO today, do I just appeal again?

If you mean do you make reps, then the answer must be yes. If you also mean do you submit the same ones then the answer is no.

Before this, pl post the rear of the PCN(which we've not seen) as well as the NTO as requested by others.

And get your camera out and do some legwork. 1-year old GSV is no substitute for current data.

What are you trying to establish? That where you were is not footway, and therefore the contravention did not occur.

How? By showing that all the visible markings would lead a reasonably diligent motorist to conclude that the location was not footway.

My suggested approach?
Take photos of this part of the road and argue that it is clear from these that the footway is delineated by the railings(and gardens) on one side and a line of inlaid stones on the other. This configuration also marks the location of the alleged contravention.
You would also show that the council intend that the stones represent the edge of the carriageway because either side of the location they have been used by the council specifically for this purpose. Your photos would show the parking places signed by the council whose boundaries are marked by white dashed lines to the front, kerbstones to the side and the inlaid stones to the rear.
Either the council intend that this line of stones - which your photos would show runs uninterrupted as far as the eye can see - is the edge of the carriageway(and the boundary between the carriageway and footway) or that the parking places have no rear limit and extend to the buildings to the rear and that vehicles may park lawfully on what otherwise is used by pedestrians as footway.

Such a construction would be absurd.

The rear boundaries of these parking places are the inlaid stones(which the Traffic Signs etc. Regs permits);
Your car was parked on the carriageway side of these stones and therefore on what the council accepts as carriageway in its traffic orders for these parking places;
The authority is bound by the council's orders and cannot adopt a different definition which they are seeking to do by demanding a penalty. 

Just some thoughts.

I live in the north east..

But you must have been there for a reason, visiting friends or whatever? If not, why did you assume it was footway.

If you or someone else cannot get photos to support the argument I suggested then I cannot help on this point. IMO, at some stage you would need to bolster the argument with contemporaneous evidence. 

I've gone on to start the challenge a friend is taking the photos today.

I've attached the options I have for my challenge, is it "my vehicle was not outside of the bay", or "Any other reason"?

Either option takes me through to a page to register my mitigating circumstances!





[ Guests cannot view attachments ]