Free Traffic Legal Advice

Your photos come up too small, and are unzoomable. Can you please adjust them so we can look at a larger image.

Looking on GSV, we see this all the time. The recommended signing of bays like this is to put the two signs for the two bays side-by-side on a single pole placed at the dividing (dashed) line separating the two bays. Each sign should then have an arrow to indicate applicability. Appeals at London Tribunal have won in the past on this, but you have to risk the full PCN penalty to find out.

The problem we have is that whilst the London Tribunals statutory register is on-line, it is not open for general searches, the items one can search on are limited. Have a look here: -


The basic fact is that in a case like yours, the chances of success cannot really be judged; certainly it's not what I call a "slam-dunk" win.  If you want to consider the matter, have a read of what the Earl of Montrose wrote: -

He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
That fears to put it to the touch
To win or lose it all.

Thank you both for your prompt replies!

I wasn’t able to take a picture as my mum was on her own & called me whilst I was at work to tell me about the PCN. Luckily she was able to take a picture of the grey car before they pulled off!

Do you recommend that I go back to take a picture of the lines from the footpath? Or is there any point now the car has gone?

A friend has helped me draft an appeal, could you please tell me if there’s anything I should add/remove? Again I’m so very appreciative of and advice!


“Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice.

On the date in question, the driver parked in what was reasonably believed to be a valid pay-and-display bay and immediately purchased a ticket, evidence of which is enclosed. This clearly demonstrates a genuine intention to comply with the applicable parking restrictions.

After returning to the vehicle, it became apparent that part of the bay may have been designated for resident permit holders only. However, this was not clear at the time of parking due to inadequate and obscured bay demarcation.

As shown in the enclosed photographs:

- The dividing line between the pay-and-display bay and the resident permit bay was obscured by a neighbouring vehicle which had parked over the boundary markings.
- From the driver’s position on the footway, the bay division was not visible, and there were no clear visual cues to indicate a change in restriction at that exact point.
- The nearest visible signage corresponded to pay-and-display parking, which the driver relied upon in good faith.

Furthermore, the layout of signage at this location does not appear to clearly indicate the precise point at which the restriction changes. Best practice, as set out in Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual, advises that where adjacent bays operate under different restrictions, signage should clearly mark the transition point. This does not appear to have been done here, which contributes to ambiguity for motorists.

Given:
- The valid parking payment made,
- The obscured and unclear bay markings,
- And the lack of clear indication of the restriction change point,

Given that a valid payment was made and the bay markings were unclear, I believe it would be fair and reasonable to cancel this PCN.”