Free Traffic Legal Advice

Have you had a look at the Traffic Signs Manual 2019 ?

Here is a clause I have extracted and emphasised a point which may be important: -

13.7.5.  Where the “P” sign is used with a plate indicating motorcars, caravans or goods vehicles, any associated parking bay will have no legend. Where the plate indicates solo motor cycles or buses, the associated bay may have an appropriate legend, although this is not a specific requirement. Where the bay has a legend, the upright signs may be omitted or reduced in number in order to reduce environmental impact. However, care should be taken to ensure that the road markings are well‑maintained and do not become obscured in adverse weather; the legend must be clearly seen by drivers at all times. Where contrasting bays are provided, it is likely to be more appropriate to provide an upright sign and a bay without a legend. The prescribed legends for a bus bay are “BUSES” or “BUSES ONLY”. The prescribed legends for solo motor cycle bays are as follows: a) “SOLO MOTORCYCLES” or “SOLO MOTORCYCLES ONLY” b) “SOLO M/CYCLES” or “SOLO M/CYCLES ONLY” c) “SOLO M/CS” or “SOLO M/CS ONLY”. The choice of legend is a matter for the traffic authority and is likely to depend on the space available.

As well as the Manual, there is also The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999. In Part IV of this, the following applies: -

PART IV
NOTICE OF MAKING THE ORDER AND SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE
Notice of making the order
17.—(1) When the authority have made the order they shall–

(a)forthwith give notice in writing of the making of the order to the chief constable of the police area in which any road or other place to which the order relates is situated;
(b)notify in writing each person, who has objected to the order in accordance with regulation 7 and has not withdrawn his objection, of the authority’s reasons for making the order in spite of the objection;
(c)within 14 days of the making of the order publish once in a local newspaper circulating in the area in which any road or other place to which the order relates is situated a notice of the making of the order containing the particulars specified in Part III of Schedule 1;
(d)if considered necessary within the same period publish a similar notice in the Edinburgh Gazette;
(e)comply with the relevant requirements of Schedule 3 as to the availability of documents for inspection;
(f)where the order relates to any road, forthwith take such steps as are necessary to secure–
(i)the **** on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the authority may consider requisite for the purpose of securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is given to persons using the road;
(ii)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force; and
(iii)in a case where the order contains provisions for revoking, or altering the application of, a previous order, such removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority may consider requisite for the purpose of avoiding confusion to users of the road or the continuance of traffic signs in incorrect positions;
(g)where the road is a Crown road, consult with the appropriate Crown authority before carrying out any of the requirements at sub-paragraph (f) of this paragraph.

It seems to me they have failed in their duty to sign the bay properly. The MC bay is bounded on both sides by bays for other vehicles, so they have ignored the advice for this location which has contrasting bays on the same side of the street.

I assume you are going to take them to the adjudicators.  They quote regulations at you, so you can quote other parts of those same regulations that support your case.  Never, ever, think that council staff know it all; they don't.

That's amazing, thank you!

I've put together an argument (with GPT4 as not legal speak proficient!) based on these grounds, any thoughts?



I contend that the enforcement actions were not in accordance with the standards outlined in the Traffic Signs Manual 2019, specifically under Chapter 3, Regulatory Signs Section 13.7.5, which emphasizes the need for clear visibility of parking bay legends at all times. Additionally, the local authority has failed to comply with Section 17(f) (i) and (ii) of the Notice of Making the Order and Subsequent Procedure, which mandates the **** and maintenance of adequate traffic signs.

Key Points of My Appeal:

Visibility and Legibility of Road Markings:
The 'SOLO M/C' markings at the location where I was fined were significantly faded and obscured, reducing their visibility, particularly under nighttime conditions when I parked on March 12, 2024, around 19:00. This issue of legibility directly contradicts the guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual that markings must be clearly visible to drivers at all times.
Environmental Obstructions:
The presence of a tree directly above the parking spot may have contributed to obscuring the road markings due to fallen leaves. Although I cannot confirm that leaves were covering the markings at the time, this natural obstruction is a significant environmental factor that should be considered, especially given the manual’s emphasis on maintaining clear visibility under various conditions.
Inconsistent Signage Practices:
Comparatively, other parking bays such as those designated for car clubs feature both clear ground markings and additional signage. The absence of consistent signage practices, especially in an area predominantly used for permit parking, introduces a disparity in how parking regulations are communicated to motorists, thereby impacting their ability to comply.
Failure to Comply with Legal Signage Requirements:
According to Section 17(f) (i) and (ii) of the Notice of Making the Order and Subsequent Procedure, the local authority is required to erect and maintain traffic signs to ensure that they are adequate for informing the public of the effects of parking orders. The poor condition and inadequate maintenance of the 'SOLO M/C' markings suggest a failure to meet these legal obligations, thereby affecting the validity of the PCN issued.
Request for Action:

Given these points, I respectfully request a review and subsequent cancellation of both the PCN and the towing charge. The conditions under which the parking violation was deemed to have occurred do not align with the guidelines provided in the Traffic Signs Manual, which stresses the importance of clear and visible signage to ensure fair and lawful enforcement.

Enclosed are photographs taken at the site showing the condition of the road markings compared to other nearby marked spots, along with a copy of the relevant pages from the Traffic Signs Manual 2019 for your reference.

Will do, I have until the 7/5/24, so will wait a bit before submitting. Thank you for all your help so far!

Quick question, I have the option of taking a telephone hearing, or just allowing the legal member to make a decision based on representations. For someone who is not proficient/confident in legal matters like this, am I better to just let the representations do the talking?

There are some remarkable similarities with Yuriy Myronovyh V The City Of Edinburgh Council (ED00154-2107, 4 October 2021).

@Monty237 postal hearings are a terrible idea for the reasons illustrated by these posts:

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/walking-pushing-my-bike-in-a-restricted-zone/
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/warwickshire-cc-pcn-code-24-not-within-markings-of-bay-lakin-road-warwick/

I'm going to drop you a PM in case you'd like to be represented.