Free Traffic Legal Advice

Moving this to the flame pit as there is no mention of a live PCN.

Is there any other written law or diagram which dictates how and where a Double Yellow Line is supposed to be drawn?


That is law, what else do you want?

If your question is..why are the DYL in this location drawn where they are given the existence of a rectangle of stones inlaid into what appears to be a footway and which could be mistaken for contra-coloured markings which could mark a parking place if placed on a highway but in this case not otherwise marked or signed...then pl say so, and give further details.   

This is a live PCN.

Then pl post in the correct thread. Include the PCN and a GSV.

I do not have the facility to scan my letters at present but I will simply paraphrase what their reply has been so far.  I do have a PCN jpeg which I will show here with associated argument. I do not know what a GSV is.

there does seem to be an inset bay with DYLs following what was the kerbline then. Seems to have been used for parking but as you cannot have a parking bay and DYLs existing together, dunno what that was about.

That was also part of my original proof of observation, I cannot go back before 2008 in online mapping, but it was the case in 1998(ish) this bay had no DYLs and was used for parking, I believe the dashed white line is evidence of this and was not removed when they painted the DYLs.


The parking ticket agency has replied simply saying "It is pavement", without commenting on my evidence/argument that it is carriageway and so far with no evidence/argument of their own as to why it is to be regarded as pavement. They further argue that as "it is pavement", my claim to have not displayed my blue badge holds no water because of a rule "cannot use blue badge to park on pavement".  I also argued the PCN is illegible and therefore invalid, and they did not offer any acknowledgement or reply to this argument.



My first contention
Is that the road marking is not in accordance with law.
Namely that the law requires DYL to be at the "edge of carriageway".
I have provided streetview links (above and to the council review team) to show Market Pl has parking areas identical to the offending area on Church St.
These areas in Market Pl and Church St were also identical in 2008 in that they are an area open to vehicles i.e. carriageway, with a 4 inch raised curb stone where the pavement begins.


As I said above, 'Edge of carriageway' can mean only one thing:
"that part of the carriageway which borders a pavement, verge or anything else that is not carriageway".


If the box area in Church St is carriageway, then it stands to reason that the DYL have not been painted at the Edge of the carriageway (as they were in 2008).


If the DYL are not currently at the edge of carriageway, then they are not enforceable.


This misplacement of the DYL has caused confusion to the innocent motorist who has been led to believe that "the box", being carriageway, was not restricted. Had the DYL been placed at the edge of the carriageway, there would be no confusion because the parked vehicle's tyres would be sitting on top of the DYL.


As part of my first contention evidence, I have an email from highways telling me the facelift of the town centre, smaller flagstones are placed where "vehicles are to be expected" and the larger flagstones are placed where pedestrians would be expected.  However, in the town centre 'Restricted Zone' which has only 1 entry point, controlled by a rising bollard.
https://goo.gl/maps/pzjTVq8JYfyQMkj47


The RZ is a "shared space" for pedestrians and vehicles.  This end of Church Street (the area of the PCN alleged contravention) is not part of the central RZ, there is unrestricted access. I don't know what the rules would be for DYL within the 'shared space' but perhaps it is telling that there are no DYL in the RZ. The only DYL in the centre are on a "normal appearance" side street leading to a carpark:
https://goo.gl/maps/Rpsp1L532NdYqeuY7


If I present my evidence that this box is carriageway, because it always has been, as proven by photographs of 2008 and small flagstones in 2023 indicate it is "an area where vehicles are expected"  it must still be carriageway.  Otherwise the council would need to provide a TRO showing it's status as carriageway was rescinded and changed to pavement...would they not?
In any event, the council will have to prove to the tribunal that it is pavement would they not? ie. they cannot simply say "it is pavement" they have to prove it is pavement.



My second contention
Is that as a BB holder, I would have displayed the BB if I had thought I was parking under a DYL restriction.  Again, under the perception I was not parking on pavement.



My third contention
Is that the PCN is illegible and cannot be said to conform to regulations.
The issue date, the law used and the registration of the vehicle are illegible

It was necessary to phone the helpline to find out exactly what it said.
I therefore believe it does not conform to:
The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (General Provisions) (Wales) Regulations (as amended) 2013, Regulation 8(2), Regulation 9, Schedule 1 and Schedule 2.

If the ticket does not conform to law, it is not enforceable.
P.S. the PCN scan above is not the full scan, there is a bit more further down, but that part also did not include the vehicle Reg, the date of issue and the law used. I will upload the other half at a later date, I was unable to scan it all on one page of A4. 


These will be my 3 points of appeal to the TPT.

Any help you can give me with suggested wording on the 3 points would be appreciated.

The council decided to not contest the TPT appeal on goodwill.
Maybe they knew I would win on the ticket not being a valid ticket?

or, maybe in addition to the above they acknowledge the road layout whilst possibly technically correct, is confusing.

Another possibility is they don't have the manpower to form a properly put together legal argument with evidence as to the status of this street space. It was their lack of evidence and intelligence in forming a rebuttal that pushed me to appeal all the way, they simply said "it is pavement" and did not acknowledge or attempt to explain my evidence in the alternative.

I intend to try to get to the bottom of this, to find out, if it is pavement, has it ever had a TRO to allow parking on the pavement, otherwise, why have vehicle safe cobble stones always been used here? and similarly, to find out the status of the other parking areas within the Restricted Zone.  I doubt they will provide any meaningful reply.