IMO,
The decision states the double yellow lines extend into the recess. They partially do, but stop well short of the actual parking position.
The DYL extend enough into the recess that your car was in contravention for reasons I set out earlier.
The area in front of the bollards where the vehicle was parked has no yellow markings.
None are needed because they operate perpendicular to the markings.
The decision states I argued that other vehicles parking without penalty indicated parking was permitted. I never made this argument. The actual argument was that multiple vehicles parking there demonstrated the location was not reasonably understood to be restricted - a point about adequacy of signage.
What other motorists do and whether they were penalised are immaterial to an adjudicator's consideration. This is less a point about 'adequacy of signage' than a lack of knowledge among motorists NB. knowledge which are presumed to have by virtue of holding a driving licence.
Nothing you have posted gets anywhere near a defence, let alone a reason for continuing to dispute the adjudicator's decision - as you've posted it NB. we haven't seen the decision and reasons.
This was the defence, which has far more detail:
Grounds: The alleged contravention did not occur / Other grounds
The vehicle was not parked on a restricted street. It was parked entirely within a recessed area off the carriageway of Victoria Place, which constitutes what was formerly the entrance to Trafford Wharf Road before that junction was permanently closed with bollards. The recess is delineated from the carriageway by white lines, as is clearly visible in both my own photographs and in the council's own enforcement photographs. The vehicle was not on the carriageway at any point.
The double yellow lines do not extend to the location of parking
The double yellow lines on Victoria Place curve around the corner towards the former junction but visibly end before the recess in which the vehicle was parked. The vehicle was therefore not parked on or adjacent to any active yellow line markings.
The markings are historical and have not been updated following road closure
Historical Google Street View imagery of this location shows that the double yellow lines previously extended further into this area when it formed an active road junction. Following the permanent closure of the junction with bollards, the road layout changed materially but the markings were not updated to reflect this. The historical street view makes clear that the markings were placed in the context of an open junction that no longer exists. To enforce those markings against a vehicle parked in what is now effectively a closed-off recess is unreasonable and the council should ensure its markings accurately reflect the current highway layout.
No kerb markings indicating a loading restriction at the point of parking
Whilst the council's evidence includes a photograph of a no loading at any time sign on a lamppost, there are no kerb markings at or adjacent to the recess where the vehicle was parked. The absence of kerb markings at the location is a further indication that no enforceable loading restriction applies there.
No obstruction caused
At the time of the alleged contravention, Victoria Place was closed to through traffic at both ends, with access permitted only by prior arrangement due to the blue badge held. The vehicle could not have caused any obstruction to other vehicles or pedestrians in these circumstances. The purpose of waiting and loading restrictions — to prevent obstruction — was entirely absent.
Blue badge
A valid disabled blue badge was displayed on the vehicle. Whilst I acknowledge that a blue badge does not of itself exempt a vehicle from all loading restrictions, it is a relevant contextual factor, particularly given the closed nature of the road at the time.
Multiple vehicles parked in the same location
As is visible in the photographs, the vehicle was one of several parked in the same recess. This demonstrates that the location is reasonably understood by members of the public not to be subject to parking restrictions, and is a further indication that the signage and markings in the area are inadequate and misleading.
Supporting evidence submitted:
Photograph taken at the time showing YB21*** and a second vehicle parked in the recess, off the carriageway
Council enforcement photograph confirming the same
Historical Google Street View screenshot showing the double yellow lines in the context of the former open junction, demonstrating the markings pre-date the road closure and have not been updated
I respectfully request that this Notice to Owner be cancelled. If representations are rejected I reserve the right to appeal to the independent adjudicator.
Council response:Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
In accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004, your correspondence can at this stage, will be treated as a Formal Representation.
The PCN was issued to the above vehicle for parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours. After reviewing the images and the notes taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO), I can confirm that the PCN was correctly served. The double yellow lines at this location are clearly visible, indicating that waiting is prohibited at all times (24 hours a day, 7 days a week).
Following a further review, we acknowledge your explanation. While you have stated that the vehicle was parked within a recessed area and believed this to be outside of the restriction, we must advise that such areas can still form part of the public highway.
The presence of double yellow lines at the entrance to the area, together with the associated loading restriction signage, applies to the full extent of the highway, including any adjoining recessed areas, unless clearly indicated otherwise.
In addition, Blue Badge holders are not exempt from restrictions at locations where loading restrictions are in force, as indicated by the relevant signage.
It remains the responsibility of the driver to ensure that their vehicle is parked in accordance with all restrictions in place and to correctly interpret both road markings and signage.
For your reference, I have enclosed images captured by the Civil Enforcement Officer, which serve as evidence that the alleged offence took place.
While I understand that this may not be the outcome you were seeking, I trust that I have adequately explained the reasons for my decision not to cancel the above PCN.
Then to the adjudicator:1. The council's own rejection letter concedes that recessed areas do not automatically form part of the restricted highway
The council's Notice of Rejection states that recessed areas "can still form part of the public highway." The use of the word "can" is significant and fatal to their case. It is an explicit acknowledgment that some recessed areas do, and some do not, fall within a restriction. The council provides no criteria whatsoever by which a motorist could determine which category applies in any given case. In the absence of clear markings or signage at the specific location of parking, a motorist cannot reasonably be expected to know that this particular recess falls within the restriction. The burden of establishing that a contravention occurred rests with the council, and their own language demonstrates that this burden has not been discharged.
2. The double yellow lines do not extend to the location of parking
The vehicle was parked entirely within the recess, off the carriageway. The double yellow lines on Victoria Place curve around the corner towards the former junction but visibly end before the recess. The vehicle was not parked on or adjacent to any active yellow line markings. The council states that the lines are "clearly visible" but does not assert, because it cannot, that they extend to the precise location where the vehicle was parked.
3. The markings are historical and have not been updated following permanent road closure
Historical Google Street View imagery of this location shows that the double yellow lines were placed when this area formed an active road junction. The junction has since been permanently closed with bollards, fundamentally altering the road layout. The markings have never been updated to reflect this change. It is unreasonable to enforce markings that predate a material change in the highway layout and which no longer accurately reflect the current situation on the ground. The council has a responsibility to ensure that road markings are kept up to date and accurately reflect enforceable restrictions.
4. The no loading signage is not established as visible from or proximate to the parking location
The council's evidence includes a photograph of a no loading at any time sign on a lamppost. However this photograph is entirely isolated - it shows only the sign and its immediate surroundings with no contextual reference establishing where that lamppost is relative to the recess where the vehicle was parked. It cannot be determined from this photograph that the sign was visible from, or applicable to, the parking location. Furthermore, and critically, there are no kerb markings at or adjacent to the recess. Kerb markings are the primary means by which a loading restriction is communicated to a motorist at the point of parking. Their absence at this location is a material failure of adequate notification.
5. The historical markings point and the no loading sign point were not addressed in the rejection
The council's rejection letter does not engage with either the historical markings argument or the absence of kerb markings at the recess. A motorist who has raised specific and substantive grounds is entitled to expect those grounds to be addressed. The failure to do so is itself a procedural failing and suggests the rejection was not a genuine consideration of the representations made.
6. No obstruction was caused - the purpose of the restriction was entirely absent
At the time of the alleged contravention on 06/03/2026, Victoria Place was closed to through traffic at both ends. Access was permitted only by prior arrangement due to the disabled blue badge held. The vehicle could not have caused any obstruction to other vehicles or pedestrians in these circumstances. The purpose of waiting and loading restrictions is to prevent obstruction of the highway. In a traffic-free zone, that purpose was entirely absent. It would be disproportionate to enforce a restriction in circumstances where no harm of any kind could result.
7. Multiple vehicles parked in the same location
The photographs - including the council's own evidence photographs - show at least one other vehicle parked in the same recess at the same time. This demonstrates that the location is not reasonably understood by members of the public to be subject to a parking restriction, and is further evidence that the markings and signage in the area are inadequate and misleading.
8. Blue badge displayed
A valid disabled blue badge was clearly displayed in the vehicle, as is visible in the council's own evidence photographs. Whilst a blue badge does not exempt a vehicle from all loading restrictions, it is a relevant contextual factor, particularly in circumstances where the road was closed and access was by prior arrangement due to disablement.
Summary
The council has not established that a contravention occurred. Their own rejection letter concedes ambiguity as to whether recessed areas fall within a restriction. The markings at this location are historical, do not extend to the parking position, and have not been updated following permanent changes to the highway layout. The no loading signage has not been established as visible from or applicable to the parking location, and there are no kerb markings at the recess. No obstruction was caused. I respectfully request that the appeal be allowed and the penalty charge cancelled.
And finally adjudictor response:Mr X appeals on behalf of the appellant company. The appellant states that his car was parked at a location that is not subject to parking enforcement. The appellant also argues that the no loading sign was not clear.
The civil enforcement officer's photographs show the appellant's car parked facing locked gates in what the appellant refers to as a recess. There was a disabled badge in the car. The civil enforcement officer's photographs and the appellant's evidence at 20 shows that there is a double yellow line that extends from the carriageway into the recessed area. The double yellow line restriction applies from the kerb to the centre of the recess/vehicle cross over. The civil enforcement officer's photographs show the appellant's car parked with the front of the car close to the gate and the back of the car extending beyond the end of the double yellow line. The civil enforcement officer's photographs also show that there are two kerb marks that are inside the line that delineates the edge of the carriageway. Two kerb marks indicate that there is a loading restriction at all times. Disabled badge holder may not park at a location where there is a loading restriction. The civil enforcement officer's evidence also shows a no loading sign. I find that this was not obscured and that it was a short distance from the appellant's car.
I find that the appellant's car was parked in part of Victoria Place that is restricted by the Traffic Regulation Order. It may be that other cars have parked at the location and not received Penalty Charge Notices but this does not indicate that parking is permitted. Mr Blackmore states that the road is closed and that access is only permitted due to prior arrangement. I have seen no evidence that the council has suspended parking enforcement as a consequence of any road closure.
I find that the evidence shows that the contravention occurred. I dismiss this appeal.
