Thanks,
This is the response I submitted earlier this evening. It's a bit long but if nothing else I will make it cost them moreoney.to deal with than what they will get out of me!
I am writing to formally appeal the parking ticket issued to my vehicle on 15/12/2025 in Service Area 1, to which my informal appeal was rejected. The ticket states that I was parked in a restricted area during prescribed hours. However, I believe this ticket was issued in error due to the following reasons: 1. Faded Markings / Poor Lighting: The bay markings in Service Area 1 were faded and difficult to discern, leading to confusion about where to park. Evidence photographs provided by Surrey County Council show severely faded lines and litter/faded white marks from now illegible lettering, contributing to the misunderstanding, especially since the vehicle was parked at night. A Google Street View image from 2015 shows how the markings used to be and provides evidence of the continued lack of maintenance. 2. Misleading / Confused Signage: The signage indicating parking restrictions was not clear enough, leading to the incorrect assumption that I was parked within a marked bay. Previous visits to Camberley involved parking in two rows of vehicles in the service area, and at the time of parking, I pulled into a 'space' between a row of other vehicles, which obscured my view of the double yellow lines on the right-hand side, further contributing to the confusion. At no point was I parked adjacent to any double yellow lines, and it is unclear if this is a carriageway or a car park due to the lack of markings and signage.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made 3. Previous Usage: I have parked in this area on an almost annual basis without issues, indicating that the markings and signage have been consistently unclear, and enforcement has not been taken previously. As someone who has worked in local government for 20 years, and 10 of those within the parish & town council sector frequently dealing with highways matters for residents, you can imagine how concerned I was to receive a PCN to which I did not understand why. This was further compounded when my informal appeal was rejected on the basis that I hadn't understood why I had supposedly committed the contravention. I would say I have a higher-than-average understanding of local council administration and legislation, yet still unknowingly parked incorrectly. The following text conveys the issues that can occur when a PCN is unclear: “A street is often subject to a number of differing parking restrictions. For example, one particular parking bay in a street may be restricted to permit holders only between the prescribed hours of 9am to 6pm while another parking bay may be restricted to Pay & Display between the prescribed hours of 8am to 6pm. However, a person who lawfully parks their vehicle in either bay during the prescribed hours is doing just as my vehicle was also doing, that being, “parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours”. Quite simply, the ground stated on the PCN is not fit for purpose since it does not distinguish between a vehicle that is lawfully parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours and one that is not. The use of this equivocal ground is potentially prejudicial as a person may prepare an appeal focusing on a parking restriction that is not actually relevant to the reason why the PCN was served. For instance, many PCNs are served upon vehicles that are parked partly in a parking space with either their front or rear end slightly overhanging an adjacent single or double yellow line. Often where this happens a PCN is served upon the vehicle for being “parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours”. However, due to the diverse meaning in plain English of this ground, the recipient of the PCN may wrongly but reasonably assume that they contravened the parking place restriction rather than be aware that they fractionally infringed upon the “No Waiting” yellow line restriction. In the interest of justice, a person needs to easily comprehend why their vehicle was not considered lawfully parked so that they can either avoid doing so again or gather the relevant evidence for any subsequent appeal. It must also be remembered that the ground on the PCN will be repeated on the NtO and the owner may not have been the driver. Therefore, unless an NtO is accompanied each and every time by adequate photos of the signage, the owner when applying common language will not be able to deduce with certainty what parking restriction the expression “restricted street” concerns and was allegedly contravened. The general principles of law dictate that a person should not have to decipher the ground stated on a PCN or guess what restriction was allegedly contravened; it should be unequivocal. In a day and age when the UK is host to a wealth of visitors and residents whose first language is not English and when central and local Government both readily advocate the use of plain English on all public forms and documents it is nonsensical to use language on a PCN that is ambiguous or may require a person to refer to the glossary of a faraway traffic order to gain a degree of understanding of what they allegedly did wrong. The council may be using the standard contravention codes but it should be remembered that these contravention codes have no statutory authority and cannot be relied upon as a defence as made clear in the key adjudication case between Metrick v Camden (Case no 207034396A). I find the ground of “parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours” to be unsupported as a parking contravention prescribed by the traffic order. The order may prohibit waiting in certain lengths of road at certain times but the order does not define and correlate waiting restrictions with being "restricted street" nor does it define and correlate what is considered "prescribed hours". It is critical to remember that the purpose of a PCN is to encourage people to park lawfully, so it stands to reason that a person needs to know precisely what they did wrong in order to avoid doing so again. The ground given on the PCN is ineffective in conveying what I allegedly did wrong and as such it does not satisfy paragraph 1(e) contained within the Schedule to “The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 and the penalty charge should be cancelled forthwith rather than drag this matter to adjudication.” Here is some further legislation and guidance that I believe is relevant to this appeal and where I feel Surrey County Council have fallen short in their duties as the local highway authority: From page 119: Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 05 '12.7 Maintenance 12.7.1. Road markings, including reflecting road studs, must be well maintained if they are to fulfil their purpose. Regulatory markings must be maintained properly if they are to be enforced effectively. Guidance can be found in TD 26 in Volume 8 of DMRB and ‘Well managed Highway Infrastructure: A Code of Practice’ (published by UK Roads Liaison Group). 12.7.2. All markings, including reflecting road studs, should be inspected at regular intervals both by day and, where appropriate, for reflectance by night. Retroreflectivity of road markings can be measured by static equipment or by dynamic equipment mounted on a vehicle travelling at normal traffic speeds. 12.7.3. It is not possible to recommend specific renewal intervals for markings as these will depend upon the type of line, the material comprising the marking and traffic flow. Traffic authorities should keep their carriageway markings under review (particularly on heavily trafficked roads) to ensure that their effectiveness is maintained at all times.' THE SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL CAMBERLEY CONTROLLED PARKING ZONE IN THE BOROUGH OF SURREY HEATH (CONSOLIDATION AND REVOCATION OF WAITING LOADING AND UNLOADING RESTRICTIONS AND ON STREET PARKING PLACES) ORDER 2017 Placing of traffic signs etc 35 THE Council shall: (a) place and maintain a traffic sign or traffic signs indicating the limits of a parking space and/or each parking place and (b) place and maintain in or in the vicinity of each parking place referred to in (ii) Article 11 of this Order a traffic sign or traffic signs indicating that such parking place may be used during the permitted hours for the leaving only of the vehicles specified in Article 12 (c) carry out such other work as is reasonably required for the purposes of the satisfactory operation of a parking place Given these points, I respectfully request that the penalty charge notice be reviewed and dismissed. I trust that Surrey County Council will consider this appeal favourably. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
