Author Topic: Surrey, code 24 not parked correctly within markings, Margaret Road Guildford  (Read 71 times)

0 Members and 27 Guests are viewing this topic.

I have been parking here for the past year and a half since learning to drive without any issue, but have suddenly been issued a ticket for not parking within the lines. I didn't realise that there were specified sections because the 'electric vehicles' only line is continuous. Is there any way I can appeal this or will they just think I'm being stupid and say it's common sense?

I've been looking online and saw something about the contravention being related to taking up valuable space, but even if I had parked further along there wouldn't have been space for another car. Does that make any difference? I tried to look on the council website for any guidance but couldn't find anything.


The PCN is here - https://imgpile.com/p/XtWxdIq

And some photos I took this morning when I saw the ticket - https://imgpile.com/p/oYg5zoY

Here is the location on google maps

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


If there are just those tiny tags as per this March 20025 view I'd say the bay is not sufficiently marked as separate bays.


The bay is clearly marked out with carriageway text stating "Electric Vehicles Only". Fair enough, but the sign doesn't say that, it just says 8.30am to 9pm Permit Holders Only, with nothing about EVs. If you parked in that bay outside those hours. So it is a complete Dog's Breakfast for a start !!

However, your PCN is for parking outside the bay marking. It is only when one looks closer at the bay that one sees "blips" for presumably indicating individual vehicle bays. This is quite wrong, I think. If the council want to divide up the bay into individual vehicle bays they must make it entirely clear the boundaries of the bays; here they don't. Certainly I think it would fail the definition of a bay marking in:-

Provisions applying to road markings in Part 4.  Sign table — Schedule 7, Part 2 the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 Item 6 Diagram 1028.4. In PART 5 Required or permitted variants 2(4) : -

Quote
"(4) The bay may be divided into individual spaces by—

(a)the application of a white line marking (either broken or continuous), with a minimum width of 50 mm; or

(b)contrasting pattern or colour."

If you can obtain and post their photos of the alleged contravention, it would help, but I suspect your photo showing your car with one of those "blips about midway on the car is why the PCN was served, and wrongly in my opinion. However, if you want to win this, you must stand your ground, forego the discount temptation, and be prepared to take them to London Tribunals. Councils in London are venal and rapacious, and they game the system ruthlessly to get the money in.

Thank you both for responding! I'm absolutely willing to go to tribunal over this out of principle.

Here are the images from the PCN

Unfortunately after measuring the tiny lines they are over 5mm wide, but if you post at the other end of the bay, it's physically impossible for a car to fit in the 'designated space', see image link below:

https://imgpile.com/p/VqY61PZ

Does this mean they are expecting people not to use the full extent of the bay to be inside the lines? Surely that doesn't make sense.

I did manage to find this online but it says 'should' so maybe it's useless?

'Parking space dimensions: Designs should adhere to the following standards:

On street parallel parking: 2.0m x 6.0m, disabled parking space is a minimum of 2.7 m x 6.6m (preferably 3.6m x 6.6m).'


I also checked the interactive parking map but it was last updated in 2024 and also I'm not sure if the legend info is actually unhelpful to me in this instance as it says parking bays OR no road markings.

Finally on this page, Surrey county council says to refer to DFT parking guide. In pages 50 and 51 (see image) there are examples of both individual spaces and a continuous parking bay. The tiny lines do not match the demarcations for the individual bays.

I have drafted something to challenge it, any comments/suggestions/amendments are welcome, especially the bit about cars not fitting in their supposed spaces as I'm struggling to articulate what I mean. I will be attaching the photo above as evidence though.



Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: PCN Number: RR04349676 - Vehicle Registration FP61 ENX
Issued: 20 January 2026 / Location: Margaret Road

I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Notice.

I have been a resident of Margaret Road for 2.5 years and have been parking here for 1.5 years after passing my driving test in August 2024. I have parked in the electric bay numerous times and have never been issued a ticket prior, nor have I been aware that there were designated spots which needed to be parked inside due to the continuous marking line outside the bay which says electric vehicles only. I parked in good faith and my vehicle was not outside of the continuous marking line, nor was it causing obstruction to other road users or pedestrians. There is no signage indicating designated spots within the EV area. The markings do not provide proper spacing to fit all vehicles, as shown by the attached image at the other end of the EV area. If these were to be followed as designated spots, this would make the space between the other end of the EV area and the first marking redundant. Based on pages 50 and 51 of Department for Transport's 'Know your traffic signs' guidance, as signposted on https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/parking/restrictions-and-controls#restrictions, this parking area would qualify as a continuous parking bay, and does not have sufficient markings to be considered individual bays.

Let me know if you think I should refer to the interactive parking map or parking space dimensions info!

I'd leave out your last suggestion. You are submitting an informal challenge, virtually all of which are rejected by the council who ruthlessly game the system this way, because they know that after a refusal, >95% of people then fold and cough-up, to get the discount and "make it all go away".

Your reps will only get serious consideration at the Notice to Owner stage at which point the discount period is long gone. So to get the matter looked at properly, you must stand your ground, put the attraction of the discount behind you and make them do some work ! The NtO is sent to the owner as per the name and address on the V5C Registration Certificate; is this you ?

Anyway, slam your reps in, and post up their response when you get it.

There are no properly demarcated separate bays. This is what you need to lead with and so the contravention did not occur.

Traffic signs manual:



Also I'd be looking at the traffic regulation order.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 10:51:18 pm by stamfordman »