The adjudicator found something I missed. The TMO was invalid. Anyone who gets a ticket for this can appeal with adjudicator bdecause the TMO does not mention access, only loading.
I was hanging onto poor visibility of sign from drivers POV as my argument. The Adjudicator wasn't having any of it, repeating they hear this argument all the time and its always dismissed. The legal requirement is one sign. Video is provided below:
My second point was while I did admit to loading outside or allowable hours. there is a unrestricted access permission. Access is catch all for everything. The council did not address this point on my informal appeal. The adjudicator unfortunately did not comment on this defencse specifically. But he looked up the TMO himself and saw that it did not say anything about access on there. therefore the sign is invalid as it does not corroborate the TMO.
It's a bitter sweet victory because my main defense was not acknowledged. The adjudicator (Barrister) was rushed and promopty ended the phone call after upholding my appeal. I wanted to ask what his verdict would be if there TMO was valid. WOuld my "access" fallback be a valid defence or not.
PCN at the bottom
redacted infraction from still of video at bottom as well for others to confirm their case
