Free Traffic Legal Advice

I think they must mean this one for permit holders on street

To be expected however, your reps give you a template for any appeal.

Their reference to 'traffic signs' is total nonsense.

The sign is prescribed under Schedule 4 of these regs: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/introduction

SCHEDULE 4
Upright signs that control waiting, loading and parking along a road

Road, road, road. They do NOT convey anything off-street unless this is brought to motorists' attention while parking on the land.

IMO, appeal.

While waiting, pl post your permit.

Yeah, there are no other signs apart from the on street ones for permit holders. But i think they are saying it's all taken care of through that - which as you point out is rubbish.

I don't have a permit apart from a digital receipt from Ringo who manage the permits. It's active for the area Wood Street North, CPZ zones(70029) - but cant find the terms etc apart from the info @Stamdfordman found earlier in the thread -
I wonder if that helps?

To be expected however, your reps give you a template for any appeal.

Their reference to 'traffic signs' is total nonsense.

The sign is prescribed under Schedule 4 of these regs: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/introduction

SCHEDULE 4
Upright signs that control waiting, loading and parking along a road

Road, road, road. They do NOT convey anything off-street unless this is brought to motorists' attention while parking on the land.

IMO, appeal.

While waiting, pl post your permit.

Hi @tincombe, you got me thinking about the terms of my permit, but as they are all virtual now, it's not straight forward to find. I did just come across this FAQ page on council website which states you have to park within the bay though. I wonder if this is what they are falling back on? Although, it still doesnt make sense as the contravention is one for a car park.

'.

The council allege that the contravention occurred in a CAR PARK.

A CAR PARK cannot be part of a Controlled Parking Zone.

IMO, the Ts and Cs relate and are totally restricted to CPZs and roads.

You were in/on neither.

Whether the council allow holders of WSN permits to park on estate land is a matter for them, but IMO it HAS to be made clear by separate signs and notices that failure to comply means a penalty may be demanded.

Scripted the info to use in appeal to the adjudicator using AI citing the help youve all offered here. I wonder, from your experience, if it's ok, or too much? I'll add lots of pictures to support too


"
Grounds for Appeal: The Alleged Contravention Did Not Occur
1. Lack of Statutory Signage (No Terms and Conditions)
The PCN was issued under Code 86, which is an off-street contravention. This indicates the Council considers this area a "car park" rather than a public highway. For an off-street parking place to be enforceable, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Traffic Management Act 2004 require that the terms and conditions of use be clearly displayed on a "Terms Board" at the entrance or within the site.
Argument: There are no signs at the Stocksfield Road Estate location that state vehicles must be parked "wholly within a bay" or that failure to do so results in a penalty. The only signs present are permit-entry signs, which do not specify bay-marking restrictions.
Evidence: Refer to the photos you took showing the absence of a Terms and Conditions board.
2. The Principle of "De Minimis Non Curat Lex" (The law does not concern itself with trifles)
The images provided by the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) show a single tyre slightly over the white line at the end of a row of bays.
Argument: The deviation from the bay marking was negligible. My vehicle was not occupying two spaces, was not causing an obstruction, and was not preventing any other user from parking in an adjacent bay, as this was the terminal bay of the row.
Adjudicator Precedent: Adjudicators frequently rule that if a contravention is so slight that it causes no mischief or inconvenience, the PCN should be cancelled under the de minimis principle.
3. Ambiguity of Markings and Historical Context
Argument: The parking area is a non-standard shape (rhombus). Historically, parking was permitted diagonally following the paving edge. The new white lines were only introduced recently (approx. 2 years ago) and conflict with the natural "muscle memory" of the estate's layout.
Evidence: I am a resident of [X] years and have parked in this manner without incident for the duration of my residency. The "contravention" was a result of following the established paving boundary rather than a clearly defined and enforced traffic management scheme.
4. Failure to Consider Discretion (Procedural Impropriety)
Argument: In my formal representation to the Council, I highlighted that I am a valid permit holder and that the error was trivial and unintentional. By failing to cancel the PCN, the Council has failed in its duty to act fairly and proportionately. Under the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance, enforcement should be for traffic management, not revenue generation. Issuing a fine for a single wheel over a line in a resident-only zone where no obstruction occurred is a purely punitive and disproportionate use of the Council’s powers.
Summary for your submission:
"I request that the adjudicator cancel this PCN on the basis that the Council has failed to provide adequate signage of the terms of use for this off-street area. Furthermore, the alleged contravention is so minor (de minimis) that it does not warrant a penalty, particularly as I am a lawful resident permit holder and no obstruction was caused."

Thanks in advance

For me you just need no.1, the rest are secondary at best or incorrect at worst.

I would also start by setting out the background, not diving straight into argument.

I am a permit holder for ***** and on the day in question was parked slightly outside the markings as can be seen in the council's photos. The council have placed a 'traffic sign' adjacent to this area which advises that only *** may park. As the area is not a road, and indeed the contravention regards the area as part of an off-road car park, I submit that this sign is advisory only. The council's position is that it conveys that in law and subject to being penalised with the rate prevailing for off-street car parks, a motorist:

Must hold the specified permit(and presumably display etc.); and
Must park wholly within the markings; and
That failure to do either renders the motorist liable to the penalty in this case.

I submit that this sign on its own conveys none of the above, but that if the council wishes to penalise motorists then it must bring these conditions of use of private land to motorists' attention by erecting at every vehicle entrance a noticeboard which sets out the Ts and Cs of use, that failure to comply might make an owner liable for a specified penalty and in general how this would be recovered.

The council acknowledges that there are no such signs and rely wholly upon a 'traffic sign' prescribed for use under the Traffic Signs etc. Regulations for use on roads only while acknowledging that the area is not a road.

I submit that not only is their position untenable, their continued resistance to my representations meets the threshold for a costs award.

Just my thoughts.