Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you cp8759, I appreciate your offer, and for your insight and those of others on this forum. However, I'm happy to proceed without representation. If I'm unsure about anything, I'll ask here, otherwise I'll update the forum with the outcome.

There is a minimum width of 1.8m for a parking place situated at the edge of the carriageway therefore the parking place was incorrectly marked and is unenforceable.

Parts 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 7 to the regs:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made

In particular:
1.  A restriction or prohibition of a description in column 2 of an item in the Part 4 sign table must be conveyed by road markings of the size, colour and type shown in—

(a)the diagram in column 3; or

(b)that diagram as varied in accordance with the paragraph in Part 5 whose number appears in column 4 of the item.

As part of my appeal, this is very useful. However, I am a little unsure about the last part, ie the permitted variants, in particular Part 5 Paragraph 7:

The transverse line may be omitted (a) from that part of the marking that is placed in a lay-by

Could the council argue that the marked bay is in a lay-by, and therefore a defined end marking for the bay is not required, allowing it to taper down to zero?

I still think the diagram attached to the TRO, which shows that the parking place extends along the whole length of road incorporating the two marked bays, overrides this, meaning there is a valid case to be made.

Thank you cp8759. I have cheekily adapted that short statement to include in my draft appeal. My draft is below. If anyone thinks I should add, take away or modify anything before I submit, your input would be most welcome.

With holiday, and late despatch/delivery of NoR, the 28+2 days has come round a bit quicker than I expected - Fri 21st, so I'll be looking to submit this tomorrow.

Is my reading of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal FAQ's correct, that the additional evidence - photos, maps, etc - is not subject to the 28+2 deadline, so that can follow a day or two later?

"The length of road on which the car was parked is identified as a parking place on the relevant plan attached to the TRO. The diagram shows clearly that the parking place is not confined to the two sections of road having increased width, but also extends along the length of road between them. This is consistent with the absence of yellow lines along the edge of the carriageway. The road markings at this point do not provide a minimum depth of 1.8 metres from the edge of the carriageway as required by the Traffic Sign Regulations and are therefore invalid (Parts 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 7 of the Regulations, in particular Item 6 (a) of the sign table of Schedule 7, Part 4). The car was parked very close to the kerb, encroaching less than 1.6 metres into the carriageway.

The Notice of Rejection of Representation from Warwickshire County Council states that parking bays are laid out in order to optimise traffic flow and for ease of manoeuvrability for vehicles using the parking area. While the TRO provides discretion for the Council to subdivide the parking place into individual parking spaces, which it has not done, I don’t believe the Council has power to override the plan attached to the TRO by omitting sections of the parking place from the scope of bay markings. The TRO defines the extent of the bay and the road markings should reflect what the TRO provides.

Any implication in the Council’s Notice of Rejection that the position the car was parked in in some way may have interfered with traffic flow or ease of manoeuvrability is flawed. As regards traffic flow, the width of the carriageway at the narrowest point of the parking place is equal to the width of the carriageway incorporating the disabled bay to the south and the lengthy parking place beyond. Furthermore, much of the road to the north of the parking place of the same width with waiting restrictions is frequently occupied by a row of cars used by disabled badge holders visiting the nearby Warwick Hospital. As regards manoeuvrability for vehicles using the parking area, this is determined mainly by the consideration of vehicle drivers in leaving sufficient space between parked cars rather than any action of the Council. It is in any case not relevant to the length of road on which the car was parked, which comprises a straight section of kerb between private accesses.

The upright sign to the north of the parking place does not comply with Paragraph 7 of Part 2 of Schedule 4 of the Traffic Signs Regulations which states that where the sign indicates the beginning of, or change in, a restriction or prohibition, it must incorporate an arrow pointing to the left or right. This omission is compounded by the fact that the sign does not comply with Paragraph 13.21.3 of Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual, which states that the sign should be within the extent of the bay, whereas this sign is approximately 2 metres outside the extent of the bay. These two defects together give the strong impression that the bay as marked is an uncontrolled parking place, not subject to a Traffic Regulation Order.

For these reasons, I appeal on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur."

Well cp_8759, I didn't take your advice, submitted what I though was a compelling case online, and my appeal has been dismissed. "Told you so" I can almost hear you say.

In summary my grounds for appeal, and the grounds for rejection were:

(1) The bay markings should encompass the entire length of road designated as a parking place. The adjudicator disagreed and stated that the parking restrictions were consistent with the TRO - the council was entitled to regulate parking in the areas defined as parking places.

(2) The bay didn't provide the minimum depth of 1.8 metres as required by the Traffic Signs Regulations. The adjudicator stated that the Council had investigated the width and there was insufficient evidence before her for a successful challenge. I don't know whether this was because I didn't provide a measurement of the bay at the point I had parked (relying instead on the photo), or whether she considered it was acceptable for the bay to taper to zero width.

(3) The only upright sign was approximately 2 metres outside the bay, adjacent to double yellow lines, and furthermore didn't have an arrow to indicate in which direction the restriction applied as required by the Traffic Signs Regulations, giving the impression that the bay itself was an uncontrolled parking bay. The adjudicator concluded that the placement of the sign was adequate and also sided with the Council who had stated that as there was no change in the restriction, no arrow was required.

In relation to the arrow, I felt the adjudicator was in error, as she appeared to overlook a piece of evidence I had uploaded, which pointed out that the Council had quoted inaccurately from the Traffic Signs Regulations, which state that an arrow is required when the sign indicates "the beginning of, or change in, a restriction or prohibition". As there are no further residents bays beyond this sign, I had pointed out that the sign was clearly intended to mark the beginning of the restriction.

For this reason, I requested a review of the decision, but this has also been rejected, on the grounds that the second adjudicator was of the opinion that all the grounds for appeal had been considered by the 1st. Regardless of the merits of my appeal, this is disappointing as it lets the Council off the hook in relation to its incorrect signage.

Apologies cp8759 for my slow response. Against your advice, I went for decision on papers. With hindsight, I should perhaps have taken your advice:

I guess when presented with 19 uploaded pieces of evidence, accompanied by my comments on some of them, it would have been easy for the adjudicator to overlook a relevant legal argument, as appears happened in the case of the Council's misquote of the Traffic Signs Regulations relating to arrows on upright signs. A hearing would also have enabled me to ascertain why she felt evidence to support insufficient width of bay was lacking, when to me it was patently obvious from the photograph that the bay was too narrow.

Whether a hearing would have changed the outcome, I don't know, but through the process I have learned a lot about parking regulations and the enforcement process - thanks in part to advice on here. As far as I can recall, it's only my 3rd parking ticket in 40 years of driving, and I hope the last.