Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: UnfortunatePotato on March 08, 2026, 05:52:14 pm
-
They often look at things properly at formal stage and it seems this was never authorised as they say as they are obviously not proper disabled bays. One wonders who put those signs up.
My guess is that the maritime museum has done this. Since those bays are directly at it's entrance.
I might find that those signs are removed soon.
-
They often look at things properly at formal stage and it seems this was never authorised as they say as they are obviously not proper disabled bays. One wonders who put those signs up.
-
Hi Everyone,
I received the response to my formal representations, and the PCN has been cancelled.
The council confirmed that the signage was not authorised or installed by the council. Additionally as the bay is not supported by approved traffic regulation order signage, it is not legally enforceable.
Looks like a technicality has ended this before it went to the parking adjudicator.
Thank you all for supporting me through this process.
-
Schedule 6 para. 2(4) of the RTA 1991:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/schedule/6
Their website is wholly improper as is the NTO because individually and in combination they misinform an owner of their right to make representations which, as the Act makes clear, is not restricted to a single ground, neither do they fall into the website's arbitrary groups of PCN Improperly Issued etc.
It is wholly improper for the authority to restrict an owner to selecting one ground. So, IMO tick 'contravention did not..', ' penalty charge exceeded..' and 'other reasons'. Under the 'other..' ground put that it is contrary to the Act's requirements for the authority to attempt to restrict an owner to a single ground!
Now do you think they really know what they're doing or are they just doing it 'their' way because that's what they've always done!
This is my problem with local authorities, they don't want to spend money to do anything correctly but want everyone to pay through the nose for X, Y and Z.
Had they repainted those bays to promote them and actually make them usable for disabled drivers it would have been obvious and I'd have never parked there. They simply didn't want to spend the money so just put a sign up and started enforcement, effectively trapping people like myself who have parked there for years and get there early while it is still dark.
Perhaps their thought process was that people would nose dive in, in which case the sign would be right in front of you. They obviously didn't consider that people may dare to reverse, given it is way easier, especially for the first bay.
-
Schedule 6 para. 2(4) of the RTA 1991:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/schedule/6
Their website is wholly improper as is the NTO because individually and in combination they misinform an owner of their right to make representations which, as the Act makes clear, is not restricted to a single ground, neither do they fall into the website's arbitrary groups of PCN Improperly Issued etc.
It is wholly improper for the authority to restrict an owner to selecting one ground. So, IMO tick 'contravention did not..', ' penalty charge exceeded..' and 'other reasons'. Under the 'other..' ground put that it is contrary to the Act's requirements for the authority to attempt to restrict an owner to a single ground!
Now do you think they really know what they're doing or are they just doing it 'their' way because that's what they've always done!
-
What happens here:
https://pcnportal.north-ayrshire.gov.uk/VEH/Live/3sc/3sc-us/
When I navigate here and enter my reg and penalty charge notice number I get presented with the option to Pay or Appeal.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MHFMbk2h/Selection-077.png)
if I click on appeal it takes me to the same page I initially used to make an informal appeal.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sXt1vYYV/Selection-080.jpg)
Should I tick "The contravention did not occur"?
(https://i.postimg.cc/9QjF3Xp8/Selection-079.jpg)
-
What happens here:
https://pcnportal.north-ayrshire.gov.uk/VEH/Live/3sc/3sc-us/
-
Can't you send reps online?
It does not appear that I can do this online, after logging back in to the portal the same options to pay or appeal remain but nothing to make formal representations.
Also, which box do I tick?
"The contravention did not occur"
"Other Reason"
"The traffic order is invalid"
(https://i.postimg.cc/VkB1gHGP/Selection-076.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/t4tykmrc/20260405-190107.jpg)
-
Can't you send reps online?
-
See if tincombe has anything better but this is more on track.
-----------
I have investigated the grounds on which you can enforce this alleged contravention and you have failed on two counts, both of which mean the contravention did not occur.
1. There is no terms and conditions board citing the traffic regulation order under which penalties may be issued, and the contraventions that may give rise to such penalties. This is an off-street car park and such terms must be displayed.
The only instructions are 'park in marked bays' and that certain classes of vehicle are prohibited. I complied with both instructions.
2. You say that I parked in a disabled bay, but the bay does not conform to a bay that a disabled person would recognise as such, as it is just a standard car bay with no hatched access areas on either side and no legend drawing attention to its status.
The parking sign is set at car level and is invisible to anyone reversing into the bay as I did.
I trust this will result in a speedy cancellation of the PCN, and constructively suggest you post the terms and order governing the car park at the entrance, and ensure that any disabled bays conform to equality legislation and guidance.
Appreciate your help with this, will print this out and get it sent off to them I guess Tuesday at this point with the Easter Weekend.
Will update when I get the inevitable rejection.
-
See if tincombe has anything better but this is more on track.
-----------
I have investigated the grounds on which you can enforce this alleged contravention and you have failed on two counts, both of which mean the contravention did not occur.
1. There is no terms and conditions board citing the traffic regulation order under which penalties may be issued, and the contraventions that may give rise to such penalties. This is an off-street car park and such terms must be displayed.
The only instructions are 'park in marked bays' and that certain classes of vehicle are prohibited. I complied with both instructions.
2. You say that I parked in a disabled bay, but the bay does not conform to a bay that a disabled person would recognise as such, as it is just a standard car bay with no hatched access areas on either side and no legend drawing attention to its status.
The parking sign is set at car level and is invisible to anyone reversing into the bay as I did.
I trust this will result in a speedy cancellation of the PCN, and constructively suggest you post the terms and order governing the car park at the entrance, and ensure that any disabled bays conform to equality legislation and guidance.
-
The reps are too long.
The key is the absence of a terms board setting out grounds and legality of penalties, followed by the poor/non-compliant signage/layout of the disabled bays.
Thanks for the feedback.
I have checked other car parks around where I stay which do have designated disabled bays and these do not have terms boards setting out penalties. The only ones which do are privately run car parks which charge for over staying. I have not focused too much on the terms board but have taken your advice to shorten the reps down.
what do you think of the below?
-------------------------------------------------
Ground: The alleged contravention did not occur
The restriction was not adequately conveyed to a reasonably diligent motorist.
The bay in question appeared indistinguishable from a standard parking bay. It contained no wheelchair symbol or “disabled” legend and was marked in the same manner as adjacent unrestricted bays.
The only upright signage was not visible on approach due to its positioning and the angle of entry into the car park. When the vehicle was parked, the sign became obscured by the vehicle itself and was not visible when exiting from the driver’s side.
There was no clear or prominent information within the car park to indicate that these bays were reserved for disabled use, and the entrance signage simply instructed motorists to park within marked bays, which I did.
In these circumstances, the restriction was not clearly conveyed at the time of parking. As such, no contravention occurred and the Penalty Charge Notice must be cancelled.
-
The reps are too long.
The key is the absence of a terms board setting out grounds and legality of penalties, followed by the poor/non-compliant signage/layout of the disabled bays.
-
Hi everyone,
So I have received the NTO.
Can someone review the formal representation I posted earlier in this thread and advise how I should approach this.
It appears they want everything by post, should I print off the pictures they took and send them too as evidence?
Any help would be appreciated.
-
Hey everyone,
Any feedback on the draft I posted?
-
Please to post yr draft here for constructive comment.
Please don't hold back, here is the draft.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Ground of Representation
The alleged contravention did not occur
2. Summary
The alleged contravention did not occur because the restriction was not adequately conveyed. The signage and bay markings, taken together, failed to clearly indicate that the bay was reserved for disabled use. A reasonably diligent motorist would not have been aware of the restriction at the time of parking.
3. Inadequate Signage
The council relies on the presence of upright signage; however, the relevant legal requirement is not simply that signage exists, but that it clearly and adequately conveys the restriction to motorists.
In this case:
The sign was positioned at a low height and was not prominent
It was not visible on approach due to the angle of entry into the parking area
When the vehicle was parked, the sign became obscured by the vehicle itself
The sign was not visible when exiting from the driver’s side
A motorist is not required to exit their vehicle and search for signage that is not visible from the driving position. The restriction must be apparent at the point of parking, which it was not.
4. Absence of Road Markings / Misleading Bay Appearance
The bay in question:
Contained no wheelchair symbol
Contained no “DISABLED” legend
Was marked in a manner consistent with standard parking bays
Did not conform to the typical visual characteristics of a disabled bay
While I acknowledge that in off-street car parks road markings may not always be strictly required, their absence becomes critical where upright signage is not clearly visible.
In this case, the lack of any surface marking meant there was no reinforcement of the restriction. The bay appeared indistinguishable from a standard parking bay, creating legitimate ambiguity.
5. Failure to Adequately Convey the Restriction
The combined effect of:
Inadequate and poorly positioned signage
Complete absence of identifying road markings
The sign being obscured when the vehicle was parked
means that the restriction was not adequately conveyed to a reasonably diligent motorist.
The council’s assertion that motorists must assess signage after parking is not consistent with the requirement that restrictions must be clearly communicated at the time of parking.
6. Entrance Signage Supports the Appellant’s Interpretation
The entrance signage to the car park instructs motorists to park only within marked bays.
The bay in question was clearly marked as a standard parking bay and contained no indication on the surface that it was reserved for disabled users. I complied with the visible and clearly conveyed instruction provided at the entrance.
7. Legal Position (Scotland)
Enforcement of parking contraventions in Scotland is carried out under the Road Traffic Act 1991 (as amended).
However, a penalty charge is only payable where a contravention has actually occurred. For a contravention to occur, the restriction must be:
Lawfully established, and
Clearly and adequately conveyed to the motorist
The requirement for adequate signage derives from the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, with signage and markings governed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (as amended for Scotland).
Where signage fails to clearly convey the restriction, no contravention can be said to have occurred, and enforcement under the 1991 Act framework cannot be sustained.
8. Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the restriction was not clearly or adequately conveyed. As such, the alleged contravention did not occur and the Penalty Charge Notice must be cancelled.
-
Please to post yr draft here for constructive comment.
-
I am going to wait on the NTO and have a go at appealing this. I don't agree with the councils response.
Can anyone advise if the formal representation will essentially be the same evidence and statement I provide to the parking adjudicator if it gets to that stage?
Additionally I have a draft written up for the formal representation if someone is able to peer review and make any suggestions? Don't know if I should send this privately or not.
-
You make representations on receipt of the NTO in whichever is your preferred option out of those offered in the NTO. I don't know this council's methods so I suggest you look at their website which normally has comprehensive info on process.
As regards anything by mail, should you ever need this either here or elsewhere, just go to a post office, send by first-class stamp and get a proof of posting slip, they're FOC. Special/signed for or whatever is not recommended because there's a legal presumption that mail simply posted first class gets to the address within the normal course of post, accepted as 2 working days.
-
Are you the registered keeper of the vehicle with current DVLA details?
If so, IMO wait for the NTO.
Yes I am, ok sure. So not sure if you can advise me on the process going forward. In terms of appealing does everything need to be done via post as in print off pictures etc and send things recorded delivery or can this be done via email or electronically?
-
Are you the registered keeper of the vehicle with current DVLA details?
If so, IMO wait for the NTO.
-
I am now confused, so what approach do I take in terms of going forward?
-
By way of example, what makes you think you were in a council-run car park as opposed to private?
The ONLY clue is the small logo and words North Ayrshire Council squirrelled away at the top left of the sign.
Why do you think the 'disabled' sign has any unique application as regards the law, every private car park in the land uses them?
On which point, there is a binding Code of Practice for private operators which goes on at length and in detail about entrance signs etc. and bringing to a motorist's attention the conditions of use which apply and the sanctions available to the operator for breaches.
I am not aware of any adjudicator or tribunal which applies lower standards to councils when, in effect, they're operating as simple car park operators NB. which is why VAT is chargeable in all off-street car parks whether private or council because they are not exercising a statutory duty.
-
Far as I know there are no regulations about signs in off-street car parks (presumably also in Scotland) but an adjudicator would look at what they've done is adequate (it's not).
And I think there are also no regulations about disabled bays off-street, but other laws such as the Equality Act could be in play (no idea about Scotland).
The terms set out on the board are the critical first line factor to address.
The Equality Act applies to Scotland too.
So do you think I would stand a good chance with an adjudicator given the evidence provided here?
Should I draft up a formal representation?
Also do you know if the formal representations are fobbed off like the informal appeals?
-
Far as I know there are no regulations about signs in off-street car parks (presumably also in Scotland) but an adjudicator would look at what they've done is adequate (it's not).
And I think there are also no regulations about disabled bays off-street, but other laws such as the Equality Act could be in play (no idea about Scotland).
The terms set out on the board are the critical first line factor to address.
-
Thanks, I feel like the main basis of my argument is going to be that the parking restriction was not clearly conveyed due to the position of the signage in relation to the car when approaching the bay, the fact the sign was too low and out of sight when I exited the drivers side, and that the restriction was not reinforced with bay markings.
IMO, no.
The signs are meaningless as regards being penalised because nowhere in the car park does it state that if a motorist does not comply with signs indicating bays reserved to BB holders then they could be penalised. A penalty is a powerful weapon reserved to the state and the state must meet certain tests before penalising people.
You refer to bay markings, but there aren't any for car parks.
You refer to regulations regarding the size and marking of disabled bays. But there aren't any.
I am confused because someone said this earlier.
So essentially, your appeal argument is inadequate signage, and if the bay had been marked on the tarmac as well as having the sign, plus the signs being mounted higher up, you'd not have parked there. So submit an informal challenge on those lines and post up their response when you get it.
Not sure the sign upon entering the car park failing to mention fines is as relevant as inadequate signage. However it may not properly communicate any additional restrictions. Perhaps I could use the following at the end of a formal appeal?
"The entrance signage instructs motorists to park only within marked bays. The bay in question was marked in a manner consistent with standard parking bays and contained no surface markings or legend to indicate that it was reserved for disabled use. I complied with the clearly visible instructions provided."
-
Thanks, I feel like the main basis of my argument is going to be that the parking restriction was not clearly conveyed due to the position of the signage in relation to the car when approaching the bay, the fact the sign was too low and out of sight when I exited the drivers side, and that the restriction was not reinforced with bay markings.
IMO, no.
The signs are meaningless as regards being penalised because nowhere in the car park does it state that if a motorist does not comply with signs indicating bays reserved to BB holders then they could be penalised. A penalty is a powerful weapon reserved to the state and the state must meet certain tests before penalising people.
You refer to bay markings, but there aren't any for car parks.
You refer to regulations regarding the size and marking of disabled bays. But there aren't any.
-
They refer to 'upright signage' and no legend required but this is on-street not off-street.
They've failed in duty to clearly alert you to in terms, and failed to mark out disabled bays that in any case would be useless to many disabled people as they do not conform to guidance.
Thanks, I feel like the main basis of my argument is going to be that the parking restriction was not clearly conveyed due to the position of the signage in relation to the car when approaching the bay, the fact the sign was too low and out of sight when I exited the drivers side, and that the restriction was not reinforced with bay markings.
Funnily enough, I think the traffic wardens pictures actually help my case.
I feel better prepared to take a punt at this otherwise other people will be stung, if only one of those spaces is free there is no way someone reversing would know it is a disabled space then come back to find a ticket on their windscreen.
What do you think?
-
They refer to 'upright signage' and no legend required but this is on-street not off-street.
They've failed in duty to clearly alert you to in terms, and failed to mark out disabled bays that in any case would be useless to many disabled people as they do not conform to guidance.
-
I think there's enough to go on with this as they have misled on the law about signage and the only signs are low level and not mounted higher in bays with legends.
And surely disabled bays must be bigger with access areas either side?
So if you look at the location on google maps from 2021, these spaces were not designed as disabled bays when the car park was built. The huge building next to the car park is the maritime museum which has reopened and I guess they have asked the council to make some disabled bays so they have simply just put up some signs.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ohheZqFcoWAbiHWG7
Can I ask just for clarification how they misled on the law about signage? Is there any legislation or guidance I can refer to to help strengthen my argument?
I have a few days left before the discount period runs out so would like to get my ducks in a row if I am going to go forward with challenging this.
Appreciate the help!
-
I think there's enough to go on with this as they have misled on the law about signage and the only signs are low level and not mounted higher in bays with legends.
And surely disabled bays must be bigger with access areas either side?
-
Unsure what do to here, do I wait for the notice to owner document and lodge a formal representation before inevitably moving on to the parking adjudicator or just cut my losses and pay the fine?
Any help would be appreciated.
-
IMO, the sign to which you refer is a 'traffic sign'. It is prescribed for use on roads ONLY. On its own it does not convey any legal meaning and is there for information only.
IMO, the authority does not have the right to demand a prescribed penalty in this car park unless, as a minimum:
The conditions of use of the car park are clearly displayed and these carry the warning that failure to comply with specified conditions of use carries with it a stated penalty charge; and
That the sign states that spaces are reserved for BB holders only and that these are marked with ********.
-
Check for other boards in the car park. Is it free?
And post all the council's pics.
Find the pics I took below
(https://i.postimg.cc/0NJyjQzk/312902ea-0942-4da7-b24f-e48469a86a1a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SxPKm8xq/600b016b-4b77-4286-95c9-cef7a088dcb5.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Z5QqJ35q/Selection-065.jpg)
Find the pics the council took below
(https://i.postimg.cc/DZ6kwkPq/Selection-058.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/XqvMZHsB/Selection-060.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/854QzQmm/Selection-061.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTkQ4QNz/Selection-062.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/gj09wSgX/Selection-063.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y0Sc4ndg/Selection-064.jpg)
They said I should inspect the signage upon or after parking. The signage is in my blind spot when I approach to park and sign is blocked by my car after I park. Not sure that they understood this or even cared. See the pic below that demonstrates how the car is positioned in relation to the signs when you enter, if you choose to reverse in, you will angle the car more to the right putting the signs further out of sight.
(https://i.postimg.cc/c4wqvnm2/ent.jpg)
-
Check for other boards in the car park. Is it free?
And post all the council's pics.
Sure Ill post all the pics they took.
There is no pay parking in the town, this car park is free.
-
Check for other boards in the car park. Is it free?
And post all the council's pics.
-
There should be something about what would incur a penalty according to a stated traffic order.
Ill take a drive by later, take a fresh pic of the sign and upload it.
-
There should be something about what would incur a penalty according to a stated traffic order.
-
As I said you were too hasty with this.
Is there a pic of the terms board? Is there a car park terms board?
The rejection refers to bay markings not being a requirement but this would be true for on-street bays but in any case signage must be clear. It's an off-street contravention.
This is Scotland though.
There is a terms sign, I can almost guarantee this won't have been updated to reflect the new disabled bay signs for the same reason they didn't mark the bays on the tarmac.....£££.
I will drive by later and double check.
The small print at the bottom is just the usual statement about the council not taking responsibility for theft, damage etc, nothing about disabled bays.
(https://i.postimg.cc/G2CshgDV/9999999.jpg)
-
As I said you were too hasty with this.
Is there a pic of the terms board? Is there a car park terms board?
The rejection refers to bay markings not being a requirement but this would be true for on-street bays but in any case signage must be clear. It's an off-street contravention.
This is Scotland though.
-
So I received a response, unsurprisingly they are not cancelling the fine because we should all inspect every square inch of ground we park on in case someone decides to put up a sign somewhere.
I am considering making a formal representation however is this just a futile step in order to make it to the parking adjudicator?
If you think I have an arguable case I will give it a go, if not, please advise.
(https://i.postimg.cc/GtBCYqPk/2222222.jpg)
-
Where are the council pics - you are too hasty.
Two of the pics attached are from the council, the guy seemed to take a million pictures of the inside of my car which would have captured his own ID on the reflection if it wasn't blurry. ;D
The only picture of mine is from the entrance to the car park.
-
Where are the council pics - you are too hasty.
-
I submitted the appeal and was told that if it was rejected I would be given a fresh 14 day discount period.
The response could take up to 2 weeks. Will update once I hear back.
-
So essentially, your appeal argument is inadequate signage, and if the bay had been marked on the tarmac as well as having the sign, plus the signs being mounted higher up, you'd not have parked there. So submit an informal challenge on those lines and post up their response when you get it.
Thanks, I'll submit an informal appeal. I do fully expect this to be rejected.
Not sure if this changes anything but they have listed the colour of the car as black when it is grey?
-
So essentially, your appeal argument is inadequate signage, and if the bay had been marked on the tarmac as well as having the sign, plus the signs being mounted higher up, you'd not have parked there. So submit an informal challenge on those lines and post up their response when you get it.
-
Does each bay have its own sign ?
Your photo shows what I take to be three signs, one per parking bay. Is that correct ? Basically, your main appeal argument is that the bays are inadequately signed. Whether this would be accepted by the scottish adjudicators you'll only find out by foregoing the discount.
In cases like this, we normally advise an OP to submit an informal challenge, but there is no committment on the PCN to re-offer the discount when rejecting reps that we normally see. Scotland is basically still on the old 1991 legislation, although it has been the normal practice since 1991 to re-offer the discount when rejecting informal challenges to a PCN provided they are received by the council within the discount period.
I have to say the penalty looks very high, much more than in England outside London, (the London penalties are really outrageous, needless to say)
I didn't expect £100 either tbh, nuts.
Yes 3 signs.
The problem I have is the design of the car park puts these signs into your blind spot when you enter, especially when these spaces are better reversed into. Also if the car park was packed, other cars would have blocked the signs because they are too low. If you look at the placement of the sign on my bay it is not centred and out of view of my rear window so I didn't even see it when I reversed.
I actually moved the trolley in the picture away and remember looking back at my car and did not see the sign because my car was blocking it. If it was above the car I would have seen it and moved the car.
-
Does each bay have its own sign ?
Your photo shows what I take to be three signs, one per parking bay. Is that correct ? Basically, your main appeal argument is that the bays are inadequately signed. Whether this would be accepted by the scottish adjudicators you'll only find out by foregoing the discount.
In cases like this, we normally advise an OP to submit an informal challenge, but there is no committment on the PCN to re-offer the discount when rejecting reps that we normally see. Scotland is basically still on the old 1991 legislation, although it has been the normal practice since 1991 to re-offer the discount when rejecting informal challenges to a PCN provided they are received by the council within the discount period.
I have to say the penalty looks very high, much more than in England outside London, (the London penalties are really outrageous, needless to say)
-
Apologies, updated now.
Please post up both sides of the unredacted PCN and a GSV link to the location.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zGrdwH1z/20260308-220211.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qvTmc6dg/Selection-056.png)
I know you said unredacted however I censored my reg since I didn't want this on a public forum, if you need this I can provide it privately.
Location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ohheZqFcoWAbiHWG7
-
Apologies, updated now.
Please post up both sides of the unredacted PCN and a GSV link to the location.
-
Read this:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
and update the title and post.
Apologies, updated now.
-
Read this:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
and update the title and post.
-
Hi Everyone,
Just looking for some advice on this one.
Basically, the place I have parked for years recently had some disabled parking signs cable tied to a metal fence in front of the spaces, I obviously missed these due to a couple of reasons.
- This change only happened recently so I have obviously been in autopilot and missed them.
- The bays have been left unmarked.
- The signs are positioned about 3 foot off the ground on the left.
- Due to the car park entrance, you are forced to turn the car away from the signs to the right to reverse into the space which after you are parked your car either partly of wholly covers the signs.
I feel like the council have done a half arsed job by placing the signs so low and also by not marking the bays when they were not originally disabled spaces, so feel a bit cheated on this one but at the same time I made the mistake by not taking notice of the signs.
I have attached some pictures of the entrance into the car park, and my car where it was parked, on the first bay on the left.
Happy to hold my hands up and pay the fine but feel like the council could have done a better job here so could do with some guidance.
Do the bays need to be marked?
Is it appropriate that parked vehicles cover the signs?
Any other thoughts?
Thanks!
(https://i.postimg.cc/fWHkhbX1/Selection-052.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fk9McD8F/Selection-053.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/G3M91pG3/Selection-054.png)