Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
But where is the private property boundary here?Probably at the tree line. I think it reasonably obvious that you're on the road verge, not somebody else's grass.
I feel there was no contravention, since the sign when entering the road states "Controlled Zone V Mon-Fri 9am-5pm". The alleged contravention was on 24/01/2026 at 14.18, which was a Saturday. Furthermore, I found this: https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/news/2026/01/trial-make-wormholt-safer-and-quieterYou can read the (current) signage on the video - it's no motor vehicles at any time, except taxis and permit holders.
It says "A new neighbourhood improvement trial in the Wormholt area is being enforced with PCN fines from 5 January. It will continue to cut congestion and pollution. Out-of-borough motorists have received warning notices about the scheme since 5 November."
I assume I am one of the out of Borough motorists? ; but there is no signage to this effect.
Presumably because it's a cheaper way of encouraging people to slow down than having the cameras everywhere.There was a popular misconception many years ago, that there was a requirement for speed cameras to be conspicuous in order for the speeding offence to be prosecuted. This was largely due to Tony Blair saying that that was going to be the case. Surprisingly enough, it was a big fat lie.
What the rules actually were, before they were rescinded many years ago, at first glance at least, that in order for the safety camera partnerships to be able to retain the income from the fixed penalties (and return any surplus they hadn't managed to fiddle to the exchequer), 85% of enforcement sites had to meet the conspicuity requirements. This had no bearing whatsoever on the admissibility of the evidence, it was just a rule regarding keeping the money. Except that the rules were enforced by the safety camera partnerships themselves - if they became aware that they were not complying with the rules, they had the power to report themselves to themselves and then decide whether or not they still ought to keep the money.
I just question why the Constabularies bother with the signage in the first place if it is not required. The whole 165 miles of my journey has Speed camera warnings/in operation signs apart from the said section of the M50.
So would you advise putting a shortened version of these descrepancies in my mitigation if I were to plead guiltyNone of them seem like mitigation - they aren't relevant to your culpability or what your sentence ought to be. Mitigation is e.g. it being your first offence, you being distracted for some unusual but good reason (rushing to a hospital bedside etc), you need licence for work/family etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cf.QuoteWork out the 14 days discount and cf. with the website page.
Sorry, I'm not clear what cf. means
Draft reps:Thanks, have submitted and will update when I have responses.Dear City of Edinburgh Council,
I dispute liability because the alleged contravention did not occur. The highways authority is required to convey the effects of the traffic order to the attention of motorists, but nothing on the traffic signs conveys the requirement to park within the bay markings, and the permit's terms and conditions published at www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/26050/residents-parking-permit-terms-and-conditions do not mention any such requirement.
It follows that the alleged contravention did not occur and the penalty charge must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
Send them online and keep a screenshot of the confirmation screem.
Generic information on the council website isn't worth diddly squat, the actual terms and conditions are here: https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/26050/residents-parking-permit-terms-and-conditionsHi, would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
I can't see any reference in that document to the manner of parking, and the document says "By applying for a permit, the applicant agrees to be bound by the following terms and conditions".
It is implicit that by granting a permit, the council also agrees to be bound by those terms and conditions, so they can't come up with additional terms later on if they realise they forgot to include something.
I've saved a copy of that PDF here, just in case they get any ideas.
Give others a few days to commnet, if nobody adds anything by the weekend bump the thread and I'll write a draft for you.
So starting with the basics, do the terms and conditions of your permit say anything about parking wholly within a marked bay?Hmm. "Park your vehicle fully within a permit holders or shared use parking place within your zone" (from here) which doesn't help my case much.