Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote

Work out the 14 days discount and cf. with the website page.

Sorry, I'm not clear what cf. means

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cf.

Successful though grudging result:

"The parking tickets were issued because the vehicle was not parked correctly within the bay. The legislation requires that, when a vehicle is parked in a parking bay, every part of that vehicle must be contained within the bay markings. The Parking Attendant has recorded that the vehicle was not wholly contained within the parking bay.

The residents parking permit only authorises you to park your vehicle in any vacant permit, shared use or public parking place within your zone during permitted hours. Unless the vehicle is fully within the appropriate bay it has no legal status, and the residents permit contains no guarantee that the holder will be able to park in or near the street in which the holder resides. The responsibility is with the driver to check the bay markings before leaving the vehicle parked. The very existence of bay markings makes parking within them self evident.

We will cancel the parking tickets as a courtesy on this occasion. Any future tickets issued under the same circumstances will not be cancelled as the regulations have now been confirmed to you."

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-conditions

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.

Hi, would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

[reposted from Pepipoo as suggested]

Parked straddling two bays, one being mixed residents permit / pay and display (as are most in the area) and the other being resident permit only. Car has a valid residents permit so could legitimately park within either. Bays are both multi-vehicle and not delineated into car lengths, so no argument that I've put a parking space out of use for others (I merely made efficient use of what was a car-sized gap when I parked!).

I have in the past been successful with an appeal on that basis (though only as "we'll let you off this time" rather than any acknowledgement that I had a valid legal point).

Only other potential relevant point is that they have been a bit haphazard about removing old markings/signs in the area since the latest TRO changes (so I frequently park in e.g. a legitimate space which is still partly marked as a loading bay), so I suspect I assumed the delineation between the bays was no longer a relevant one and it was all a mixed-use stretch, but it looks like the markings and signs do in fact correctly correspond to the current TRO.

Left there for a couple of days so I have two identical tickets to deal with (is there potential for appeal on that point? The restrictions apply 0830-1730 Mon-Fri (CPZ hours not repeated on the pavement signs) so potentially not a "continuous" infraction.).

I'll appeal anyway, but does the panel have any helpful tips or precedents?

https://goo.gl/maps/UepydLzSKHhKEYoF6 [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]