Free Traffic Legal Advice

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.

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."

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.

I'm sensing that the Council may be overstepping their powers  in using their discretion to in effect cancel out a section of the parking space defined by the TRO.

In any case, I think their arguments are weak. Regarding optimising traffic management, there is little justification to restrict, as adjacent sections of this road of equal width to the south have marked parking bays, and the section of road to the north of equal width is typically lined with a row of cars displaying disabled parking permits. Regarding ease of manoeuvrability, again there is little justification, as the angles are very slight. There are examples in Warwickshire of parking bays incorporating very sharp curves.

Am I thinking along the right lines? In regard to your offer cp8759, that is very generous. However, if it did come to tribunal, I'd probably feel more comfortable representing myself. Am I right in thinking not all appeals result in tribunal, eg the Council might decide to concede the case?

Link to rejection notice:

As predicted, a notice of rejection of representation has come through from the council.

Is their rejection valid? Does the council have power to limit the length of road defined by the TRO as a parking place to any specific marked spaces which they deem appropriate?

By offering a further discount period of 14 days from the date of the letter (which I assume expires of 5 July), I guess they are attempting to discourage appeal. Should I take up their offer of discount or appeal to the tribunal?

Thank you very much for your prompt response cp8759 (and apologies for the mistakes and revisions to my last post while I got to grips with the new forum software!)

Would the following representation be sufficient?:

"Please cancel the Penalty Charge Notice as I believe the alleged contravention did not occur. The plans attached to the Traffic Regulation Order identify the length of road on which my vehicle was parked as a parking place. The road markings do not incorporate the full extent of the parking place as defined in the Order and are therefore invalid."