Free Traffic Legal Advice

chatGPT response:

Traffic Penalty Tribunal Appeal Statement

The alleged contravention did not occur because the loading bay was not clearly or adequately marked, and therefore the restriction was not properly conveyed.

The Council accepts that the bay markings are worn. My photographs show that the carriageway markings are severely faded, with the “LOADING” legend effectively absent and the bay boundary lines broken and indistinct. In wet conditions, the restriction is particularly difficult to discern.

While the Council asserts that a carriageway legend is not strictly required, this is not the correct legal test. The test is whether the restriction and the extent of the bay were clearly and adequately conveyed to a motorist. Where road markings are significantly worn, upright signage alone is insufficient to cure the defect.

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 require that restrictions are clearly indicated. Established adjudication principles confirm that where bay markings are unclear, worn, or missing, enforcement is not lawful regardless of the presence of signage.

In this case, a reasonable motorist could not clearly identify the bay or its extent. As such, the restriction was not adequately conveyed and the alleged contravention did not occur.

I respectfully request that the appeal be allowed and the Penalty Charge Notice cancelled.

and further when I come to contest it:

Traffic Penalty Tribunal – Appeal Statement

Ground: The contravention did not occur

The alleged contravention did not occur because the loading bay was not clearly or adequately marked and the restriction was therefore not properly conveyed.

The Council accepts that the bay markings are worn. My photographs show that the carriageway markings are severely faded, with the “LOADING” legend effectively absent and the bay boundary lines broken and indistinct. In wet conditions, visibility is further reduced.

The Council asserts that a carriageway legend is not required and that upright signage alone is sufficient. This is not the correct legal test.

In Davies v Heatley [1971] RTR 145, it was established that where a traffic sign or road marking does not substantially comply with the prescribed requirements, no contravention occurs. While Herron v Sunderland City Council [2011] UKSC 2 confirmed that minor deviations may be permitted, the Supreme Court made clear that the restriction must still be clearly and adequately conveyed to the motorist.

In this case, the extent and nature of the bay were not clearly identifiable from the carriageway. The absence of a visible “LOADING” legend and the worn bay markings meant a reasonable motorist could not clearly understand that a loading restriction applied.

This position is supported by adjudication decisions such as Burnett v Buckinghamshire County Council, where it was held that worn or unclear bay markings render a restriction unenforceable regardless of the presence of upright signage.

Accordingly, the restriction was not adequately conveyed, and the alleged contravention did not occur. I respectfully request that the appeal be allowed and the Penalty Charge Notice cancelled.

ended up uploading my pics and googe sv pics from 2009 & 2018 to compare to chatgpt, then fire off the appeal:

I wish to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.

The alleged contravention did not occur because the loading bay was not clearly or adequately marked, and therefore the restriction was not properly conveyed to motorists.

At the location concerned, the road surface markings for the loading bay are significantly worn and largely absent. The word “LOADING” and the bay boundary markings are no longer clearly visible on the carriageway. From a driver’s perspective, particularly in wet conditions, it is not reasonably apparent that the area is a restricted loading bay.

While there is a sign mounted on a post nearby, signage must be supported by compliant and clearly visible road markings. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) require that restrictions are clearly indicated. Where road markings have deteriorated to the extent that they no longer adequately convey the restriction, enforcement is not lawful.

I refer the Council to established adjudication principles confirming that unclear, worn, or missing bay markings render a restriction unenforceable, regardless of signage.

I have enclosed photographs taken at the location showing:

The absence of clearly visible loading bay markings
Severely worn or missing road paint
The general condition of the carriageway which fails to communicate a loading restriction

Given the condition of the markings, I submit that the restriction was not adequately conveyed and that the PCN should therefore be cancelled.

I look forward to your confirmation that this PCN has been withdrawn.

correct, there were 3 cars parked there, 2 behind, a space that i reversed into and one in front.

parked up and walked past the front of my car, so didn't even think of checking. i know there's all 1 hour parking bays round the town, so obviously foolishly assumed that's what i was in.
as said only saw the sign, when i went back to car and saw the ticket and then looked at the sign.

Didn't realise it was a loading bay, thought it was a normal 1 hour bay, due to poor markings.

Was having physio and was parked there for 45minutes, kind of irrelevant.

Saw the sign when I returned to the car and saw the ticket.

Is this something I can fight due to poor markings or banged to rights? Any help appreciated