Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thanks Andy.

You do wonder how a self-proclaimed "motoring defence solicitor" can get a detail like that wrong, but oh well.

There is no definitive answer to your question.

Arguments relating only to the driver often succeed; those relating to the driver and/or others often fail. This is because every case turns on its merits and no two cases are likely to be identical. There is an added complication in that an EH argument could be made to one Bench and be successful and the identical argument could be put to a different Bench and fail.

As a result, there are no lists of things that might succeed or will probably fail. It is true that, anecdotally, hardship visited on innocent parties seems likely to be met with more sympathy than that which only the driver will have to endure. But it is only one aspect of quite a complex balancing exercise which magistrates undertake when hearing EH arguments.

A few years ago it was felt by those whose job it is to worry about such things, that too many EH arguments were succeeding. The stock advice down the pub was "Just tell 'em you'll lose your job - they won't ban you." And that wasn't too far from the truth. So the latest guidance was published to remind magistrates that the word "exceptional" went along with the "hardship".

This is the crux of it - I had (evidently wrongly) reached the conclusion that nowadays an EH plea would be very unlikely to succeed unless hardship to others could be demonstrated. Sounds like that's not necessarily the case.

That's why I asked the question initially: because I thought it was such a rare occurrence (EH with no hardship to others), I was interested in reading what the circumstances could possibly be that would lead a judge to accept the plea. Seems like a strange request now given that it's apparently not as rare I thought.

Thanks for the info NJ.

Gosh, just realised I forgot to update this thread. My apologies.

I sent an "appeal" that was essentially a request for clemency, and they luckily ended up cancelling the ticket. For the record, appeal and reply below:

I received this PCN for parking on a single yellow line during restricted hours. It may not be clear from the photos, but the vehicle was parked in a diagonal bay for resident parking. The vehicle involved did (and does) have a permit for the zone in question. I wish to state for the record that I accept that a part of the vehicle (the right-hand tyre and part of the engine bay) was encroaching over the single yellow line. This is a result of my having parked the car slightly askew in order to leave space between it and the adjacent car (the back of the car was well within the dotted lines demarcating the parking bay area). Here is a Google Street View link to the approximate location the car was parked: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ViosBw4htabh2frU7 My car was positioned similarly to the dark blue Citroen but slightly closer to the bin. The bin is placed closer to the road than to the kerb. I would argue that the car's position, while technically partly positioned on a yellow line, caused negligible obstruction with respect to the yellow line's purpose (to keep the area in question clear for the placing of communal recycling bins). In light of the above, I am respectfully asking whether you would reconsider the issuing of this ticket. Best regards, Demio323

And their reply:

Thank you for your correspondence received on 04/11/2023.
We have cancelled the parking ticket.
This parking ticket was issued because the vehicle was parked on a single yellow line.
Parking is not allowed on single yellow lines during restricted hours. The Parking Attendant
observed the vehicle for five minutes and the driver did not return during this time.
Even if only part of the vehicle is parked on a single yellow line a ticket can be issued. We have
cancelled the ticket as a courtesy on this occasion but please note that future tickets issued
under similar circumstances may not get cancelled.

Just want to say that I enjoy reading through the threads and seeing the advice given by members on here; keep up the good work!

I've seen it written multiple times that with regard to totting up bans, EH pleas carry more weight if it can be demonstrated that hardship would fall upon people other than the driver, given that hardship to the driver is to be expected and forms part of the deterrent etc.

It got me thinking: does anyone know of any case where the defendant has successfully argued EH that only applied to themselves without any real hardship being caused to other parties?

(I'm not seeking advice on any real-life situation that applies to me, hence why I posted here rather than in the criminal offences thread. Hope this is the right place).

I am staying at a friend's house in the centre of Edinburgh and have use of his car. The car has a residents' permit for the surrounding zone.

On the street in question, there is a long residents' parking bay designed for cars to park diagonally rather than parallel to the kerb. Parking spaces can be difficult to find, so I squeezed into a spot at the end of the bay in question. As can be seen from the pictures, the front of the car ended up slightly outside the dotted line, encroaching into a single yellow line area. The yellow line area in question is a "keep clear" area as that's where the communal bins are placed.

Pictures here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UudCpmhXuUsqCuEOQZ2O81V7TQCdRCFI?usp=share_link

To clarify, the back end of the car was very much within the dotted line, but the car's position was askew such that the front of it was outside the lines as seen.

The GSV location for where the car was parked was approximately here, just to the left of the black bin and roughly where the Vauxhall is (although obviously slightly more to the right): https://maps.app.goo.gl/z4t38kY7ZkHMwu3R6

And a photo of the PCN: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-FU7hg-PImC2RP9sm6BFbNhjSTRsuEAa/view?usp=share_link

It's an annoying one because the encroachment would appear to be of zero practical consequence given the position of the bins. In hindsight, my mistake was that I could have probably parked the front of the car closer to the car to the left (not seen in the photo), but this would have left very little space between them so I decided to leave a gap (assuming that nothing would come of it).

I realise that there are generally very limited grounds for appealing PCNs. Is it even worth pursuing the "no offence was committed" route and try to argue that the encroachment was so minimal as to not warrant punishment? Or just swallow the fine?

Many thanks.