Free Traffic Legal Advice

FORMAL REPRESENTATIONS
Ground: The alleged contravention did not occur
I repeat my informal representations that the alleged contravention did not occur owing to inadequate and ambiguous signage.
On the date in question, the bay layout appeared to be one continuous length governed by the adjacent shared-use parking sign positioned directly alongside the vehicle. There were no clear transverse markings or visible carriageway legend separating a disabled residents’ bay from the shared-use bay.
The disabled residents’ permit sign relied upon by the authority is positioned on the opposite side of a cycle track and separated from the parking bay by a footway and cycle lane. It is not located on or immediately adjacent to the bay in which the vehicle was parked.
By contrast, the shared-use sign is directly adjacent to the continuous bay and not separated by any carriageway feature. A motorist was entitled to rely on that sign.
The layout created ambiguity as to which restriction applied.
I refer the authority to the following allowed appeals concerning the same location (Broadway, Newham):
Jaroslav Sender v LB Newham (2240246109, 18 July 2024)
Fabiha Ahmed v LB Newham (2240026419, 26 March 2024)
In case 2240246109 the adjudicator held:
“There appear to be no clear dividing lines between the two types of bay which might alert the motorist to the need to look carefully for a different sign. The signage does not comply in any way with the suggestions of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 19 para 13.21.4 regarding the signage of adjacent types of bays.”
In case 2240026419, the adjudicator found that where the disabled sign was posted on the other side of a cycle lane and set back from the bay, this created ambiguity as to the restriction and the contravention was not proved.
The present case is materially similar. The burden of proof rests with the authority. In circumstances where adjacent bay types exist, clear differentiation and clear association between sign and bay are required.
Here, the disabled sign is set back and separated by a cycle track, while the shared-use sign is directly adjacent to what appears to be a single continuous bay. The restriction was not adequately conveyed.
Accordingly, the alleged contravention is not proved and the Notice to Owner must be cancelled.

On London Tribunals site but you have enough here.

Draft a short challenge and post here.

Thanks again for your support - here's the challenge, should I also mention the tribunal examples?

Ground: The alleged contravention did not occur

I make formal representations against this Notice to Owner on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.

The vehicle was parked in what the Council alleges to be a dedicated disabled residents’ permit bay. However, the restriction was not adequately conveyed at the location where the vehicle was parked.

1. Inadequate carriageway markings

The carriageway markings at the location are severely worn and incomplete. There is:

No clearly visible “DISABLED” legend;

No clear bay boundary markings;

No clearly defined start or end of the bay.

While the Council has stated that a “DISABLED” legend is not legally required, the legal requirement is that the restriction must be clearly and unambiguously indicated. In this case, the markings present are fragmentary and insufficient to clearly denote a dedicated disabled permit bay to a reasonably diligent motorist.

The Council’s own photographic evidence demonstrates that the bay markings are either absent or so worn as to be unclear.

2. Upright sign not clearly associated with the bay

The upright sign relied upon by the Council is positioned a significant distance from where my vehicle was parked and is not clearly associated with the specific section of carriageway in question.

The sign is separated from the parking location by a wide footway and cycle lane and is not positioned adjacent to the vehicle. There are no clear bay termination markings linking the sign to the precise parking space.

In circumstances where carriageway markings are worn or incomplete, the upright signage must be especially clear and directly associated with the bay. That is not the case here.

A motorist standing next to the vehicle would not reasonably conclude that the space was a dedicated disabled permit bay.

3. Failure to properly consider informal representations

In rejecting my informal challenge, the Council asserted that signage and lines were “in order” and relied on the CEO’s notes. However, no proper consideration appears to have been given to the specific issues raised regarding:

The absence of clear bay markings;

The lack of a visible disabled legend;

The distance and positioning of the sign relative to the vehicle.

A generic assertion that signage was “in order” does not address the substance of the representations made.

Conclusion

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions require parking restrictions to be clearly and adequately conveyed. In this case, the combination of severely worn carriageway markings and signage that is not clearly associated with the bay fails to meet that requirement.

Accordingly, the restriction was not adequately conveyed and the alleged contravention did not occur.

I therefore request that the Notice to Owner be cancelled.

Background:

- I received a parking ticket with contravention code 165 (Newham) - Being parked in a disabled bay
- I genuinely didn't know I was parked in a disabled bay because the road markings were almost invisible and when I looked at the closest sign, it had the pay by phone details, restrictions did not apply on Sunday except for event days
- I checked that there were no events on and proceeded to park


Appeal:

- I appealed

"I challenge this PCN on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.

The bay in question is alleged to be a dedicated disabled permit bay. However, the carriageway markings indicating such a bay are extremely worn and effectively absent. From the position where my vehicle was parked, there was no visible disabled symbol or clear bay marking to indicate that the space was restricted.

Furthermore, the upright sign indicating the disabled permit bay is positioned a significant distance away from the location of my vehicle and is not clearly associated with the bay in which I was parked. There is no sign immediately adjacent to my vehicle that would clearly convey the restriction to a reasonably diligent motorist.

For a contravention under code 165, the restriction must be clearly and unambiguously indicated. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions require both clear road markings and appropriate signage. In this location, the combination of severely worn bay markings and poorly positioned signage fails to adequately convey the restriction.

I have enclosed photographs taken at the location which demonstrate the condition of the bay markings and the distance between the sign and my vehicle. In light of this, I submit that the alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN should be cancelled."



Appeal rejected:

- The appeal has been rejected and I want to know if I should take things further
- The disabled bay signage is set away from the kerbside, there is a pedestrian pathway between the car and the sign, which is inconsistent with the paybyphone sign which is kerbside.
- Failure to maintain road markings, Newham said a "DISABLED" road marking is not legally required but they clearly deemed such a marking necessary in this space to ensure clarity.
- Currently the bay markings and disabled road markings are both are eroded, it was a rainy grey day so the markings were not visible when I approached the bay

https://imgpile.com/p/ifIujnA









Here you can see the kerbside other sign and the disabled sign set away from the road


I've taken a screenshot from streetview and added a van to try to replicate the situation. You can see there is one sign kerbside and the other set behind a walkway and bike lane









Location

Old Street view shows the disabled bay sign is behind a walk way and a bike lane. The road markings are more prominent in these images from 2024

https://maps.app.goo.gl/fWXZ23uCc7wZqppT7