Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi Everyone,

I received the response to my formal representations, and the PCN has been cancelled.

The council confirmed that the signage was not authorised or installed by the council. Additionally as the bay is not supported by approved traffic regulation order signage, it is not legally enforceable.

Looks like a technicality has ended this before it went to the parking adjudicator.

Thank you all for supporting me through this process.

What happens here:

https://pcnportal.north-ayrshire.gov.uk/VEH/Live/3sc/3sc-us/

When I navigate here and enter my reg and penalty charge notice number I get presented with the option to Pay or Appeal.



if I click on appeal it takes me to the same page I initially used to make an informal appeal.



Should I tick "The contravention did not occur"?

See if tincombe has anything better but this is more on track.

-----------

I have investigated the grounds on which you can enforce this alleged contravention and you have failed on two counts, both of which mean the contravention did not occur.

1. There is no terms and conditions board citing the traffic regulation order under which penalties may be issued, and the contraventions that may give rise to such penalties. This is an off-street car park and such terms must be displayed.

The only instructions are 'park in marked bays' and that certain classes of vehicle are prohibited. I complied with both instructions.

2. You say that I parked in a disabled bay, but the bay does not conform to a bay that a disabled person would recognise as such, as it is just a standard car bay with no hatched access areas on either side and no legend drawing attention to its status.

The parking sign is set at car level and is invisible to anyone reversing into the bay as I did.

I trust this will result in a speedy cancellation of the PCN, and constructively suggest you post the terms and order governing the car park at the entrance, and ensure that any disabled bays conform to equality legislation and guidance.

Appreciate your help with this, will print this out and get it sent off to them I guess Tuesday at this point with the Easter Weekend.

Will update when I get the inevitable rejection.

Hi everyone,

So I have received the NTO.

Can someone review the formal representation I posted earlier in this thread and advise how I should approach this.

It appears they want everything by post, should I print off the pictures they took and send them too as evidence?

Any help would be appreciated.

Please to post yr draft here for constructive comment.

Please don't hold back, here is the draft.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. Ground of Representation

The alleged contravention did not occur

2. Summary

The alleged contravention did not occur because the restriction was not adequately conveyed. The signage and bay markings, taken together, failed to clearly indicate that the bay was reserved for disabled use. A reasonably diligent motorist would not have been aware of the restriction at the time of parking.

3. Inadequate Signage

The council relies on the presence of upright signage; however, the relevant legal requirement is not simply that signage exists, but that it clearly and adequately conveys the restriction to motorists.

In this case:

The sign was positioned at a low height and was not prominent
It was not visible on approach due to the angle of entry into the parking area
When the vehicle was parked, the sign became obscured by the vehicle itself
The sign was not visible when exiting from the driver’s side

A motorist is not required to exit their vehicle and search for signage that is not visible from the driving position. The restriction must be apparent at the point of parking, which it was not.

4. Absence of Road Markings / Misleading Bay Appearance

The bay in question:

Contained no wheelchair symbol
Contained no “DISABLED” legend
Was marked in a manner consistent with standard parking bays
Did not conform to the typical visual characteristics of a disabled bay

While I acknowledge that in off-street car parks road markings may not always be strictly required, their absence becomes critical where upright signage is not clearly visible.

In this case, the lack of any surface marking meant there was no reinforcement of the restriction. The bay appeared indistinguishable from a standard parking bay, creating legitimate ambiguity.

5. Failure to Adequately Convey the Restriction

The combined effect of:

Inadequate and poorly positioned signage
Complete absence of identifying road markings
The sign being obscured when the vehicle was parked

means that the restriction was not adequately conveyed to a reasonably diligent motorist.

The council’s assertion that motorists must assess signage after parking is not consistent with the requirement that restrictions must be clearly communicated at the time of parking.

6. Entrance Signage Supports the Appellant’s Interpretation

The entrance signage to the car park instructs motorists to park only within marked bays.

The bay in question was clearly marked as a standard parking bay and contained no indication on the surface that it was reserved for disabled users. I complied with the visible and clearly conveyed instruction provided at the entrance.

7. Legal Position (Scotland)

Enforcement of parking contraventions in Scotland is carried out under the Road Traffic Act 1991 (as amended).

However, a penalty charge is only payable where a contravention has actually occurred. For a contravention to occur, the restriction must be:

Lawfully established, and
Clearly and adequately conveyed to the motorist

The requirement for adequate signage derives from the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, with signage and markings governed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (as amended for Scotland).

Where signage fails to clearly convey the restriction, no contravention can be said to have occurred, and enforcement under the 1991 Act framework cannot be sustained.

8. Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, the restriction was not clearly or adequately conveyed. As such, the alleged contravention did not occur and the Penalty Charge Notice must be cancelled.

Are you the registered keeper of the vehicle with current DVLA details?

If so, IMO wait for the NTO.

Yes I am, ok sure. So not sure if you can advise me on the process going forward. In terms of appealing does everything need to be done via post as in print off pictures etc and send things recorded delivery or can this be done via email or electronically?

Far as I know there are no regulations about signs in off-street car parks (presumably also in Scotland) but an adjudicator would look at what they've done is adequate (it's not).

And I think there are also no regulations about disabled bays off-street, but other laws such as the Equality Act could be in play (no idea about Scotland).

The terms set out on the board are the critical first line factor to address.

The Equality Act applies to Scotland too.

So do you think I would stand a good chance with an adjudicator given the evidence provided here?

Should I draft up a formal representation?

Also do you know if the formal representations are fobbed off like the informal appeals?