Lines on unadopted (private) roads have no meaning in law.
ANPR only records when the vehicle arrived and left, not where it parked beyond the placement of the cameras.

Private parking "penalties" are generally issued as liquidated damages for breach of a contract, where one party communicates an offer of something of value (such as a limited right to park) in exchange for a promise from the driver to provide something of value.

I am struggling to find any offer being communicated in the sign stating "No parking".

So, when they lose (TFL), how is this problem going to be fixed?  New legislation unlike the bus lane saga?

To which "problem" are you referring?

The problem that motorists have is that TfL have decided that the protections that Parliament deliberately put in place to protect them from over-zealous authorities seeking to line their own pockets is hindering their god-given right to line their own pockets with minimum effort.

The problem that TfL have is that Parliament clearly decided that they must not use CCTV to enforce parking bays, which potentially hinders their ability to line their own pockets with minimum effort.

This is not a loophole that needs fixing - it is legislation being interpreted (by the Tribunal) the way that Parliament intended, and which TfL are ignoring. The closest to an actual loophole is that if the legislation is taken literally, CCTV is only allowed to be used where there are both single or double red lines *and* the time plates required only for single red lines - so CCTV would not be allowed for double red lines with no time plate (which is all double red lines). TfL's argument is that this literal interpretation would be absurd, so rather than applying the golden rule and reading in "in the case of single red lines" to the time plate requirement, the entire provision must be treated as a dead letter or otherwise read so as to allow TfL to do whatever they like. I must have been off sick when we did that rule of statutory interpretation.

Report from Mahyar Tousi on youtube yeaterday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJyqaxSLiXQ

While we are discussing trivial aesthetic considerations, is there a way to get the time to display properly. You have leading zeros before 10am (or 1000hrs) on the 24 hour clock, not on the 12 hour clock. There is no such time as 01:30 p.m. (and 01:30 a.m. whilst not ambiguous is also wrong).

edit: Time format can be set to 24h in Profile -> Look and layout
https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?action=profile;area=theme

The major "readability" issue I have is that the the quoted text is far too small (to read at a comfortable distance using a TV as a monitor). Whilst this may be beneficial when neurodiverse posters bloat quote, it tends to defeat the intended purpose of quoting.

Otherwise, change always involves a learning curve. Such is life.

There is a difference between the COFP telling the driver what to do and the driver not doing it and the COFP not telling the driver what to do.

Is there a material difference (12 angels dancing on the head of a pin is different to 13 angels dancing on the head of a pin), and in what regard?

N.B. I have been asked to "play nice" for a while, so I will avoid ventilating the obvious immaterial difference.

DPP v Holden (of the previous parish) held that a defective COFP was not a bar to subsequent prosecution after the suspended enforcement period had lapsed, if the defect did not disadvantage the accused. That is not however to say that if the accused was somehow disadvantaged it would necessarily be a bar to prosecution or otherwise a defence.

As regards the prohibition on instigating proceedings when the requirements of a conditional offer has been complied with, either they have been or they haven't.

The statute (s. 75(8A) RTOA 1988) is reasonably prescriptive regarding the information (name, date of birth and licence number) that must be provided to the fixed penalty clerk. I would suggest that the date of birth is effectively redundant where a licence number is provided.

It does not appear to be open to the CTO to insert their own requirements beyond that of providing information necessary for the recipient to provide the identification information to the appropriate person (fixed penalty clerk).

If, as the OP appears to be trying to tell us, he had to provide this information (possibly not including the redundant date of birth) to the appropriate person in order to make payment, unless he provided the wrong information, it is not obvious that he failed to comply withe the requirements set out in the statute.

However, if the OP has managed to fail to comply with the requirements, there is no statutory bar on prosecution. The obvious distinction between not bothering to read the COFP and the COFP not bothering to state the requirements is that in the latter case the argument for sentence at the equivalent of the fixed penalty is far more compelling.

For me (on Firefox 115.0.2 on Linux Mint) it renders with more padding than sparx' padded version.