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.
