Interested to see the outcome of this one.

TBH I am with the op here. If the rules state the lines must be unbroken and they are broken whether through mistake or wear they therefore contravene the rules.

I would however question whether the cars on the other side of the road were there before the op parked or arrived after?

Fight this all the way OP and get on the councils nerves as much as possible. Write to them asking them for all evidence and legislation regarding yellow lines. Ask them to prove the warden was wearing Uniform and ask to see his notes.

I refer you to a letter I wrote to Redbridge council some time ago regarding the same situation. Perhaps it could help you.






Dear Sirs

I understand that you are of the opinion that I have contravened a restriction governed by a traffic order. I am aware that the legislation enabling a traffic order to be made is the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Although you accuse me of this contravention you have not provided any evidence that confirms that the restriction is supported by a legally enacted traffic order. You may possess a few photos of my vehicle against the backdrop of a badly maintained traffic sign but this is meaningless as evidence of a supposed contravention unless it is supported by a valid traffic order as well as evidence that the traffic order has been made in accordance with the law.

Therefore it is necessary for you to provide me with a full copy of the traffic order that you believe has been contravened and I require you to explain fully what article or articles I allegedly contravened and to direct me to the specific entry for the location concerned within the relevant schedule and to explain fully why you believe that I do not qualify for one of the given exemptions within the traffic order. It is paramount that the traffic order includes the preamble and all the articles as well as the schedules and is sealed and dated and accompanied by all maps. If the original order has been amended then it is necessary that these amendments are also provided in full. I will remind you that in the case between Terence Chase v Westminster City Council, the adjudicator emphasised that a council has a legal duty to provide all evidence at the earliest opportunity to an appellant. Failure to do so is considered by the courts to be prejudicial as it is likely to effect the appellant’s judgement on whether their case for further appeal is strong or whether they should take advantage of any discount period.

The contravention did not occur; specifically that the restriction is not signed as prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (the TSRGDs). References in this representation to Road Markings refer to that statutory instrument (2002/3113).


1) Legal Authorities.
MacLeod v Hamilton 1965 S.L.T 305
If signs to indicate the effect of a "No Waiting" order have not been erected, or signs have been erected not conforming to s.64 of the RTRA 1984 and TSRGD 2002 (SI 2002/3113), no offence against the "No Waiting" order is committed. (yellow lines are signs)

Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145
Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind.


2) Why the signing/road marking is non - prescribed
Road Markings must conform to the enclosed diagram “SCHEDULE 6 ROAD MARKINGS. The road markings numbered 1017/1018.1 are a continuous line terminating with T Bars. Particular attention is drawn to item 4, Permitted Variants: None. The road markings in the restricted area are not continuous and do not have the required T Bar endings, therefore Varying from the prescribed regulation.


The RTRA 1984 under s. 142 defines "Road" as being "any length of highway or of any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes." This definition requires an understanding of what is considered "highway". This is not defined in any legislation and so adjudicators, such as G.R. Hickinbottom in the case between Burnett v Buckinghamshire (PAS case no HIW0003), have always turned to the definition used in common law, which is "a way over which all members of the public have the right to pass and re-pass without hindrance". Therefore as "road" is "any length of highway" then road is considered to be any land where the public can pass and re-pass without hindrance.

This interpretation of "road" is the one accepted by adjudicators and the courts when considering traffic legislation and therefore it stands to reason that such an interpretation must apply equally to this case. Not to apply it will only serve to make a mockery of the law and promote mistrust of the legal profession among the general public.

Having established what is road, it is reasonable to conclude that in essence regulation 4 requires every length of highway, except where parking places occur, to be marked with a yellow line.

Within the alleged CPZ the council has marked bus stop clearways, pedestrian crossing zig zags and other non exempted markings and the public are able to pass and re-pass over these, therefore these markings occupy a "length of highway" and by definition the land they occupy is therefore "road".

It is clearly evident that not every road (any length of highway) within the CPZ has been marked in accordance with regulation 4. The legislators clearly had in mind that the only exception to the rule was to be those lengths of highway where parking places are provided. If the legislators had in mind other exceptions then it stands to reason that they as professional draftsmen would have made this abundantly clear just as they do in regard to the many other detailed exceptions contained within the statute. It is wholly unreasonable to ignore the fact that the legislators purposely used the phrase “every road” knowing that “road” applied to any length of highway. To argue that regulation 4 on its proper construction, the legislators surely meant to allow other exceptions to the rule is an argument based entirely on supposition and in the absence of evidence is one utterly devoid of merit.


In addition, I am aware of the provision under section 76(3) of the Traffic Management Act;

(3)Civil enforcement officers—
(a) when exercising specified functions must wear such uniform as may be determined by the enforcement authority in accordance with guidelines issued by the appropriate national authority, and
(b) must not exercise any of those functions when not in uniform.

The council has provided no evidence that the CEO was wearing a uniform in compliance with section 76(3)(a) and with the guidance given in section 42 of the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance;

42. When exercising prescribed functions a CEO must wear a uniform. The
uniform should clearly show:
· that the wearer is engaged in parking enforcement;
· the name of the local authority/authorities of whose behalf s/he is acting;
and
· a personal identity number.

As the wearing of uniform by the CEO is mandatory when serving a regulation 9 PCN, it is reasonable to conclude that an efficient and conscientious enforcement authority will inspect and keep a record of each officer before they begin their patrol to ensure a uniform is worn and that it complies with the guidance. Since it is a mandatory requirement, the burden of proof must remain with the enforcement authority. This principle is supported in the adjudication case between Derek Jack Hayward v London Borough of Croydon. Therefore, I require unequivocal evidence that the officer who served the PCN upon my vehicle was wearing the correct uniform in the correct manner. Without any evidence to the contrary, it is not unreasonable to assert that the PCN was served by the CEO in contravention of section 76(3)(a) thus invalidating the PCN served. A parallel can be drawn here in that where an authority fails to provide evidence that a PCN was affixed to the vehicle then an adjudicator will often allow the appeal. The wearing of a uniform is given no less mandatory weight in law than the affixing of a PCN and if the council cannot provide any records to satisfy the burden of proof then there is nothing to swing the balance of probabilities in their favour. The simple fact that a PCN was served is not in itself evidence that a uniform was worn correctly at the time of service and should not be construed as such.

I further believe that the PCN served fails to comply with paragraph 1(e) contained within the Schedule to “The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007”. This paragraph advises that a PCN must include;

1 (e) the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer serving the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable;

It is commonly agreed amongst adjudicators that the purpose of paragraph 1(e) is so that the PCN conveys to a motorist in comprehensible terms what it is they are alleged to have done wrong. However, the PCN served does not inform a person in a manner whereby they can easily comprehend what it was they allegedly did wrong. The ground on the PCN simply states that a penalty charge must be paid because the vehicle was “parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours”.

It may be that the contravention description used does correctly reflect the terminology as it is defined within the traffic order. However, the primary purpose of a PCN is not to reflect the convoluted legalese of a traffic order. It is however to convey in a comprehensible manner to the motorist what they did wrong. It is highly unlikely that a motorist will have any knowledge of the terminology as defined in a traffic order. The common motorist will simply apply common language when attempting to understand the allegation on the PCN.

The commonplace definition of “restricted” is thus; “place limits on, confine, restrain”. Therefore, in essence, to the common motorist the PCN informs the recipient that they parked in a street during hours that the street is subject to parking restraints.

In the eyes of the general public, a street that is subject to any parking restraint is considered to be a restricted street. For example, one particular parking bay in a street may be restricted to permit holders only between the prescribed hours of 9am to 6pm while another parking bay may be restricted to Pay & Display between the prescribed hours of 8am to 6pm. When applying common language it is reasonable to conclude that a motorist who lawfully parks in these restricted bays during permitted hours is also “parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours”.

The use of this equivocal ground is potentially prejudicial as a person may prepare an appeal focusing on a parking restriction that is not actually relevant to the reason why the PCN was served. For instance, many PCN’s are served upon vehicles that are parked partly in a parking space with either their front or rear end slightly overhanging an adjacent single or double yellow line. Often where this happens a PCN is served upon the vehicle for being “parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours”. However, due to the diverse meaning in plain English of this ground, the recipient of the PCN may wrongly but reasonably assume that they contravened the parking place restriction rather than be aware they fractionally infringed upon the “No Waiting” yellow line restriction. In the interest of justice a person needs to easily comprehend why their vehicle was not considered lawfully parked so that they can either avoid doing so again or gather the relevant evidence for any subsequent appeal.

It must also be remembered that the ground on the PCN will be repeated on the NtO and the owner may not have been the driver. Therefore, unless the NtO is accompanied by adequate photos of the signage, the owner when applying common language will not be able to deduce with certainty what parking restriction the expression “restricted street “concerns and was allegedly contravened. Such knowledge and clarity is absolutely critical to enable the owner to make a reasoned judgement on whether they have grounds to appeal. The general principles of law dictate that a person should not have to decipher the ground stated on a PCN or guess what restriction was allegedly contravened; it should be unequivocal. In a day and age when the UK and in particular London is host to a wealth of visitors and residents whose first language is not English and when central and local Government both readily advocate the use of plain English on all public forms and documents it is nonsensical to use language on a PCN that requires a person to refer to the glossary of a far away traffic order to gain a full and proper understanding of what they allegedly did wrong.

In fairness to the council you are using the standard contravention descriptions and codes that are issued by the London Councils. However, just because these descriptions are prescribed by the London Councils and are used nationwide, it does not guarantee that they are without fault. This was highlighted in the key adjudication case between Metrick v Camden (Case no 207034396A) where the adjudicator concluded;

“Whilst it may well be the case, as the local authority points out, that the "wording of the alleged contravention is of a standardised format for use by local authorities throughout the country", this is purely for administrative reasons alone and does not lend any statutory or other legal authority whatsoever to the 'wording': the question for the adjudicator remains whether the PCN complies with the legal requirements”.

I find the ground of “parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours” to be unnecessarily ambiguous and ineffective (unless given access to the traffic order and able to decipher its complexities) in conveying with clarity what a person did wrong and as such I do not consider it adequate to satisfy paragraph 1(e).


Under the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 I am entitled to a submit an appeal that you have a duty to consider and to which you have a duty, should you reject my appeal, to provide me with clear and full reasons in reply to my points of appeal. This duty is set down in the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance and the Traffic Management Act 2004 under section 87 clearly advises that local authorities must have regard to this statutory guidance. Therefore should you fail to reply specifically to each point and provide the required evidence then I will be, due to your improper consideration, including a further charge of procedural impropriety when my defence is submitted for adjudication and in addition I will proceed with a formal complaint, regarding your maladministration, to the office of the council’s Chief Executive.

In the event of this appeal being rejected then I require the council to formally and immediately acknowledge the following request as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is somewhat ironic that to assist my further appeal I have to put the council to an expense that far exceeds the worth of the penalty charge. However this request is necessary to enable a more informed appeal to be submitted by myself at the formal representation stage.


[b]
1) Please provide all notes and photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer in regard to this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
2) Please provide a print out of the case summary /log history in regard to this PCN from your PCN processing system.
3) Please provide the full title of the traffic order I am alleged to have contravened in regard to this PCN.
4) Please confirm if the traffic order named above has been amended. If it has, then please confirm on how many occasions and provide the full title of each amending order and the date each one came in to force.
5) Where traffic orders are named in reply to 3 and 4 above, please provide copies of the Notice of Proposal and Notice of Making in each case and confirm in each case where and when these notices were advertised.
6) Please confirm the number of council employees or contracted staff whose duty it is to consider parking appeals.
7) Please confirm the number of staff that have attended accredited training courses on the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 or any other parking related courses.
8) Where courses have been attended then please give the date of attendance and indicate how many staff attended and provide the course title and the full name and address of the training providers.
9) Please confirm whether the council obtain registered keeper details direct from the DVLA or whether the council use a third party to do so. If the council use a third party then please name the third party.
10) If a third party is used then please provide details on how this third party satisfies regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002.

[/b]

P.S The yellow line is not to the exact standard laid out in the TSRGD 2002.

All the information requested is relevant to my PCN. Even if it were not it would not matter as I have made a formal reuest for information under the FOI Act 2000. Redbridge council has a legal duty to comply. DO NOT REPLY WITH ''NOT RELEVENT TO PCN''

WITH LOVE AND KISSES AND HUGS, YOUR FRIEND, Enter name here.

Hoorah for the limitless pomposity of the barrack room lawyer! I am in the camp that thinks that the OP was deliberately taking the pish when he parked in what was obviously a restricted area. The law (mostly) does not deal in trifles.

Also, when you green ink letter writers waste a local authority's money, you are wasting money provided by taxpayers. There is no "them" and "us". There is just us.

Re the BS FOIA request, note section 14 (1) of the Act:-

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.

I'm not at all sure that it IS obvious that you shouldn't park there. The double yellows have clearly been renewed up to that point, and looking at the picture from above, they start again clearly after approx enough space to park 2 cars. They are so faint under the OP's car as to suggest they have been removed, rather than just worn out. And it seems like a sensible place to park - doesn't seem to be in anyone's way.

I'm not at all sure that a "reasonable person" wouldn't think that parking there was perfectly fine.

Yes, because more often than not, the law is enforced upon us in that way.

Standard Impreza on standard wheels?

What gives the relevant Counsel the right to ignore the law??

The council are ignoring your interpretation of the law. Absolute compliance with the regulations is not a legal requirement.

The legislation is understood in the context of legal rules developed in the courts. One of these is the concept of triviality. If none-compliance is trivial, the courts ignore it when applying the regulation.

The obvious question is, when is non-compliance trivial and when is it not? This is a matter of fact but the courts are taking a more purposive approach to the legislation. We know from the Herron case that if the non-compliance does not result in the sign being unclear then it is trivial.

If the signage/road markings are unclear due to wear then that is a defence. If not, then the fact that they do not strictly comply with the regulations does not amount to a defence.

Parking on worn double yellow lines believing that they are unenforceable is taking a significant risk.