Hello,

Several days ago received a windscreen PCN from Wiltshire Council. Code 01 - Parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours.

Pictures of PCN

The PCN simply displays "Location: A4, Avebury"
The exact location of parking is (51°24'50.6"N 1°50'18.9"W) shown in these images:

Image 1: Aerial view of The Layby
Image 2: Street view of The Layby

As shown, the area the vehicle was parked is not the carriageway of the A4 itself, but in a lay-by. The vehicle was parked alongside the hedge on the side away from the A4 road.
The tarmac has no road markings whatsoever between the entry and exit points of the lay-by. Putting a pin in the location on Google Maps shows the address of a house situated on this stretch of road to be "1 The Layby, West Kennett, Marlborough, SN8 1QG".

Over 10 other vehicles were parked similarly on both sides of The Layby, with enough space for vehicles to pass through the centre. All received PCNs too.

A police car came through around 7:30pm, the officer said "you can't park here" - he said vehicles would be ticketed if left and they would be towed if "still here".

He did not give any reason/legalities whatsoever for this when asked, and the threats were very vague and ambiguous (coupled with the absence of appropriate signage - temporary or otherwise) and could have ticketed the vehicles himself - the fact he threatened the Civil Enforcement Officer implied it wouldn't be illegal to remain parked in this particular spot, it would be the council to deal with.

The decision was taken to remain parked here for the night and challenge any ticket if it was indeed issued - which brings me here to the forum!

The vehicle was left unattended between 8pm and around 3am, upon returning the PCN was discovered to have been issued at 8:56pm, having been "observed" up to this time since 8:44pm - 12 minutes.

Wiltshire Police had been very active in the area closing roads to prevent access/parking for vehicles trying to attend the Summer Solstice celebrations at Avebury, Silbury Hill, The Ridgeway etc., and had put Wilts. Police yellow cones (Alamy Stock Photo) along the designated parking places for these monuments as well as along the main A4 carriageway.

However, there were no cones at the entry to The Layby, nor along the edge of the tarmac where the vehicle was parked at the time of parking and subsequently at the time of leaving the vehicle.
It would not have been parked there otherwise!

There are no signs prohibiting parking, nor any road markings to indicate parking bays etc. The only sign here is one indicating the nearest public toilets, opposite the phone box.

When returning to the vehicle in the early hours, several cones had been moved to block the entrance to The Layby. It is not known by whom this was done - police, the CEO, or otherwise.
Believing the vehicle to have been parked entirely legally no images were taken by the driver prior to leaving the vehicle for the night and therefore prior to discovery of the windscreen PCN - hindsight is wonderful.

Wiltshire Council's parking website states quite clearly:
"All parking and waiting restrictions will be clearly signed, detailing any permitted times of parking."

Checking Wiltshire Police and Wiltshire Council website announcements, no specific mention of the A4 or The Layby is made, whilst other closures or procedures were directly referenced.

Furthermore, Wiltshire TRO documents contain the following:

- “main carriageway” means any carriageway of a road used primarily by through traffic and excludes any lay-by

- (3) Any person suspending the use of a parking place or any part thereof in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) of this Article shall thereupon:- (a) place or cause to be placed in or adjacent to that parking place or the part thereof the use of which is suspended, a traffic sign indicating that waiting by vehicles is prohibited; (b) for the purpose of delivering or collecting postal packets as defined in Section 87 of the Post Office Act 1953.

With this information and context provided, there are several avenues of possible appeal I believe are open.
However having only contested a private parking PCN before on the grounds of an invalid PCN (successfully!), I would appreciate some assistance with coming to a decision as to whether the arguments are strong enough to have the charge overturned, or to accept the discounted fine of £35.

First - can it be argued that the PCN is invalid on the below points? Will this achieve a cancellation similar to the private PCN?

- Is the vague location ("A4, Avebury") likely to be considered incorrect in issuing the PCN as the actual parking location seems to be known as "The Layby" and is located in West Kennet, Marlborough?
- The location is, in my opinion, not a "restricted street" as there are no road markings, no permanent signs, there were no cones prohibiting access to or waiting in the parking area, and no publicly communicated announcements of temporary restrictions specifying this location.
- There can also be no "prescribed hours" if the above is true, and furthermore, these are not displayed anywhere even if the street was restricted.


Does the definition of "main carriageway" specifically excluding any lay-by, stated in the TROs, have any use for a potential appeal?

Is there anything else in my information from which a strong point of appeal could be drawn?

Really appreciate any help with this - it is quite an unusual set of circumstances and searching by the code, Wiltshire Council etc on the forums I haven't found too much to support my research.

My personal opinion is that Wiltshire Council are just "trying it on" - hoping to get a nice windfall from PCNs on the basis drivers won't appeal.
I strongly believe the PCN has been wrongly issued but it's now a case of developing an appeal strong enough for a cancellation - or accepting a fine.

Let's see the council's pics.

Google maps is 2011 so cannot be relied on.

This looks like temporary traffic order.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4138686,-1....3312!8i6656

Thanks for responding.

I did not intend to submit this so soon but the evidence was not available to view.
Clicked "Continue" on the portal to see if it was on the next page but it was instead submitted.

Good job I had typed out my informal appeal in the text box in anticipation of this! Informal challenge detailing the following has been made:

I contend that the vehicle was not "parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours" as stated on the PCN and that the PCN has therefore been incorrectly issued.

The vehicle was parked in a layby away from the main carriageway of the A4 road in West Kennett. The layby did not have any signs displaying parking restrictions nor any "prescribed hours" during which any hypothetical restrictions should apply. There are no road markings painted on the layby surface.

The PCN states "A4, Avebury" which is extremely vague and the exact location could be misinterpreted to be a correctly signed temporarily closed layby, or even the main carriageway itself - both of which are not the case.
Placing a pin on Google Maps at the exact parking location produces "The Layby, Marlborough, SN8 1QG".

I contend the parking location was neither the "A4" or "Avebury".

Whilst "no waiting" cones had been laid down at several locations along the A4, the location at which the vehicle was parked had no such designations at the time of arrival and at the time the vehicle was left unattended, and therefore I contend the vehicle was parked entirely within regulation. The vehicle would not have been parked at this location if designations of "no waiting" or "no parking", or the aforementioned signage, were present.

As per the parking section of Wiltshire Council's website: "All parking and waiting restrictions will be clearly signed, detailing any permitted times of parking." If this is not the case, how can any motorist be reasonably expected to comply with such restrictions? And how can Wiltshire Council issue a PCN without prior warning/notification?

If parking restrictions were in place at the precise parking location at the time, they were not signed and detailed, nor communicated, the PCN has been wrongly issued. I therefore request that this PCN is cancelled.

If no restrictions applied at the precise parking location at the time, the PCN has been wrongly issued. I request that it be cancelled.

If Wiltshire Council contends that restrictions did apply, and they were in fact adequately signed and communicated, I request to be provided with all evidence to support this argument. I contend that it is the Council's responsibility to prove this and not my responsibility to prove to the contrary/disprove.

I further request that any images or records regarding this matter are also disclosed. Prior to writing in the text box on this informal challenge form I have not been able to access any such material.



Now just to wait for the outcome. At the very least I should be provided with their evidence.

Yes, the street view is from 2011 but the scene is absolutely unchanged as of Tuesday - no markings, no signage. the aerial view confirms this and is dated 2022.
I attached the location for context and reference over appealing based on the Maps imagery.

Definitely a temporary traffic order, that's not contested - the point here is that I believe it either did not apply to the layby or was not adequately advised to do so, in order for a motorist to avoid parking and therefore receiving the PCN. The information given by the Police officer did not contain any mention of said traffic order or temporary suspension.

Council pics?

Sorry not sure if I've confused you slightly there.

I haven't been offered any images/evidence thus far and other than asking for it directly (which I have now done) there has been no explanation of how to obtain.

I opened the council's portal to try to view any evidence but there was none displayed and no option to see any.

In trying to navigate to the next page of the form in case the images were to be displayed there, it's submitted my informal challenge.
("Continue" button should say "Submit" - implies there is another stage before submission)

I'm going to contact the council on Monday morning to query this. I had luckily filled in the appeal details box with the text in italics on the above reply.

As you can see I have requested to see any/all evidence on the informal challenge and will also do so on Monday when I get in touch with them.

Not all councils put pics on their site so you've done the right thing asking for them.

We need to see what they have.

Are you going back there?

I don't plan to. I live in Cheshire so it would be a circa 300 mile round trip. I don't know anyone in the area either.

My friend was parked directly in front of me in the location so there are two identical PCNs involved here - even so I don't know if it would be worth the journey for me/us.

Did you or friend take any pics

Unfortunately not.

Before leaving the vehicles unattended (prior to discovering PCNs) we simply didn't believe the empty threat of a ticket and in hindsight this was very naive.

Circumstances had changed upon returning to the vehicles in the early hours (alcohol consumed - however did not drive until safe to do so) and didn't think to take any.
Many vehicles had left by this time and someone (likely a resident or police) had moved cones around including to block the entrance to the layby. We didn't want to be seen moving cones around and be presumed to be "tampering".

Sounds like a BS PCN to me. If your account is accurate I think you might be able to get an order for costs against the council. Anyway, let's wait and see what photos they come back with.

I have had a response from Wiltshire Council to my informal challenge - a Rejection.

Available to view here: LINK

There was a temporary traffic restrictions order in place, and the Council believe it was signed adequately.

In the document linked above there is also a copy of the TTRO 8140. Point p) of the TTRO specifies the layby the vehicle was parked in.

My appeal was on the grounds of inadequate signage at the parking location (none at the specific place of parking).
The Council said as follows:

"During the Solstice there are temporary traffic restrictions put in place at Avebury that covered the period, 06:00 19 June 2022 to 12:00 22 June 2022, and place a no waiting restriction on all roads around Avebury. This is indicated to the public by signs placed upon the highway on every road on the approach to Avebury and vehicles would not have been able to enter Avebury without passing the signage."

I did not contest that other areas were adequately signed, but the lack of signs/cones at the parking location implied that parking was permitted at this layby.

I do remember driving past signs displaying notification of temporary road closures but do not specifically recall signage displaying "no waiting" - other than the cones along the A4 carriageway and closing off other laybys.
I cannot, however, be certain that there was no notification on the "road closure" signs of "no waiting".

Notably, the council have completely ignored my very specific request on the challenge to supply all images of the vehicle, so I would suggest that no images exist - although I cannot be certain of that.

Does a lack of imagery/evidence provide any avenue for further challenge?

Looking for some advice as to whether to continue challenging this.

Just to add to the above. The council have failed to address some of the technicalities I have pointed out in my appeal.



Is there any grounds for challenge on the PCN displaying an incorrect location?
Specifically, regardless of whether there were restrictions in place at the actual parking location, the PCN says "A4, Avebury" which is not where the vehicle was parked.
So is there any weight for a challenge on this basis?

Get a copy of TTRO 8140, what they've given you is the high-level matters which exclude where and how traffic signs are to be sited.

You cannot develop the best argument around signs without seeing this detail.

The Notice of Rejection is pure BS, they cannot impose a parking restriction without using appropriate signage, which there is zero evidence for. I will ask for a copy of the actual TTRO.

For now just wait for the Notice to Owner.

Thanks both.

I have emailed Wilts. to request a full copy, and will await NtO in the meantime.

Hello again, the NtO has just dropped through the letterbox this morning.

LINK - NtO

Two photos supplied, I have individually uploaded these to enable closer inspection.

Photo 1

Photo 2

This is the most BS PCN I have seen in a while so I suggest we don't waste any time on this:

Dear Wiltshire Council,

The CEO's photos show that there was no signage in the vicinity of my vehicle, as such the contravention is plainly not made out. If the council wishes to impose parking restrictions at this location, it is under a duty to convey that to motorists via the use of appropriate signage. In the absence of any sgiange, it would be vexatious for the council to pursue this matter any further, so I suggest you cancel the PCN now rather than waste everyone's time at the tribunal.

Yours faithfully,

Thanks cp, formal representations submitted.

In the meantime here are 4 further images I was able to get once I had gone on the portal - all showing, again, absolutely nothing!

Photo 3

Photo 4

Photo 5

Photo 6

Let us know when you get a rejection but I'll tell you now that I'd be happy to represent you at the tribunal. Odds are we could get a costs order against the council if they don't back down.

You couldn't make this up:

I can confirm that the council does not hold a TTRO but we do hold a TTRN, which is attached to this email.

The TTRO 8140 was prepared on 12/05/2022 but the Council’s sealing machine had stopped working and documents including traffic orders could not be sealed for a short period whilst a replacement was obtained. TTRO 8140 was therefore not sealed and

temporary traffic regulation notices (TTRNs) were used instead for the Solstice event for public safety reasons because there was insufficient time to advertise and re-make and seal the TTRO before Solstice. TTRNs are not required to be sealed and can only remain in place for up to 21 days under public safety grounds.

As it happens the procedural requirements for a TTRN are more burdensome than for a TTRO, see reg 10 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/12...ulation/10/made and in particular the reference to traffic signs.

I think the council would be foolish in the extreme to take this to the tribunal.

Excellent, thanks very much.

No response as yet, will update as soon as it lands.

Hi again - it's been a while, but a conclusive update to bring.

I refer to your representations received on 29/07/2022 in response to a Notice to Owner dated 26/07/2022, in respect of the above Penalty Charge Notice.
I am pleased to inform you that your representations have been accepted and the Notice to Owner/Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled.

Yours sincerely

Parking Services
Wiltshire Council

A positive outcome, thank you very much CP for your time and effort helping with this. Much appreciated.

You may recall on an earlier reply I mentioned that my friend had received the same PCN at the same time - he opted to pay the reduced £35 option some time ago.
I have told him of today's result, I doubt he'll be too upset - but for me it's always the principle that it was worth fighting for.

Thanks!

The problem is that what your friend did incentivises bad behaviour: issue invalid PCNs and get paid most of the time as most people don't bother challenging. Why would they stop?

Next time your friend gets a PCN tell him to come here for advice.