Thanks for that dx, apologies for the upload again, brain obviously not functioning today!

Update: They're certainly persistent, I've now had a nice letter from dcbl baliffs threatening me with 14 days to pay or legal action will be commenced (attached). I guess I continue to ignore or do I need to do something now? dbcl_front (2).pdf

Thanks dx. If I get anything else through I'll bring it back here for the experts. Could you also clarify your last point about moving house please?

Thanks dx

Hi dx100uk. We live in Scotland.

Thanks FTMDave Letter attached for information. The rear of the letter is too big to upload, but it's just the ways to pay. DR Plus Side 1.pdf

Hi honeybee13, thanks for the quick response. I'll post up a copy of the letter once I figure out how to do it on this computer (would be easy at work!) I posted about this (I don't actually remember doing it) in the following thread: I don't know if these can be merged to keep things simple? Doug

Hello! I've received a nice letter form Debt Recovery Plus today regarding a parking charge that I've not paid. The 'offence' dates from 22/01/2018 (and happened in Scotland) and I ignored the two letters that I received from them at that time. It now seems to have escalated and I'm being threatened with court action if I don't pay the inflated costs now. Apparently I have 7 days to pay or "legal recovery actions" will commence. The rear of the letter informs me that "The driver of the vehicle at the time this charge was issued is responsible for payment of the charge detailed overleaf" although they have not identified who was driving in this case. Do I still ignore this or is there something I have to do to make this go away? Thanks Doug

Jamberson, I completely agree, I would sign the restriction as either 10am - 5am or 10am - midnight, midnight - 5am. Unfortunately the quality of signing nowadays is only getting worse. However I wonder if the council would use the wiggle room of the quoted TSM clause as justification?

It meets the guidance in the traffic signs manual Chapter 7: "12.2.3. If the time period covers only “am” or “pm”, but not both, then “am” or “pm”, as appropriate, should be shown only against the end time." Which could be read one of two ways, but there would be enough wiggle room to say it was conforming.

As strange as this layout of sign is, it does meet the guidance in the TSRGD and the Traffic Signs Manual. There's no way that i would have signed the restriction like that, but that's not much help! I do aympathise with the OP however, that's not an easily understandable sign.

Even if you missed the signs, you should have seen the street lighting indicating a 30mph limit until informed otherwise. And no need to assume it is a dual carriageway, it clearly is, but again the street lights indicate a 30 limit.

uk11. I've had a look at the google streetview, but the images are only from 2015 so I don't know what the state of the signage is. Would you be able to post up some pictures? With regard to the double yellow question, as others have pointed out, DYLs cover the area from the centre of the carraigeway to the rear of the road (highway, since we're in England) boundary. So they cover any footways and verges in that space.

uk11, yes, it is now lawful to have only signs or only markings, provided the extent of the restricted area is obvious. Do you have a streetview link to the location? And there is no requirement to make mention of the TRO on the signs themselves.

ICBW but you're not allowed to have the double arrow like that on restriction signs, there shouldn't be any arrows on that sign if it's in the middle of a bay. The permitted variants in the regs says that "An arrow may be added pointing to the left or to the right." So if the sign is as shown, then it may be non-prescribed.