Green and mean, I understand what you are saying, but I think maybe you are making assumptions here by saying that I have no consideration for other road users without knowing the slightest thing about where the vehicle was parked, or the road it was parked on. I do not deliberatly cause a nuisance to other road users, whether in my work vehicle or in my own car. If I beleive that parking in a certain space will do so, I will park elsewhere. There are no access issues on this road. It is the exit of a service road. The multi story has been closed for years. Articulated lorries often park in the same place, and still leave ample room for another artic to pass and turn out onto the main road. And there is a central divide, without which, the exit road would equate to about 5 lanes. Did I say anything about minor defects? Are missing T bars at either end of a dyl, and a dyl merging into one thick line about 10 inches thick minor defects? I do agree that as a road user there are rules to adhere to. Just the same as LC's must adhere to certain rules. If they don't, am I breaking those rules? I drive a fairly large vehicle for work, and while I may be able to squeze into something like a pay and display parking space, other people returning to their cars may not be able to get into them. When this area in question was patrolled by wardens that actually placed a PCN on the vehicle, they knew that these lines were pointless, and would simply tell you to move on. While in certain areas lines are needed for safety or access reasons, I will not park on them, regardless of condition, nor on complient lines, but do you honestly believe that all such lines are installed for these reasons. There have been many lines installed outside of local businesses, or a parade of shops. They know people are going to park there. Safey issue, or money making exercise? If indeed the lease company has a legal entitlement to pay the ticket and pass on the cost to the client, that is all I need to hear, and I sincerly thank you for making that point. But please don't make assumptions about my considerations or lack of them for other road users. You have read 3 posts here by me, I hardly think that puts you in a position to be casting aspersions. On other forums, it has taken people at least 5 posts to come to that conclusion:p Yes, I am wholly responsible for my present predicament, and I'm not denying that. I just strongly believe that LC's have a duty to abide by the rules and regulations that they are given. If it is the general consensus that this is a lost cause then I will pay up and not be such a silly boy in the future. But if it would seem to some that I have a good chance of getting these tickets reimbursed, because I do think they are in complete violation of the regs, then I will push ahead. Thanks all, Mike.

Hi Nuro12, may have misled you a bit, as far as I know the tickets were issued promptly after my vehicle was caught on CCTV to the (as you correctly say) rightfull owner of the vehicle. In this case the lease company Arval, who paid the ticket (again as you say) not allowing me the chance to appeal. Copies of the PCN then go to my firms head office, who as far as I know repay Arval. It then takes months for these PCN copies to filter down to branch level. In this day and age, I find it astonishing that something like this takes so long to get to the person that drives the vehicle on a daily basis. All Arval would need to do is e-mail their client (my firm) that one of their vehicles has got a PCN. They then e-mail the branch, who phone me to confirm or deny the validity of the ticket. Even if it takes a week, that would still give me plenty of time to dispute the PCN. Or any of our other drivers for that matter. Many of our guys are now refusing to do work in certain areas of Havering exactly for this reason, as you can imagine, not to the amusement of the managment, but they refuse to back us up over any PCN's. And we are carrying out work to council properties on behalf of the council. Arval could even stipulate that if no peply is received within a certain amount of time, they will pay the PCN on the clients behalf and want repayment. This was never a problem until my firm dumped their fleet and started leasing vehicles. I will phone the council on Monday and ask if they are actually aware of the regulations for road markings and are willing to accept a written request for information about that previously repayed PCN, and a copy of the works order for updating the lines in question under the freedom of information act. Should be interesting to hear what they have to say, half the time they have'nt got a clue what you are asking about!! Not that I am not gratefull for Nuro12s help, but can anyone else help with advice. The more views I get on this, the better. Like will I have to go to court, and which court? Small claims? or some other one? I am running a recovery program at the moment, takes a while and there will be loads of files to go through:( Will need to ask work aswell. Do the lease company have an obligation to keep the PCN's on file? I may need to approach them also. Thanks again Nuro12, Mike.

Hi Nero12, thanks for the reply. I am thinking that I may ask for all the details from the council about the ticket that was reimbursed before, if only I can find the dates and such. I no longer have the details on my PC as I deleted them once my firm got a refund. I might be able to run some data recovory software on my PC and see if it comes back. Do you think (or anyone else) that my firm should keep such information as a matter of course. It may be the only way I can get the details, date, PCN no. etc. or will I be able to just qoute the VRN to the council. I am thinking along the lines that if they have cancelled one PCN on the exact same lines, then why are they trying to enforce another 2. (there may be 2nd on it's way, don't know yet) As I said, they have now corrected these lines by adding the T bars in several places, so they now comply with the Schedule 6 road markings. Will I be able to request a copy of the works order under the freedom of information act? Is this in itself proof enough that the lines were previously unenforcable and non compliant? These used to be one long dyl that started from the exit of a multi storie carpark (no T bar at their start!) and went on for about 35-40m, turned left onto a main road, into a bus stop, out the other side of bus stop, left at a round-a-bout, on for 15-20m, merged together to form one big thick yellow line and went into another bus stop!!!! Never seen anything like it!!!!. A while back, a coach parking bay was added near the mscp exit, but the dyl was untouched, except for painting it black within the new bay, which now seems to be wearing off. I may have to park somewhere near one day (legally:D) and take some pictures. Obviously, the biggest worry I have is that the tickets have already been paid. As I also said earlier, they were 'issued' by a mobile CCTV vehicle, which gathers the 'evidence' and then (I assume) goes back to base and downloads all the 'evidence', so no PCN is actually placed on the vehicle, it's all done by post. I was not aware of a PCN for my vehicle untill months later. BTW, this is what happened last time for the PCN that was reimbursed. I had heard a while ago that this was not legal practice, although the person said that that was only in London, but this has happened in a London borough, the London Borough of Havering (Romford, in Essex). I do hope that some of you kind people will be able to offer further advice. £120 (potentially) is alot to pay out for me as I'm the only wage earner at the moment, wife is at home looking after our baby. Many thanks, Mike.

A big hello to all, and before I even get to my problem, a big round of applause to all who help us average Joes. This is my problem, I work for a local council that lease their vehicles. The vehicle I drive (solely) was issued with a PCN on double yellow lines that were missing the 'T' bar. I have parked on these lines before as I know that without 'T' bars lines are unenforcable. I have had PCN's in the past and disputed them with success. However, this time no ticket was served on the vehicle, most likely due to the use of mobile CCTV vehicles. Infact, there were 2 instances of this happening, first back in January and then again in February. The PCN's were sent to the lease company who paid both tickets without my knowledge. It was not untill late April that I was informed of these PCN's by my employer who wanted me to reimburse them, as they had paid the lease company. I duely told them I would not pay them and that I would contact the council to get the PCN's revoked. Extract form the letter I sent; For an alleged parking offence to be enforceable, the road markings for restricted parking must comlpy with the regulations set out in the Highways Act for road signs. The yellow lines where this vehicle is alleged to have committed an offence do NOT comply with these regulations. The Highways Act states that these road markings MUST be continous and complete. The lines in question display neither of these requirements. As shown in the still from the video 'evidence', these yellow lines lack the "T" bar at their end before the area in question becomes a coach parking bay. Also, as these lines emerge on to Mercury Gardens, they are broken. In addition, the use of video capture for alleged parking offences means there is no ticket placed on a vehicle for the driver to look at. As the vehicle in question is on hire, this leads to the situation where a ticket is wrongly paid by the vehicle owner. This is by no means an admission of guilt on the drivers part, merely that the driver is not aware of a ticket having been issued. Under these circumstances, a full refund is now expected. Should the need arise, as the driver of the vehicle in question, I am more than willing to pursue this matter through the courts to gain a full refund. Yours Not really knowing if I was accurate quoteing the Highways Act, but this is more less how I disputed the previous tickets (which were also paid by the lease company who got a refund) I was handed a letter form the council by my employer today, here are a few extracts; "Your vehicle was seen parked in Mercury Gardens service road during a period when the relevant order prohibits waiting. I am satisfied that a contravention occured and that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued correctly." This is the bit that really gets me; "If you wish to take this case further, then I can re-open the case. However, this would mean that the case will be at the original amount of £120. Due to a payment being made at £60 there will be £60 outstanding if the case was to be re-opened. If you wish to re-open the case contact us on ......." Can they do this. This seams very wrong to me. Am I stuffed by the fact that the lease company paid the ticket in the first place, even though this council has reimbursed the lease company in the past? And if they are satisfied that the lines in question are enforcable, why have they now bothered to add the T bars to these lines. (I realise no one can actually answer that last one, just venting my frustration:rolleyes:) Anybody be able to offer any help? I have been looking through here for anything that may help me out, but time is a precious commodity in my home at the moment (young baby screaming the house down on a regular basis). Do you think it is worth pursuing this. I have my employer breathing down my neck for repayment. BTW, I have told them that they best not try to take this out of my wages without my consent. Or can they? I have found some very nice qoutes to use, they will also help I think with a PCN I have refered to the traffic penalty tribunal for a comlpetely different ticket with another council, also missing T bars. Why do I do this to myself I have until the 29th July to send in any more info for the adjudicator to consider. Sorry to prattle on for so long. If you think it is worth proceeding with this, I will of course let you know how it goes. Many thanks in advance, Mike