I think you have to draw the line somewhere and I made the decision that was after the adjudication in my case. I was happy to take the risk that the fine would double to £60 if I failed and I had to pay up when it did. I wasn't happy to take the matter any further, spending more money and using up more of my time. If it ever happens again in the future and assuming there is no outright clear issue with the ticket then I'll probably just pay-up the £30 and get on with my life. Probably what 99% of people do and probably something the councils rely on to get the money in. Not ideal I suppose and probably goes against the principle of this forums somewhat but everybody has to make their own decision on what they want to do.

Me too!!

Yes, the above images are of my decision. For some reason Imageshack wouldn't work so I had to use another service, it does't seem to be too happy at the moment!

NPAS adjudication decision posted above. Any comments?

Well, the results in and following the adjudication I am pleased to say...I still have to pay!! Only took about ten minutes for the adjudiction meeting and he addressed the three points that I had raised. 1) The breaks in the line. 2) The dodgy T bar. 3) The wording on the actual ticket. His reasonings were as follows: 1) Although there are breaks in the line the council cannot be expected to maintain every line to 100%. I asked about the 'No Variants' points in the regulations but his argument was, much like the council, that if a road marking is recognisbale as a double yellow line, then it is enforceable as a double yellow line. I asked to what degree this can be taken? In my example I would agree that it is pretty obvious that there is some sort of road marking, but what if 40% of the line was gone, or 60%. No answer was given. 2) He advised that the T bar was present, the fact that in my opinion it is not correct was not addressed. 3) He advised that the wording on the parking ticket was not in itself enough to invalidate it. His point was in fact that by mis-wording the ticket the council were giving the person an extra day to pay and you can't really argue with that! I'm quoting all ofthe above from memory but those were the basic points! In summary his point was, which I am still not sure is correct, that if a marking or sign is such that a person 'should' recognise it as what it is intended to be, then it is what it is intended to be! To quote the adjudicator "The law is not concerned with trivialities!". So that's that, time to pay up I think! It's been interesting and time consuming trying to argue the point and I can see why so many people just pay the £30 and be done with it, looking back, even before the increase in the fine, it would have certainly been the easier option! C'est la vie I suppose!

Anybody have any advice about this?

Is it actually possible to check your own lights without anybody there to help? Not being pedantic, just was looking at used cars the other day and was wondering this! Obviously you could check the side lights, headlights, main beam, indicators, hazards, rear lights, but how could you go about checking the main beam flashers, brake lights and reverse light? Suppose if it was night time and particularly dark you should be able to see a difference in light given off, anywhere with bright street lighting might cause problems and in the day who knows?!? Could always park it in front of a plate glass window or something! Makes sure you check the hand brake first!!

Just another quick post. I've had some time to think about this ticket, and the new developments since, and a few things (other than that monetary aspect of the PCN!) started to irritate me slightly. 1. The council seem hard coded with the line that if it looks reasonably enough LIKE a double yellow line then IT IS a double yellow line. This is after pointing them in the direction of the relevant regulations, including images and text, and pointing out the previous case of this being found in favour of the defendant. They just won't budge! 2. The £30/£60/£90 thing. Something just doesn't sit right with this in my mind! If you've commited an offence that warrants a fine surely you should just be fined THAT amount. The £30 sounds like bribery - 'Pay it in 14 days and you can have it for £30' - plus a lot of people probably do pay up as to contest the fine will seem like a lot more work than £30 to them! Then there's the £90 which seems like a scare tactic - 'Take this any further and you're instantly in it for £90!' - this one's the flip side in that a lot of people will pay up as they don't want the fine to increase! 3. The onus seems to be on the defendant to prove their innocence, to the Nth degree rather than the council in any way proving that you are guilty of any infringement. Writing all the letters, taking copies, getting proof of postage, phone calls to chase up, etc. It all adds up and I'd guess IS MORE than £30 when you're done! What's more if a letter you have sent goes missing then you're off to the bailiffs, if a letter the council has sent goes missing then you're off to the bailiffs! Lose-lose! 4. The council seems to just stonewall you, whatever you put forward, in an attempt to use its size and position to just grind you down. Pretty much hand-in-hand with point #1, no matter what you do or say it's just a plain and simple NO from the council, then I can guarantee when th hearing comes around they don't send any representative to that! All in all it's just not a nice situation at all to be in and I can understand why people do just pay up and get rid of it, particularly people who are in vulnerable positions or to whom a 50% decrease/increase in the fine is a considerable amount.

Good evening all, been some time since I was last here but good to see all of the healthy debate and discussion is still on going! My case has progressed pretty much as people stated on this forum, give or take a slight delay due to a backlog in the council office! I made my initial appeal, that got knocked back, then I got the 'Notice To Owner' (NTO or The Red One as it should be known!), which again I filled out and send back. Now I'm at the stage whereby I have just received the 'Notice of Rejection of Representation'. I have yet to fill this in and return it, to be honest the details will be pretty much the same as the first two as it was all in those, but have one quick question. Do people advise attending the hearing in person or going for the postal option? I have no problem in going along and having a chat to the chap or chapess who conducts the hearing, but if there's little to be gained then I could quite as easily go for the postal option. Cheers for all the previous help and assistance!

In the end I went for the broken yellow lines, the mis-formed T bar and added in about the ommission of 'from the date of issue' on the front of the PCN. Strangely they have the correct wording on the reverse so obviously they are aware of this! Letter landed with them on Monday so we will see what happens.

Forgot to say, on #2 I am the owner and the driver!

Bernie, Thanks for the quick reply. Are there any examples of people using the examples you quote or any resources on the net you can provide which contain further details? Also, are you the same BTB from the usenet football groups?!? RiTSo...

I got a PCN last Friday for parking on a 'double yellow line'. On having a look at the spot in question three things struck. 1. The signs attached to the street lights were very badly maintained. The circular 'no parking' sign was actually faded on all three in the vicinity. 2. The DYL in question appears to have a T bar that isn't actually at the end of the line, but around six inches prior. 3. And this is the one I was going to focus on, a fairly lengthy section of the DYL is both badly maintained and badly reinstated (not at all!!). Not that it really makes a difference but this was also the exact spot that I was parked on. As stated above I was going to leave out points 1 & 2 for the time being and simply appeal against the PCN quoting the 'Davies v Heatley' precedent and the fact that there is a break in the line renders it non-existent. Is this a sensible option or would you suggest piling in with all three? Scans and photos: Thanks for any help/advice! RiTSo...