Well, this will be the first and last time I post on here! I can handle people disagreeing with me, but it seems my points are being missed in favour of judging me, and having assumptions made about me! I have said that I have no problem paying the first fine. My queries have been about the legalities of they way things have been done. And their motives! dx100uk As I said, the 3 tickets arrived in the post nearly 2 weeks after the date of the 3rd contravention. No, I wasn't aware of the time restriction! Yes, it's my responsibility to check where I should and shouldn't stop, but I didn't - every time I have done the school run the entire area with the single yellow lines has been full of cars parked there, so I didn't think to check. Had a trafic warden been stood there I still would have stopped there - the difference is that they could have pointed out my error easily (and fined me if they wanted to) rather than allowing the practice to go on. Despite the camera car driving round the area, the parking habits have not changed at all - the area is still covered with cars every day. Largely because people are unaware that the camera car is taking videos - most I have spoken to that have seen the car believe it is driving around looking for people parking illegally so that they can get out of the car and issue any necessary tickets. If every car that stops there and gets caught has to wait 2 weeks before they find out, its easy to see how the parking issues never improve. If there was a traffic warden there in person, issuing tickets, it sends out a clear signal to those that get a ticket, and everybody watching. Seeing the camera car drive around, and not 'appear' to issue any tickets sends out a signal that it's ok to park there. If they truly believe the yellow lines are there to keep the children safe, they should put a traffic warden there periodically, and actively deter parking on the yellow lines, not just use child safety as an excuse to raise revenue!

No worries - I won't be objecting by not paying. I'm going through the appeal processes etc. If they rule that I have to pay, then I will. But I will never accept that they have issued the tickets legally - they have shown quite clearly (I think) that they aren't abiding by the rules and regulations they are meant to!

Hi Green_and_mean Indeed I was. I should have clarified - I'm sorry! I actually have no problem whatsoever in paying the first fine - I was in the wrong! What I object to is the use of mobile camera cars as a means of generating income - especially if it is done on the back of a claim that they are doing it to keep children safe! Where I was parked is well away from the school. The single yellow lines were put there before a huge road block area was built (Google images of the area is that old that the pic is before the block was built). To be honest, I honestly can't see that the time restriction where I was parked is still necessary - but that is by the by! The council claim they are trying to make the area safer for children, but their actions are doing the opposite. Had a CEO approached me and either warned me, or issued a ticket, on the first occasion, I wouldn't have stopped there again. Therefore, their main objectives would have been met! The first occasion was 15 minutes before the afternoon school bell, and the camera car could have easily parked up and issued me a ticket in person - with no danger posed to the children! Actually - there is another question somebody may be able to answer - the time restrictions I have spoken of are between the hours of 2pm and 4pm. The school bell rings at 3.30pm, and many children stay in school until 4.30pm for after school clubs. Surely the time restrictions should be 3pm to 5pm - that way it would make more sense! Can anybody tell me why they would use a 2-4 restriction?? I'm easily confused by these things

OK - this is my first post on a forum, so please be gentle Even if it is a tad long winded :/ I have received 3 PCNs for being 'parked' in the same spot on 3 occasions near my daughters school - on single yellow lines with time restrictions. They arrived in the post up to 2 weeks after the alleged contraventions. All were received well after the final contravention. There are time restrictions I am now aware of, but didn't notice before due to cars always being parked there at school drop off and pick up times. I have appealed and have today received the rejection notices from the council. My grounds for appeal (A), and the council responses ® are as follows (not full wording, but you'll get the idea): A1. CCTV enforcement not necessary - plenty of space on full sized pavement areas throughout the area so perfectly safe for foot patrol. R1. Not practical for foot patrol as parents could run to cars to quickly move the vehicles in order to avoid a ticket - in doing so, this would put children in danger due to moving vehicles. A2. No signs to state CCTV used in the area (very quiet semi-rural area) to enforce parking restrictions. R2. Response basically states signs only needed for static cameras. A3. Video evidence less than 2 seconds long - therefore cannot prove the vehicle was parked - I was in the driving seat with engine running on all 3 occasions - although not visible on the video evidence. It was also not able to see the passenger side - the viseo not long enough to even see if I had a passenger alighting. R3. Stopping / waiting not permitted during restricted times, therefore, as soon as car stopped, the contravention occurred. A4. video footage shows single yellow lines, but not the signs showing restrictions in place. R4. the footage shows signs at both ends of the road the vehicle was 'parked' on (you can see there are signs there, but not what they say at all). A5. between the date of the first 'contravention', and the date the first PCN arrived in the post, I could have 'parked' on the same spot 24 times before it was brought to my attention that I shouldn't be doing. This shows the primary objective of 'prevention' clearly hasn't been met. If restrictions there to keep children safe, this effectively means they knowingly allowed the children to obe in danger for nearly 2 weeks. R5. It is drivers responsibility to ensure they are parked legally. A6. the camera car turned right onto the road where I was 'parked'. The angle of the corner from the other direction means the camera car could not pick up the registration of the car parked on that corner on 2 of the 3 occasions. Therefore, cars parked on the corner of a junction can't have received parking fines, which the driver of the camera car would be aware of. Therefore, they knowingly allow cars to park illegally with no penalty, or warning that they should not park there. R6. Other cars on those days in that area received tickets - cannot comment on which cars. A7. No statement from the issuing CEO on the PCNs R7. None necessary I guess I'm looking for reassurance that I'm not going mad!!!! Surely I have enough to win...... don't I? There response R1 should be enough I would have thought - can't see how that could stand up to scrutiny! If anyone can confirm any or all of these points, or point out why they may be invalid, I'd appreciate it. Many thanks Jo