Hi All Back on April 8th 2013, I received a PCN for allegedly parking where I shouldn't have been (whether I was or not has been discussed in a previous thread, so I wont go over that aspect again). I challenged with within the 14 days On June 25th, I received a letter stating that the PCN will not be cancelled - no surprise there then I followed the instructions, i.e. do not reply if I still wish to challenge, and after 28 days the NtO will be served automatically. On September 26 I received the said NtO, dated Sept 24th. Therefore it took the council (Sheffield) 78 days to decline my appeal - even allowing for 14 days for me to respond - it was still more than 56 days It took a further 79 days for the NtO to be received - considerably over 56 days. So initially,can I appeal under the 'there has been procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority' Further - The NtO was sent to the wrong person. No idea who 'C Mint' is, but it certainly isn't me - does this also apply to the above grounds for impropriety? Finally - and I may just be told I'm wrong here - but I have been told, that if I want to continue to appeal, then I have to make my representations to the same people, i.e. Sheffield City Council, who I have already made representations to, and who have already made their decision on the matter. Surely this is not correct! How can it be an appeal process, if the people looking at the appeal are the very same people whom with I am challenging the appeal !!! Any views would be greatly appreciated.

There surely must be some guidelines somewhere on this. I have been trying to find legislation/laws etc., where it states that the verge/footpath comes under the same restrictions as the carriageway. I am sure I have seen it before, but cant recall the exact wording. The big grey building is Ponds Forge Swimming Pool, with very little parking available, so the area parked in is one of the few areas where you can park. I used the 'different colour' aspect in my original challenge, also the lack of marking, as well as the verge then footpath argument, which they simply declined without explanation. I didn't use the contradictory signs and kerb marking though - do you think this would be a viable argument to add to the mix when challenging further?

I am starting to think there may be more issues here than I originally thought. Having again looked at the images - there are double yellow line markings on the kerb. This indicates 'no loading at any time'. Whereas the sign above these lines states 'no loading Mon-Sat 8a.m - 6.30 p.m' Isnt this incorrect signage, (at very least misleading signage)? and therefore the restriction of parking on the verge/footpath is also questionable Please tell me if I'm fighting a lost cause here!?

Sorry - I didnt mean I parked in front of the barrier, as clearly that would be an obstruction. I parked on the section which runs alongside the footpath, where the low, grey, metal barriers run. I even avoided the entrance sections where the grey barrier split. The contravention was 'Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours' I accept the points (whether I agree or not) that the verge or pavement has the same restrictions as the adjoining carriageway, but I am little perplexed at how such a restriction could apply so far away from the carriageway, when other areas are in between, i.e. the verge first, then the footpath. As suggested in my original post, such a restriction could apply if parking 100m away. When is an area no longer classified as adjoining, after all the dictionary definition of adjoining is; 'being in contact; connected or neighbouring'

sorry missed the previous post - yes that is the section

I am not sure why you consider there to be a cycle track. There are no marking on either end of this section of footpath to indicate that it is a cycle route/path. Nor as you cross the road If you look at the end of this section closest to the roundabout, you will also see that the paved area leading off the carriageway (to the barrier) actual runs back alongside the footpath, which is where the car was parked. Does this not also indicate a vehicular area?

I have also just noticed (on Google Maps) that although there is double yellow lines there is a'no loading' sign on the road btw 9 & 6. The contravention was 20.13. Would this aid my cause?

A section of road on the A61 (Sheaf St) Sheffield, approaching the Park Sq roundabout from the South, running alongside Ponds Forge. Google Maps 53.381895, -1.461806‎ +53° 22' 54.82", -1° 27' 42.50

I have unsuccessfully challenged a parking ticket which relates to parking on the verge or pavement adjacent to a highway (with double yellow lines on it) and now await the 'notice to owner' to continue the challenge. I am aware of the rules (now they have been detailed) of the verge and pavement area being included in the road markings which are adjacent to such. However, how far doe this extend to? I parked on a paved area which; was not on the 5m wide grassed area immediately next to the road; nor the 5m wide footpath which ran alongside the grassed area; but on the next area (also paved) which was separated from the footpath by a raised kerb type edging. This means i parked 10m away from the highway - past the verge, past the footpath - does the rule still apply here and where does it then end. Would the rule apply 20m away? 30? 100?