This is not my vehicle , but same location, I am a retired Police Officer who used to patrol this location for over 10 years, I have no knowledge of Fixed Penalty Notices ever being issued at this location, the local police & ex traffic wardens agree they would never have issued a fine at this location !

Prior to Decriminalisation it was always considered that vehicles had to be parked in the "Road", that is the location between lines and centre of road, the pull in was the pavement side of the road and no tickets issued.

Vehicles park in this location every day, it can be seen that there are drop kerbs permitting vehicles to pull in off the road, there are no signs restricting parking in the pull in.

I have spoken with parking enforcement, they state that the yellow lines cover full width of "Highway" from my previous recollection that includes full width from building boundary to building boundary, that again includes pavements etc. Parking enforcement say that they can now issue tickets if parked on pavements ( i.e. parking either side of double yellow lines !), there has never been any press announcement on the interpretation of the new legislation.

It will be seen in the pictiure that there is obvious kerbing denoting a pull in / parking place, this is a revenue raising matter contrary to the new legislation. I intend to fight the fine ......


UPDATE on process to get ticket cancelled. Picture above is MGT/2 mentioned in decision notice.

I have received considerable help from this forum and special thanks to "Anorak".

I have researched and found that Devon County Council made false declarations when applying for their traffic orders in Dec 2007 and later in Feb 2009, they basically signed a compulsary requirement stating that ALL yellow lines had been examined in the whole of Devon, and repaired all to make legally enforcible , this was not true as I had evidence of defective lines, photographs, a meeting with Police authority and 2 assistant Chief Constables who were aware of some facts prior to Devon taking over parking.

I have also obtained sufficient evidence under Freedom of Information that there were inspections of lines BUT no repairs were ever done, have got an admission to that (worksheets and emails).

I then went on and formally appealed, Mid Devon District Council were "most unhelpful", I went before the adjudicator in August and made representation that the yellow lines were not parralel to the kerb and the area I was parked in had no lawful restriction on parking there.

I won my appeal and I am grateful that justice has been done. Copy of adjudicators decision below.

APPEAL DECISION.
Appeal allowed on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.

I direct the Council to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and Notice to
Owner.

Reasons


The PCN was issued on 5 February 2009 at 11:43 to vehicle *** *** in High
Street, Cullompton for being parked in a restricted street during prescribed
hours.

The hearing of the appeal in respect of the above was attended by the
Appellant.

The Council was also represented. I have taken time to consider my
decision.

The basic facts are non-controversial in that the Appellant parked his
vehicle in the location shown in the photos starting at page 32 of the bundle. The
Appellant has also provided photos MGT 1 – 10 and I think the most useful of
these in giving a general view of the location are MGT 1, 2, 3, and 5 – 8.

The issue is whether this location is subject to the double yellow line
restriction.

It will be seen that at the edge of the asphalt covered surface there is
a double yellow line. On the right hand side of that as one looks at MGT 2 there is
an area which has the physical characteristics of what might in other circumstances
be considered a lay – by. It does not have an asphalt surface but rather what
seem to be paving blocks. To the right of this there seems to be a shallow
drainage channel – see MGT 6. There are then larger pavement slabs. At each end
there seems to a raised kerb but this is absent from edge adjoining the drainage
channel. There is also no raised kerb between the asphalt surface and the
paving blocks although the border is marked by paving blocks running at right
angles to the asphlt. Having described this it may be that the best indication of
the topography is to be found in the photos.

It is in the “lay – by” that theAppellant’s vehicle was parked.
I have used the words “lay – by” but it is clear from the definition in Article 1A of
the Devon County Council (Traffic Regulation & On-Street Parking Places) Order
2009 that this is not a lay – by as so defined as it is not signed as required.

When I use this term therefore it is simply in the sense of its physical
characteristics.

To complete the factual picture the Appellant in his letter of 17 May
2009 to Parking Services explained that he thought he was parking legally in a pull –
in “as many people have done so for the 24 years I have lived in the town.”
In his written submissions handed to me at the hearing which I have marked A he adds
that as a then serving police officer he permitted people to use the pull – in
rather than the road.

I accept what the Appellant has said in the immediately preceding paragraph
although it is of course the case that, as explained by the Council, parking
for say loading/unloading or with a blue badge would have been lawful in any event
because of the appropriate exemptions from a double yellow line restriction..

Nevertheless it seems to me that the Appellant’s evidence is wider than this and
is not limited to situations covered by exemptions.

I now turn to the above Traffic Regulation Order.
It is apparent that the contravention alleged derives from Article 82
which relates to vehicles waiting in a length of road. “Road” as defined in
Article 1A means any length of highway or of any other road to which the public has access
including any length of footway verge or grass verge comprising the road or bridges
over which a road passes. Now leaving aside the position in respect of a
carriageway to which I shall return, one possibility is that this “lay – by”
should be regarded as part of the footway. If it was then it would be capable of falling
within the definition of road and therefore subject to a double yellow line restriction.

There is no definition of footway in the said Order but it seems to me that
without seeking to provide a comprehensive definition it should be regarded as a way
over which the only public right of passage is on foot. Given the photos,
I have difficulty in seeing how it can properly be said that the only right of passage
is on foot.
There is a clear delineation between the pavement area and this “lay
– by”.

I do not consider that it falls within the footway.

For the sake of completeness it can be seen from the photos that it is
also not a verge or grass verge.

This to an extent begs the question. If it is none of the above, what is
it? My answer is that it is part of the carriageway which is defined by Article 1A
as meaning the way constituting or comprised in a highway (other than a cycle
track) over which the public have the right of way for the passage of
vehicles.

Given the evidence of the Appellant and the photos this location seems to
me to fall within such definition. This is not in my view affected by the fact
that a vehicle would wait here as there would still be passage of the vehicle into
and out of this location.

In the light of the above what is the consequence of this location being
part of the carriageway?

The consequence for me concerns the correct signage of a double yellow
line restriction on a carriageway. It can be seen from diagram 1018.1 of the Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 that the double yellow lines
have to follow the edge of the carriageway. In this case they have not as
they have not run round the edge of the “lay – by” They are therefore non –
compliant.

This in turn means in my view that the Council is not entitled to enforce
this penalty. I would allow the appeal on this basis.