Here is an interesting case where I represented the motorist in a missing T-Bar Case and won.

Case Reference:    2090064142
Appellant:    Gerrard
Authority:    Haringey

Contravention Date:    31 Dec 2008
Contravention Time:    09:47
Penalty Amount:    £100.00
Contravention:    Parked or loading or unloading when prohibited
Decision Date:    06 Jun 2009
Adjudicator:    Anthony Chan
Appeal Decision:    Allowed

Direction:    cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons:    The appellant's representative Mr Segal raised several points. The first was to do with he adequacy of the signage, the second to do with the use of the enforcement camera.

In relation to the signage, Mr Segal argued that the time-plate was non-complaint with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. The time plate had three panels. The first two conveyed a yellow line restriction, the third contained information about pay and display. Mr Segal pointed out that the third panel should have but did not contain the phrase 'display ticket'.

The argument would have stronger force had the allegation been one of not displaying a pay and display ticket, but at the time of the alleged contravention i.e. 9:47 on a weekday morning, pay and display parking was not available and parking was subject to yellow line controls and the allegation was that the appellant should not have parked there at all.

A closer examination of the signage with regards road markings showed that the appellant was parked at the end of a parking bay. There was a faint single yellow line running along the bay and there was a double yellow line abutting the single yellow line. Mr Segal argued that there should have been a terminal marking or T-Bar between he single yellow line and the double yellow line.

The case of Minier v the London Borough of Camden has established clearly the T-bar must be placed at the end of yellow lines. I would hold that this applies equally when a double yellow line abuts a single yellow line.

The Minier appeal was nevertheless allowed on the basis that the absence of T-bars in that instance did not confuse the motorist. I do not take the same view in the appellant's case. The location at which the appellant parked was controlled in a number of ways. Apart from single and double yellow lines, there was a possibility of paid for parking at certain times of the day, there was also a loading ban. It is therefore incumbent upon the Council to ensure that the signage adheres strictly with the 2002 Regulations and Directions. [My emphasis]

I would add that while there was evidence of some kerb markings indicating a loading ban, there was no clear evidence that there were kerb markings against the appellant's vehicle as the vehicle was between the camera and the kerb.

I am therefore not satisfied that there was clear signage indicating the restrictions as alleged by the Council. There is no need for me to go into the camera issue. I would allow the appeal.