Result: My informal challenge was rejected. I paid the re-offered £35 discount before a Notice to Owner arrived, so the Traffic Penalty Tribunal did not decide this case. This is one account of how I weighed the evidence and cost, not a guarantee of another PCN outcome.

What happened

Around 5PM I was on my way to make a quick pick up and needed to park on Radcliffe Road in Nottingham, near Trent Bridge Cricket Ground. There was Cricket on so the road was busy and the parking bays were obscurred by traffic in the other lane. I spotted what appered to be a standard parking space and pulled into it.

I checked the parking restrictions which showed they had ended at 5PM and it was now past this time so I thought it was all good. Unfortunatley this was not the case.

The issue was a no-loading restriction, the yellow kerb markings conveyng this were badly deteriorated and broken, with only small fragments of paint remaining in places. As such I did not think these restriction applied, so I was not activley looking for times in the smaller notice above the main information.

After the PCN arrived and I looked at the location more carefully, I could see the remnants of the kerb markings and the smaller no-loading notice.

My point was not simply that I had missed a sign. I thought the no-loading restriction had not been adequately conveyed to a motorist using the road normally because the markings had deteriorated so far and the times were conveyed separately in smaller information above the main sign.

Why faded markings can be a ground, but not an automatic win

Regulation 18 of the 1996 Regulations requires an order making authority to take steps to make adequate information about a traffic order available to road users and to maintain the relevant traffic signs while the order is in force.

That does not mean every worn or incomplete line makes a restriction unenforceable. In Herron, the Court of Appeal treated the question as one of substantial compliance and whether the restriction had adequately informed the motorist, rather than whether every part of a sign or marking was perfect.

The Traffic Penalty Tribunal’s published example of Mr H v Nottingham City Council reached the same practical territory. The appeal was dismissed. Its summary says that signs and lines must adequately advise the motorist and that substantial compliance is sufficient.

For me, that meant the faded paint was a real point to raise, but not a complete answer on its own.

What the council said, and why I disagreed

The informal rejection accepted that the markings were faded but that they did not have to be perfect at all times and that it would be impossible for the council continually to repaint every repaired or damaged section of road.

I accepted that markings will wear and that an authority cannot make every line pristine at every moment. But I did not think that the practical difficulty of maintenance answered the question in this case. Where a council enforces a no-loading restriction, it still needs to provide adequate information about that restriction and maintain the relevant signs. I thought the condition of these kerb marks was more than cosmetic wear.

The weakness in my challenge

The no-loading times were displayed in a smaller notice above the main sign. An adjudicator would be likely to consider that notice alongside the remaining kerb markings, not examine the yellow paint in isolation.

That was the risk. The road markings were much weaker than they should have been, but the no-loading notice was present above the main sign.

The question I would have needed to answer was straightforward: looking at the sign and markings together, had the restriction still given adequate information to a reasonable motorist?

I thought the answer was arguable, not obvious.

Why I paid rather than continue

After an informal challenge, a council-PCN case normally moves through the Notice to Owner and formal-representations stages before an independent appeal becomes available. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal explains that route. In this case, the registered keeper was a leasing company, so any Notice to Owner would initially go to it.

By the time I had to decide, the council had re-offered the £35 discount. Continuing could have meant losing that discount and paying £70 if the formal challenge and any subsequent appeal failed.

I decided that the separately displayed no-loading notice, the uncertainty over how an adjudicator would view the faded kerb markings and the extra administration involved with a lease vehicle made payment the more sensible choice. Paying did not establish that the council’s position was unquestionably right. It meant I chose not to spend more time and money testing an uncertain argument.

What to photograph if you challenge faded yellow lines

If you think a restriction was not adequately conveyed, take photographs that show what a motorist would have seen, rather than relying on close-ups of damaged paint alone:

The road as approached by a driver.
The entire length where the vehicle was parked.
Breaks, missing sections and the yellow kerb marks where a loading restriction is alleged.
The main upright sign and any smaller notices above or below it, including their visibility and distance from the vehicle.
The PCN, the authority’s photographs and your own photographs with their original dates preserved.

The practical question is whether the complete signing and marking of the restriction gave adequate information at that location on that day.

The lesson: an arguable case is not always worth pursuing

This case separated two decisions for me. First, was there a legitimate ground to raise? I thought there was. Second, was it sensible to continue once the discount, uncertainty and lease-company process were taken into account? I decided it was not.

That is not an instruction to pay every PCN with faded lines. It is a reminder to assess the evidence as a whole, keep an eye on the deadline shown on your own notice and make a deliberate decision about whether the next stage is worth the risk.

For a wider overview, read the complete PCN appeal guide and the appeal-deadline guide. When you are ready to set out your own facts and evidence, you can start an appeal letter.