UKPC yellow lines/hatched area

mo_1

Coupon-mad said:

"The BPA’s Code of Practice Version 7 - January 2018"

... is completely out of date.

Thankyou I have amended.

mo_1

Is this section ok?

1. Poor and inadequate markings

UKPC have claimed that the “vehicle was parked on yellow lines/ hatched area”  I would like to emphasize that the visibility of these said lines has diminished significantly making them almost non existent, rendering it difficult to discern parking regulations and lane markings.

UKPC must provide clear evidence that the vehicle was indeed parked on double yellow lines, the current markings do not meet the necessary standards for enforcement.

I believe the turn of phrase used at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for council PCNs in similar circumstances is "lines that are of such poor quality have as much legal enforceability as graffiti."

Coupon-mad

Yes. Add this too:

There is also no sign at the kerb, let alone any lines to warn a driver to seek out and read a sign. The operator's CCTV has also captured the faces (unblurred) of two pedestrians. This is illegal (covert) surveillance: a breach of UKGDPR and the DPA 2018 principles, as well as being in breach of the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, with which the BPA requires AOS members to comply.

Car1980

Yes, Google Ring doorbell court claim 

mo_1

Thanks all for the very useful input, please see below for the final draft, I will be submitting it on Monday evening.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vgygoqax0hnfgc48yri44/UKPC-Popla-Appeal-05.2025.pdf?rlkey=eoa3r7r7kc1yusaqofqluv0gc&st=gyuxk1ho&dl=0

mo_1

Good news. UKPC have withdrawn. Thank you all for your help.

Coupon-mad

mo_1 said:

Good news. UKPC have withdrawn. Thank you all for your help.

Yay. As I predicted:

"This will be won by you at POPLA or UKPC will drop out."

They were trying it on.