I find the following facts:

1. PCN was issued and the appellant was at the relevant time the owner of the car.
2. The car was parked opposite the flow of traffic on the city bound side of a clearway within a prohibited period.
3. One clearway sign, behind where the car was parked when the PCN was issued was obscured by foliage at the relevant time.
4. Other clearway signs were not alleged to be obscured and were visible on the country bound side of the road some distance in front and to the left of where the car was parked.

The issue to be determined is whether or not the relevant signage was adequate to warn the Appellant that he was parking in clearway.   The appellant contends that it was not; as a clearway sign close to where the vehicle was parked was obscured by summer foliage.

The English Adjudicators in MK 329 (reported in the 2004 Joint Report) have commented on this type of case. I would adopt their conclusions:

“Signage, even if it is in pristine condition, must also be visible. In this case a problem arose because signage placed near to a tree became obscured by foliage during the summer months. The sign in question was in good condition and may well have been perfectly visible in winter. However, it was found to have been insufficiently visible during August when the trees were in full leaf to alert the Appellant, a stranger to the area, to the presence of a restriction.”

In this case the Appellant was not a stranger to the area- his girlfriend lived there and he was able to give evidence of where he could have parked lawfully. I find it relevant that the obscured sign was behind him and that at least one visible sign was in front of him. Had there been no visible signs and had the appellant been new to the area my decision would have been different.

Back