Is this car parked in breach of a loading ban?

 

This car belongs to a blue badge holder, you can't see the badge but just accept it is there for the purposes of this question. You can see a PCN.

Is the car parked in defiance of a loading prohibition?

In case you don't know blue badge holders can park for 3 hours on double yellow lines unless loading is banned, which is conveyed by double marks across the kerb (the sign although a useful reminder is not legally necessary).

27 January 2021 - Time for Mr Mustard to tell you what he thought about the situation.

In Mr Mustard's opinion the car was not parked in breach of a loading/unloading prohibition and here is the explanation.

Firstly he needs to tell you that yellow lines and yellow kerb marks are distinct markings although often seen together. The lines signify no waiting = no parking. The kerb marks signify no loading/unloading i.e. this is a stretch of road which needs to be kept clear of any vehicles at certain times.

Yellow lines are continuous and if the restriction changes there is usually a transverse mark at the join to show you where the change occurs.

Kerb marks on the other hand have to be painted at 3m intervals although than can be varied to between 2m and 4m so there is attractively even spacing. The idea is that whatever the spacing there will always be at least one mark alongside the vehicle. Double kerb marks don't require a sign as just like double yellows they apply 24 hours a day. What this means is that where the marks stop the loading restriction stops.

In the case of the blue car above there are no marks to restrict loading behind the car so that area is available for blue badge holders to park at, there are no marks alongside the car so it is not in breach of the loading ban and the mark in front of the car does not apply as the car is not alongside it. Thus Mr Mustard concluded that he could and would beat the PCN.

Mr Mustard decided to check how far in law, in the Traffic Management Order ('TMO') the no loading restriction was meant to extend, it being quite normal for them to extend into side roads from shopping streets but not that far. Luckily for Mr Mustard Camden Council publish their TMO on their website. Firstly he read the boilerplate about loading restrictions. Then Mr Mustard studied Schedule 1 which set out the waiting restrictions, they were numerous for Anglers Lane as each section has to be precisely described by length and reference to the starting point and the direction one is measuring in.

Next Mr Mustard looked in Schedule 2, the loading restrictions. Camden Council had carefully drawn the schedule up in alphabetical street order for ease of finding things and Anglers Lane was not listed. Whoops. It was always possible that this oversight (if that is what it was rather than someone a bit slap happy with their paint brush) had been corrected in a later amending TMO. Mr Mustard emailed one of the managers at Camden Council who had always been civil, helpful & professional in the past. Mr Mustard put it to him that there wasn't a TMO for loading in Anglers Lane. Two weeks later and Mr Mustard has his reply, although the reference to 26 January should be 11 January and it was an email but never mind those minor matters:

Kerboom, Mr Mustard strikes again. The devil is always in the detail and Mr Mustard likes to check everything as these mistakes are rare but when they do happen it is goodnight Vienna for the council.

You can guess what happened next. Mr Mustard emailed Camden Council (he knows that PCNs at this location are not numerous as having checked 40+ PCN Appeals for this location at the tribunal not one of them are for a code 02 PCN) as follows:

Mr Mustard is hopeful that Camden Council will do the decent thing as a search of the internet revealed that they previously refunded 192 bus lane PCNs in 2015 when the sign was proved to have been facing away from the traffic.

The more knowledge you already have or are prepared to learn, the more chance you have of beating a PCN.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard