Ambiguous restriction — 'while charging' vs 'EV only' confusion
EV bay signs vary widely: 'EVs only', 'EVs while charging', 'EV charging only — max 4 hrs'. If wording is ambiguous, contra proferentem applies and ambiguity in penal regulation is resolved in favour of the motorist.
Legal basis
Tuck & Sons v Priester [1887] 19 QBD 629 (strict construction of penal provisions); applied to TROs in Macleod v Hamilton 1965 SLT 305; TSRGD 2016 sign clarity requirement
How to identify this in your case
Read the upright sign carefully. If it doesn't explicitly say 'while charging' OR 'EVs only' but combines wording confusingly, you can argue ambiguity. Photograph and compare neighbouring bays.
Sample appeal wording
Sample wording to adapt and send yourself — it may not fit your notice or the stage you are at. Replace the bracketed prompts with your own details; leave any case citation as it is.
Dear Sir/Madam, Re: PCN [NUMBER] — [DATE] I challenge this PCN on the ground of ambiguous sign wording. The sign reads: '[EXACT WORDING]'. This is open to multiple interpretations: it is unclear whether [the restriction requires active charging, or merely an electric vehicle, or imposes a time limit]. It is a long-standing principle that penal provisions must be construed strictly — Tuck & Sons v Priester (1887) 19 QBD 629 — and ambiguity is resolved in favour of the citizen. A reasonable motorist could not determine what was prohibited. Further, TSRGD 2016 requires prescribed sign wording. The sign at this location does not match a prescribed diagram. Please cancel the PCN. Yours faithfully, [NAME]
Beat It writes this argument automatically
Scan your PCN — our AI checks if this ground applies to your specific ticket, drafts a properly-cited appeal letter, and sends it for you where the council takes email — guiding you through their own online form where they use one, so you press submit. The win fee is only charged if you win.
Scan my ticket