Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2

Which option should I choose?

Also, any help with a draft for making representations would be greatly appreciated. I have read some others but they talk about regulations such as LATOR, Traffic Management Orders, TSRGD etc. I am out of my depth to be honest.

Is this draft for making representations, ok?



Dear London Borough of Havering,

I challenge PCN HG61566067 on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur because:

1.   The restriction is not clearly signed or marked. The restriction sign on Salisbury Road faces parallel to Brentwood Road, making it impossible to see when approaching. There is a shop on the approaching corner which has large vans parked on the pavement, further concealing the sign. By the time the sign is clearly visible and legible, a driver would have already turned into Salisbury Road, and to rectify the mistake would have to brake suddenly and reverse onto a busy main road which would be extremely unsafe.

2.   There is a sign before the Salisbury Road junction which states “Cycle and pedestrian zone at school start and finish times in term time”. This sign is not an advance warning sign authorised by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, it does not forewarn you of the exact operating days and times and uses “term time” which is not a permitted variant and thus proscribed. Additionally, the sign is very plain so draws little attention, it is set back from the road, there is a junction just before it, an overhanging tree which partially covers it upon approach and it is placed near a pedestrian crossing. So, a driver’s focus will naturally be on potential hazards from the junction and pedestrian crossing, not the unauthorised sign. Even if seen, a driver may reasonably assume the school end time is 15:30 as is the case with most schools in the borough.

3.   The signs and markings are inconsistent with each other and/or Traffic Order or legislation as the supposed advance warning sign does not specify any days or times of operation which does not therefore match the TMO or the pedestrian zone sign, and this inconsistency creates confusion.

4.   The Penalty Charge Notice is not compliant with regards to the grounds for making original representations to the Enforcement Authority as the wording on the Penalty Charge Notice does not comply with the strict requirements of Paragraph 11(1) in Part 7 of Schedule 9 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.

5.   Your website further confuses matters as it lists different grounds for making representations, fetters discretion and limits to one ground of representation which flies in the face of the law and the PCN thereby causing confusion.

To illustrate the aforementioned points, you can view my evidence by clicking on this link: EVIDENCE.

Additionally, please refer to the London Tribunal ETA Register of Appeals case numbers 2210317671 and 2240327073 in which both appeal decisions were allowed against the London Borough of Havering which was instructed to cancel the Penalty Charge Notices. Further support can be found in cases 2240078999 and 224043551A pertaining to signage.

In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

I will think about the procedural impropriety ground.

@Hippocrates Thank you. I need to submit the reps tonight as 28 day deadline is upon me. Just to be clear, I should choose the "procedural impropriety" reason on their website? Do I need to make any amendments to my draft? Thank you so much for your help!

Sorry just read this. Please show what you have sent.

Hi @Hippocrates,

This is the text, is it ok?...


Dear London Borough of Havering,

I challenge PCN HG61566067 on the grounds of procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority for the following reasons:

1. The restriction is not clearly signed or marked. The restriction sign on Salisbury Road faces parallel to Brentwood Road, making it impossible to see when approaching. There is a shop on the approaching corner which has large vans parked on the pavement, further concealing the sign. By the time the sign is clearly visible and legible, a driver would have already turned into Salisbury Road, and to rectify the mistake would have to brake suddenly and reverse onto a busy main road which would be extremely unsafe.

2. There is a sign before the Salisbury Road junction which states “Cycle and pedestrian zone at school start and finish times in term time”. This sign is not an advance warning sign authorised by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, it does not forewarn you of the exact operating days and times and uses “term time” which is not a permitted variant and thus proscribed. Additionally, the sign is very plain so draws little attention, it is set back from the road, there is a junction just before it, an overhanging tree which partially covers it upon approach and it is placed near a pedestrian crossing. So, a driver’s focus will naturally be on potential hazards from the junction and pedestrian crossing, not the unauthorised sign. Even if seen, a driver may reasonably assume the school end time is 15:30, as is the case with most schools in the borough.

3. The signs and markings are inconsistent with each other and/or Traffic Management Order or legislation as the supposed advance warning sign does not specify any days or times of operation which does not therefore match the TMO or the pedestrian zone sign, and this inconsistency creates confusion.

4. The Penalty Charge Notice is not compliant with regards to the grounds for making original representations to the Enforcement Authority as the wording on the Penalty Charge Notice does not comply with the strict requirements of Paragraph 1(4) in Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

5. Your website further confuses matters as it lists different grounds for making representations when compared to the PCN, fetters discretion and limits to one ground of representation which flies in the face of the law and the PCN.

To illustrate the aforementioned points, you can view the following evidence by visiting this webpage: https://imgur.com/a/EKGmOMF.

1. PCN Letter
2. Havering Council’s online grounds for representations options
3. “So-called” warning sign 1
4. “So-called” warning sign 2
5. Shop with Van 1 obscuring restriction sign
6. Shop with Van 2 obscuring restriction sign
7. Shop with Vans 2 and 3 obscuring restriction sign
8. Video of everything

Additionally, there is substantial precedent supporting my case, please refer to the London Tribunal ETA Register of Appeals case numbers 2210317671 and 2240327073 in which both appeal decisions were allowed against the London Borough of Havering which was instructed to cancel the Penalty Charge Notices. Further support can be found in cases 2240078999 and 224043551A pertaining to signage.

In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

Fine. Looking forward to their response.

As Havering have not offered the discount, it is now a total and absolute no-brainer to now register an appeal at London Tribunals to get an unbiased judgement, as there is no increase in the penalty of £130, and if you win you pay nothing. There are also no additional costs.

Agreed. Happy to do this one.

@Incandescent - Thank you.

@Hippocrates - Thank you ever so much. What do you need me to do?

@Incandescent - Thank you.

@Hippocrates - Thank you ever so much. What do you need me to do?

I will PM you now.

Well, I am being a "good boy" and have adduced our evidence even though they have not adduced theirs - 14 days before the hearing plus one.  It appears they have considered nowt.