Redbridge - failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles

I just cooked up this draft as a backup just in case. Not sure its that great but worth a punt. I'll hold of til 1130pm'ish otherwise will make reps.

Quote

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to make formal representations against the issuance of the above Penalty Charge Notice, served for an alleged contravention under code 52M — Failing to comply with a restriction on motor vehicles (motor vehicles prohibited) at Rutland Road on 26 May 2025.

My representation is based on the following grounds:

1) Unenforceable and Ambiguous Signage – “Term Time Only”
The restriction signage at this location displays the following text:

“Mon–Fri 8.00–9.15am and 2.45–4.00pm – Term-time only”

There is no indication of specific dates or term periods. It is not lawful or reasonable to expect a motorist to know or check school term dates while driving. The signage therefore fails to clearly convey the restriction and has been found unenforceable in similar cases at London Tribunals.

Adjudicators have repeatedly ruled that “term-time only” restrictions must show defined date ranges or risk being invalid, as seen in publicly referenced cases on the London Tribunals website under Adequacy of Signs and Lines.

2) No Advance Warning / Safe Diversion
There is no advance signage before this restriction to warn unfamiliar drivers or allow a legal diversion. The restriction appears suddenly and is difficult to comply with safely.

3) Request for Evidence
I request the following:

- The Traffic Management Order in force for this restriction.
- Evidence of how term-time dates are communicated to drivers at this location.
- Certification of the enforcement camera.

Due to the lack of clear signage and the legal ambiguity of “term-time only” restrictions, I respectfully request cancellation of this PCN.

I am writing to appeal against the issuance of the Penalty Charge Notice, served for an alleged contravention under code 52M — Failing to comply with a restriction on motor vehicles (motor vehicles prohibited) at Rutland Road on 26 May 2025.

My appeal is based on the following grounds:

1) Unenforceable and Ambiguous Signage – “Term Time Only”
The restriction signage at this location includes the following text:

“Mon–Fri 8.00–9.15am and 2.45–4.00pm – Term-time only”

This restriction is fundamentally unclear for the following reasons:

• There is no specification of dates, months, or defined term periods on the signage itself.
• Term dates are not universal — they vary across schools, boroughs, and types of institution (e.g. academies, private schools).
• A driver is not under any legal duty to research or know school calendars in the area they are driving through.
• The restriction therefore fails the legal standard of clarity, as it does not make the time and period of the restriction clear at the point of compliance.

The blue supplementary plate stating "Term Time Only" further compounds the ambiguity. It does not indicate which school the restriction refers to, which calendar year, or even what constitutes “term time” for enforcement purposes. This makes the sign effectively meaningless for those unfamiliar with the local education schedule — particularly drivers without school-age children or visitors to the borough.

In Conor Costelloe v London Borough of Merton (Case No. 2240078999), the adjudicator ruled:

Quote

“The use of the phrase 'during term times' is not authorised for the simple reason that it requires motorists to know what the term times are… it is about a lack of clarity as to when the restriction operates... If an advance warning sign is needed and it is not clear, the Adjudicator is entitled to conclude the overall signage is inadequate.”

This case reflects a wider consensus at London Tribunals under the category “Adequacy of Signs and Lines”, where adjudicators have repeatedly ruled that signage stating “term-time only” is unenforceable unless the date ranges are explicitly defined on the sign itself. Anything less fails to give motorists the certainty required in law.

The restriction is also discriminatory in practice, as it assumes knowledge that only those with school-connected responsibilities may possess. This creates an unfair system where lawful compliance depends not on clear signage, but on a motorist’s parental status or insider knowledge.

2) No Advance Warning or Safe Diversion
There is no advance warning signage provided prior to the restriction to inform drivers or allow them to divert legally. The restriction appears abruptly, leaving motorists — especially those unfamiliar with the area — no reasonable opportunity to avoid a contravention safely or lawfully. This compounds the unfairness and further undermines enforceability.

Conclusion
Due to the lack of legally adequate and unambiguous signage — particularly the vague “term-time only” blue plate — and the absence of advance warning, this restriction fails the required standard of clarity under traffic enforcement regulations and established London Tribunal case law.

I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

I like it.

@Incandescent @Hippocrates
I had a call with the tribunal earlier today, and the adjudicator accepted my appeal based on point 1. He didn't bother reading the other points. He completely agreed, and was even more satisified due to the citing of the preceding cases in the appeal.
Happy days  I'll post his comments when i receive them via email/post.
Thank you very much folks.