So we have an adjudicated case on match day.
I am disappointed with the adjudicator - I really don't think it's on for authorities to play fast and loose with the English language just because they've got a traffic order that is inaccessible to a motorist at the roadside.
The start of the website wording didn't come up here.
What did come up is the location of zone entry signage and I think Mr Teper was looking for something to allow this but felt his hands were tied by the traffic order.
-------------
Case reference 2250483767
Appellant Linton Davies
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM LO21XZN
PCN Details
PCN IZ35631989
Contravention date 07 Jun 2025
Contravention time 13:06:00
Contravention location Leigh Road
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 27 Oct 2025
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The Appellant has attended his appeal by video link, the Authority was not represented.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required, or without payment of the parking charge when in Leigh Road on 7 June 2025 at 13.06.
The Appellant's case is basically that a 'Match Day' cannot include a concert.
The Authority in this case alleges a contravention of match day restrictions, and they rely on CPZ boundary signs to bring match days to the attention of motorists. CPZ boundary signs indicate the restrictions applicable to waiting restrictions i.e. yellow lines, in a CPZ any designated parking places will only be subject to the restrictions indicates on the sign for each bay, it is not immediately clear that the Authority is entitled to rely on CPZ boundary signs to convey a restriction that has effect within a bay. However , because the point was not pursued and I did not hear any arguments on this issue, I make no findings on that and I proceed on the basis that in principle a CPZ sign can be used to inform a motorist of event zone restrictions within a designated parking place.
Even if I make such an assumption in the Authority's favour, I cannot be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that any contravention occurred. I find as a fact that the Appellant was not aware that the day in question was a Match Day, this is not determinative but it does raise the issue of whether the fact that it was a Match Day was brought to the attention of persons using the road by traffic signs that were both substantially compliant with the regulations and also adequate within the meaning of regulation 18(1) of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
The Authority has provided a single photo of a CPZ sign dated 4 June 2025, if the Authority could show that the Appellant must have passed this sign then the Appellant might have been in some difficulty. However, I do not see how the Authority can establish that the Appellant must have passed this sign. The Authority's case summary states that: "The Appellant has not indicated their direction of travel, however the EA has provided an image of the CPZ sign displayed on Leigh Road. The CPZ sign clearly shows that additional controls would be in force on 7 June 2025 (evidence J)."
It is not for an Appellant to provide information that could assist the Authority, and the evidential requirements for zone restrictions have been spelt out by Adjudicator Greenslade in Commercial Plant Services Ltd v London Councils (2230131417, 3 May 2023), I adopt that approach. It is possible that the Appellant might have passed that particular sign, but the Authority has not persuaded me that it is more likely than not that he did.
I therefore find as a fact that the signage was not adequate within the meaning of regulation 18(1) because I cannot be satisfied that the Appellant passed any sign that would have informed him that 7 June 2025 was a match day, I further find that a contravention did not occur.
I would not have accepted the Appellant's arguments around the definition of a Match Day, I am bound to apply the statutory definition of a match day found in the traffic management order, which provides that the term "match day": means a day on which an event is taking place or which is planned to take place at the Arsenal FC Emirates Stadium, Hornsey Road, London N7 which:
(a) under normal circumstances, would have an expected attendance of 10,000 persons or more, not including any staff or contractors engaged in either the operation or management of the aforementioned stadium or event; or
(b) is any other event at that stadium that the Council deem should be treated as though it were an event specified in sub-paragraph (i) above for the purposes of the application of the provisions of this Order;
While I accept the Appellant feels aggrieved by the Authority using the term "match day" to cover events other than matches, I do not have jurisdiction to strike down the Traffic Management Order as invalid, nor can I disregard a statutory definition on the basis of fairness or otherwise: by virtue of Part VI of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with any challenge to "the validity of, or of any provision contained in, an order to which this Part of this Schedule applies", I further note that the time limit for any such challenge to be brought has long since expired.
The appeal is allowed.
