Free Traffic Legal Advice

2 is wrong - the restriction was in force; the argument there is that the signage is inadequate / misleading

Eats, shoots, and leaves! 

There is a proposed new TRO to extend the restrictions on the high street to Sundays and BHs:  https://www.medway.gov.uk/downloads/file/9692/proposed_tro_for_rochester_high_street

The idea (I think) is normally access to that section of road is from the other end, but 10-4 Saturdays that is pedestrian only, so they have allowed access from this end on Saturday 10-4.

This looks like one of those cases where (as Gov agencies like to do) they have tried to dumb down things, but ended up making it so complicated in double speak that it's actually harder to understand.

I think it's supposed to say:

No vehicles
10 am - 4 pm
Except for access
on Saturdays

Based on the above that's not right either, better might have been:

No Vehicles except for:
Access only on Saturdays 10am - 4pm

If they implement the new TRO, it will be even more complicated and confusing!!

2 is wrong - the restriction was in force; the argument there is that the signage is inadequate / misleading

I agree that's likely what it will become but right now from our perspective, we entered outside the enforcement period (and wouldn't appealing initially on this basis adds strength to the argument that it's misleading?)

Quote from: RichardW on July 20, 2026, 12:18:57 pm

2 is wrong - the restriction was in force; the argument there is that the signage is inadequate / misleading

I agree that's likely what it will become but right now from our perspective, we entered outside the enforcement period (and wouldn't appealing initially on this basis adds strength to the argument that it's misleading?)

Ah, yes, that's seems a reasonable plan, but no doubt they will just reject it out of hand and say it was in force - you could maybe expand that you were informed access was OK at the time of the alleged contravention, and read the sign that way, but subsequent research has suggested that in fact the reverse is true, and the signs do not convey this in the short time available to read them as a motorist driving - also as far as I can see in GSV (Oct 24) there is no advanced warning, nor any signage at the junction that there is no access; and the signs are pretty well hidden behind the lights as you approach (and have to cross the bus lane)

Spot the restriction sign!

https://maps.app.goo.gl/RkydTAfQmpMZ3aWW6

As far as I can see it is only to access to the first 30m or so of the road till you get to the pedestrianised (Sat 10-4 only) section, to give access to premises.

Ah yes so there's another restriction a bit further in. That one does ban vehicles on Saturday 10-4.

Best to leave this out as you say and just stick with the wrong contravention.

I've had a response from Medway (no surprises they rejected it!)

For reference, here is the representations I put in (on 21/7):

1) The contravention did not occur - the PCN states Code 51J contravention of No Entry restriction - there was no "No Entry" restriction, the sign driven past was a prohibition on certain types of vehicles, and although this sign can have a similar effect, namely that at certain times vehicles should not pass them, this does not mean they are the same for legislative and enforcement purposes. They are distinguished in the regulations, and separate contravention descriptions exist for them. From the Statutory Guidance: Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect.

2) The contravention did not occur - the wording on the sign clearly states that the "No Vehicles Except for Access" restriction only applies on Saturdays 10am - 4pm. As we entered after 4pm, this restriction did not apply.

(for those that have been following/replying/advising from the start, I kept point (2) worded like that as it was our genuine understanding of the situation, it was only since people replied on here that it's been pointed out it was ambiguously worded, which is what I will change in the appeal to going forward, also as part the LA's response is them clarifying what the signs are actually supposed to mean)

Here is the NOR:







Here is my proposed appeal to the TPT:

1) The contravention did not occur - the PCN states Code 51J contravention of No Entry restriction - there was no "No Entry" restriction, the sign driven past was a prohibition on certain types of vehicles, and although this sign can have a similar effect, namely that at certain times vehicles should not pass them, this does not mean they are the same for legislative and enforcement purposes. They are distinguished in the regulations, and separate contravention descriptions exist for them. From the Statutory Guidance: Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect.

2) The traffic signs were ambiguously worded - as per our original appeal to Medway, our interpretation (whilst controlling a moving vehicle on a busy road) of these signs were that there was a "No Vehicles Except for Access" on "Saturdays 10am-4pm". Medway in their response have indicated their intention was the sign to mean "No Vehicles" "Except for Access on Saturdays 10am-4pm". There is no possible way a driver could distinguish the intention between these two meanings without receiving the clarification Medway have provided in Notice of Rejection. For example, a better and unambiguous way of wording this sign could have been "No Vehicles except for:" and then underneath "Access only on Saturdays 10am - 4pm" which would leave a driver in no doubt.

Any advice or thoughts, or any issues with the NOR would be most gratefully received.

The rejection is junk. They say 'unable to accept as mitigating circumstances' but the reps are whether the contravention occurred.

And there's no such thing as a 'no entry zone'.

So should I add "failed to consider representations properly" (blah blah not mitigation but did not occur blah blah)?

Thanks for the responses, this is my proposed TPT appeal, any thoughts would be happily received:


1) The contravention did not occur - the PCN states Code 51J contravention of No Entry restriction - there was no "No Entry" restriction, the sign driven past was a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (which is Code 52V for this sign, which even I managed to discover with just five minutes on Google), and although this sign can have a similar effect, namely that at certain times vehicles should not pass them, this does not mean they are the same for legislative and enforcement purposes. They are distinguished in the regulations, and separate contravention descriptions exist for them. From the Statutory Guidance: Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect.

2) The traffic signs were ambiguously worded - as per our original appeal to Medway, our interpretation (whilst controlling a moving vehicle on a busy road) of these signs were that there was a "No Vehicles Except for Access" on "Saturdays 10am-4pm". Medway in their response have indicated their intention was the sign to mean "No Vehicles" "Except for Access on Saturdays 10am-4pm". There is no possible way a driver could distinguish the intention between these two meanings without receiving the clarification Medway have provided in Notice of Rejection. For example, a better and unambiguous way of wording this sign could have been "No Vehicles except for:" and then underneath "Access only on Saturdays 10am - 4pm" which would leave a driver in no doubt.

3) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - they failed to properly consider my representations. They refer to the representations as “mitigation”, which they were clearly not - they were that the contravention did not occur (for the reasons given). They also failed to consider the representation that the contravention on the PCN did not occur because there was no No Entry sign.

4) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - the original PCN failed to specify that “Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority” is a valid ground of representation.

5) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - the Notice Of Rejection fails to specify proper details on appealing to the TPT. The Local Authority cannot discharge this duty by referring a person to a third parties general website.