IMO, this is not your leading argument which remains the signage is not consistent with the alleged contravention.
You would also draw the adjudicator's attention to the council's evidence pack, item **. I have had great difficulty understanding their references, but if they are relying upon s4 and therefore Schedule 2, I have read this and have extracted 4(1) below:
4(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2) of this Article, any person causing any vehicle to proceed in a road or length of road specified in column 2 of an item in Schedule 2 shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter into the road or length of road specified in relation thereto in column 3 of that Schedule at the times stated in relation thereto in column 4 of that Schedule.
I respectfully suggest that this does not create a prohibition but instead requires motorists to follow a prescribed route i.e. 'shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter [the road prescribed in column 3].
Many thanks! Should I add the following as evidence then?
1) 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 the 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. We actually waited for around an hour in a nearby restaurant until it was past 4pm just so we could drive down the high street to collect a heavy item purchased at an antique shop!
2)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.
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. Even now in their evidence pack to the TPT, Medway continue to refer to my appeal as being an appeal to their discretion, and my appeal to the TPT being based on “further discretion”. Both the appeal to Medway and the TPT are, as stated here, based on failure to issue a PCN for the contravention they allege, failure to follow the procedures they are lawfully required to follow and using a traffic sign which is ambiguously worded and could have easily been worded in an unambiguous fashion.
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.
6) I would also like to draw the adjudicator's attention to the council's evidence pack, item 11. I have had difficulty understanding their references, but if they are relying upon s4 and therefore Schedule 2, I have read this and have extracted 4(1) as below:
“4(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2) of this Article, any person causing any vehicle to proceed in a road or length of road specified in column 2 of an item in Schedule 2 shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter into the road or length of road specified in relation thereto in column 3 of that Schedule at the times stated in relation thereto in column 4 of that Schedule.”
I respectfully suggest that this does not create a prohibition at all, but instead requires motorists to follow a prescribed route i.e. 'shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter [the road prescribed in column 3].
