Free Traffic Legal Advice

The procedure was Medway send a code with the NoR.
I then registered the appeal stating case for appeal, which  is the same as the text above (it was added automatically to the evidence pack).
I believe there was also a tick box for grounds i.e. contravention did not occur.
At that time I uploaded one photo as evidence - the same as I had used at earlier appeal stages.
Within 14 day Medway had to reply, which they, did with their evidence. From that date (last thursday) I had seven days to select the hearing type or it defaults to not in person.
I have now added some additional photos of signage to rebut medways deception.

There's no covering letter with the evidence pack. It basically the text I posted above plus an evidence list, as follows

Evidence 1
Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)
Published Date: February 10, 2026 15:08
Published By: Appellant
Attachment: Appoaching start of cpz_3.jpg
Description: Photo showing (lack of) entry signs passed on entry
to CPZ. Location of signs arrowed for clarity.

Evidence 2
Evidence Type: Case Status Report/System Audit/Progression
History
Published Date: February 26, 2026 10:57
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: MW00080-2602 INGRAM.pdf
Description: Copy of ticket history.

Evidence 3
Evidence Type: Photographs
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:02
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: MW00080-2602 INGRAM Photos.pdf
Description: Copy of photographs taken at time of
contravention.

Evidence 4
Evidence Type: Informal Challenge Rejection
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:03
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: MW00080-2602 INGRAM Informal rejection.pdf
Description: Copy of informal challenge rejection.

Evidence 5
Evidence Type: Notice of Rejection of Representation
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:05
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: MW00080-2602 INGRAM formal rejection.pdf
Description: Copy of notice of rejection of formal
representations.

Evidence 6
Evidence Type: Informal Challenge
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:08
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: 20251106-145732-Workflow attachment added-
30051.eml01291333.eml
Description: Copy of informal representations.

Evidence 7
Evidence Type: Formal Representation
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:10
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: 20260108-204633-Workflow attachment added-
30051.eml01296150.eml
Description: Copy of formal representations

Evidence 8
Evidence Type: Notice to Owner
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:16
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: INGRAM-26-02-2026-11-14-06.pdf
Description: Copy of Notice To Owner.

Evidence 9
Evidence Type: Map showing location
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:19
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Canterbury St Map Screenshot 2026-02-26
105910.png
Description: Copy of map showing location.

Evidence 10
Evidence Type: Photographs
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:20
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: CPZ Canterbury StScreenshot 2026-02-26
091014.png
Description: Copy of photograph showing CPZ signage on entry
to location.

Evidence 11
Evidence Type: Photographs
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:21
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Canterbury St CPZ sign Screenshot 2026-02-26
085701.png
Description: Copy of signage showing CPZ signage.

Evidence 12
Evidence Type: MW031 - The Medway Council (Gillingham and
Brompton) (Parking Places and Waiting, Loading and Stopping
Restrictions) Consolidation Order 2016
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:23
Published By: Authority Manager
Description: Copy of TRO specifically page 125, item 2/44
schedule 2.

Evidence 13
Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)
Published Date: February 28, 2026 17:10
Published By: Appellant
Attachment: view from stafford st accross canterbury st 1.jpg
Description: Photo showing view of cpz signage from stafford st
looking towards canterbury st

Evidence 14
Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)
Published Date: February 28, 2026 17:13
Published By: Appellant
Attachment: view from stafford st accross canterbury st 2.jpg
Description: view of cpz signage from stafford st looking across
canterbury st

Evidence 15
Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)
Published Date: February 28, 2026 17:20
Published By: Appellant
Attachment: viewfrom cant st of cpz signs corner with staff
st.jpg
Description: photo showing view from canterbury st of signs at
junction with stafford st

Evidence 16
Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)
Published Date: February 28, 2026 17:25
Published By: Appellant
Attachment: view from canterbury st down stafford st 1.jpg
Description: wider view of entrance to stafford st from canterbury
st added just to give context to zoomed in image of cpz signs on
right hand side

Are you allowed to submit supplementary evidence to TPT? If so, when does it have to be in by?
Does the Council's other evidence relaye to your case or Mr.Miah's?

In your shoes, as the Council has not provided a rebuttal of your case, I'd be inclined to produce my own summary document for the Adjudicator along the lines of

My Original Representations against this PCN

                            rehearse these

My response to the Council's Evidence

                   

              2)  Your concerns about the Council's pictorial evidence.

and post the draft here before submitting.

Just my twopennorth, but see what the experts here say.

How does this sound.

SUMMARY RESPONSE TO MEDWAY'S EVIDENCE PACK

My Original Representations against this PCN

1) My car was parked on a single yellow line with no time plate in a controlled zone and the signs I passed at the entrance to the controlled zone were rotated to the point that for all practical purposes they were absent (i.e. at right angles to the direction of travel). I did not pass any other controlled zone signs prior to parking

2) The council have therefore failed to sign the restriction correctly or adequately, the restriction was therefore of no effect and therefore a contravention could not have been committed under these circumstances.

My response to the Council's Evidence

1) The Council's summary responds to the case of a Mr.Miah, completely different to my own PCN and case.
The Council makes not attempt to rebut my appeal/

2)The councils evidence ‘photo’ a3d26c93-f4af-4ceb-8657-149fa8f35100_CPZ Canterbury StScreenshot 2026-02-26 091014.png:
a)   shows controlled zone signs that I did NOT pass at any point prior to parking.
b)    from the notice to owner appeal rejection it can be inferred that this image relates to the erroneous assumption by Medway, that due to my parked direction I did not enter the controlled zone where I did. However,
1) I have consistently stated that I turned around prior to parking
2) As this was at night and not a marked bay, Highway Code rule 248 demands that I park the car in the direction of travel I did.
c)   Medways attempt to draw an adverse inference from the direction in which I parked is therefore baseless and should be disregarded.

3) The councils evidence photo c04b5ae6-f478-454e-828c-3b9ee3ec7dc7_Canterbury St CPZ sign Screenshot 2026-02-26 085701.png
This image shows the sign I passed heading north on Canterbury St at the junction with Stafford St. However, the ‘photo’ is a screen grab from google street view taken in December 2020.
The most recent google street view images from October 24 (see my evidence 17 Oct24vsDec20streetview images copy.jpg) show non compliant signage consistent with my evidence photos (Evidence 2, 13 to 16) .Evidence 17 also gives the December 2020 streetview image, which from, vehicles, fencing and billboards shows indisputably  that it is the source of the councils photo.

The councils photo amounts to an attempt to mislead the TPT into thinking there is compliant signage when there is not. Their evidence photo must therefore be disregarded as it does not reflect the current state of the signage.

There's only the one photo of the junction I drove through (canterbury/stafford st) i.e. the other is a different location - the two photos posted above in total, no other images.

To get an image of two compliant signs at the canturbury/stafford st junction they would have to have gone back even further in time and then there a huge billboard behind the sign on the left making it more obviously different to mine.

I suspect they're hoping the adjudicator would see two compliant signs and a close up and just assume the same location.

I now have a hearing date for the 24/03/2026