The simple fact is, was there a sign on the nearest bay sign to you.
Also the use of temporary traffic orders in place of properly signed bay suspensions is often defective in signage and wording.
This case gives clues on signing.
--------
Case reference 225056061A
Appellant Janet Chute
Authority London Borough of Waltham Forest
VRM LB02NTU
PCN Details
PCN FR65860282
Contravention date 03 Jul 2025
Contravention time 07:36:00
Contravention location Guernsey Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked or loading/unloading during a loading ban
Referral date -
Decision Date 01 Apr 2026
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The Appellant did not attend the hearing. Her case is essentially that the signage was not clear and that in fact no works took place. I am satisfied by the Council’s reply as to the latter point.
Although the Council refers to the “suspension” of the bay it states” A Temporary Traffic Order was issued which applied to the whole of the road and these restrictions override pre-existing restrictions for the duration of the suspension.” This follows the normal practice in gully cleaning cases and is consistent with the sign used , which is not the three-sided sign normally authorised by the DfT for the indication of suspensions, but the rondel used for signs indicating a temporary waiting restriction. The white part of the sign is illegible but the amount of text on it is also consistent with a Temporary Traffic Order, as is the contravention for which the PCN was issued.
As this is therefore, as I find, a case of the imposition of a Temporary Order rather than the exercise of powers of suspension, in the absence of that Order I am unable to be satisfied that a contravention is made out.
Quote apart from these technical issues, important though they are , I would not have been satisfied that the temporary restriction was adequately drawn to the Appellant’s attention. In the case of temporary waiting restrictions where cones are not used it is particularly important that there are sufficient signs in place to make it very clear to the motorist that the normal parking arrangements do not apply. The single sign shown in the CEO’s photographs is not only mostly illegible but cannot be seen clearly in any of the photographs showing the vehicle.
As on the evidence I am unable to be satisfied a restriction was lawfully in force or that it was clearly signed the Appeal must be allowed.
