There's a mixed picture in appeals but a fair few allowed along the lines of this one.
----------
Case reference 2250041601
Appellant xxxxx
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM RV19LRK
PCN Details
PCN HG61502304
Contravention date 19 Oct 2024
Contravention time 15:43:00
Contravention location South Street / Eastern Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date -
Decision Date 03 May 2025
Adjudicator Jack Walsh
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Miss xxxx participated in the hearing of this appeal by video link. Her case was clearly set out in her notice of appeal, and was foreshadowed by her representations. Essentially, her case can be summarised in this way: there was no signage, or adequate signage, in place on the occasion in question informing motorists of a prohibition on motor vehicles in the location specified on the PCN. The location specified on the PCN is "South St RM1/Eastern Rd RM1". That is not a particularly clear description of a location because the CCTV footage capturing the appellant's vehicle appears to show a single road and not two roads or a junction between them.
As will be seen, the enforcement authority (EA) has completely failed to counter, with evidence, Miss xxxxx's argument as to the signage.
There is, however, a far more fundamental problem. The traffic management order (TMO) that has been provided does not actually create any prohibition on motor vehicles on South Street, or Eastern Road, or indeed any other road. The TMO that creates prohibitions on motor vehicles on roads within its ambit is the London Borough of Havering (Traffic Movement and Speed Limit Regulations) (Consolidation) (Map Based) Order 2017, described as the "2017 Order". For some reason the EA has decided not to provide the 2017 Order. The TMO it did provide is merely an amending order; by its Schedule 1, it adds to the ambit of the 2017 Order the locations shown in a map which is referred to in that Schedule. The wording of Schedule 1 does not particularly make sense but, in any event, does not specify any locations. Nor does it contain a map.
The EA has completely failed to prove the existence of a prohibition, created by a TMO, on motor vehicles on "South St RM1/Eastern Rd RM1" (wherever that is).
That is the end of the matter. The appeal is allowed. The EA's case was completely hopeless and bound to fail because it did not provide to this tribunal the underlying legal basis for the alleged contravention.
I should also add that the EA's presentation of its evidence of signage was - particularly considering it was the very issue raised on the appeal- bizarre, unhelpful and ultimately inadequate. The EA did not provide photographs of signage which are firmly evidentially linked to the location shown in the CCTV footage, for example because they show that location in the same photograph, or are accompanied by a witness statement stating where the signs are in relation to the location of the alleged contravention. The EA chose to provide a photograph of a small bus station with some 'no motor vehicles' signs in front of it. There is a Google Streetview image of the same location, which appears to show Atlanta Boulevard. I have no idea where that bus station is in relation to the location of the appellant's vehicle. There do not appear to be any features of the road shown in the CCTV footage that can be seen in the EA's photographs. The evidence is wholly inadequate to prove that there were, in reasonable proximity to the location shown in the CCTV footage, 'no motor vehicles' signs. In fact, the photographs were provided in the case summary and at the bottom of the notice of rejection and could easily have been missed.
For either of those reasons the contravention is not proved and the appeal is allowed.
