Free Traffic Legal Advice

Please let me know if any other information is needed

Thanks for the reply Incadescent.

Here is the link to the video of the contravention.



Is it true that to enforce a Code 53r PCN, the authority must show the vehicle actually passing the face of the sign during restricted hours.

The video only shows the rear of the sign after I have made the turn and not the front.

Can I contest the PCN as only the rear of the sign was shown in the video?

I have used AI to write the following representation and would appreciate any advice or suggestions on this before I send this to Havering council:

Vehicle Registration: [Insert Registration]
Location: Salisbury Road
Grounds: The contravention did not occur / Procedural Impropriety.
To the London Borough of Havering,
I am formally challenging this PCN on the grounds that the evidence is legally insufficient and the signage at this location has already been ruled non-compliant by the London Tribunals.

1. Failure to Prove the Contravention (Inadequate CCTV)
The CCTV evidence provided fails to discharge the Council’s burden of proof. To enforce a Code 53r restriction, the Council must provide contemporaneous evidence of the vehicle passing the face of the mandatory entry sign.
The provided video shows only the rear of the sign after my vehicle has already completed the turn. Because the camera is positioned inside the zone looking back, it cannot verify that the entry sign was visible, legible, or unobstructed from a driver's perspective at the moment of entry. Case law (e.g., 2200010461) confirms that "back-of-the-sign" footage is insufficient to prove a contravention.

2. Non-Compliant Advance Signage (Case 2210317671)
The Council relies on an advance warning sign located 50 yards prior which states: "Cycle and pedestrian zone at school start and finish times in term time."
I bring to your attention Tribunal Case 2210317671 (Kelly v Havering) regarding this exact location. The Adjudicator ruled that this specific advance sign is non-compliant with TSRGD 2016 because "term time" is not a permitted variant and it fails to specify clear operational hours. The Adjudicator stated: "The advance warning sign was most certainly not compliant... I am at a loss as to why the Authority think that it can succeed."

3. Ambiguity of "Term Time" (Case 2210328077)
Furthermore, in Case 2210328077 (Grannell v Havering), the Adjudicator allowed the appeal because the Traffic Management Order (TMO) provides no definition of "term times." The Council has failed to provide evidence that the date of this alleged contravention fell within a legally defined term time. As a motorist, I cannot be expected to know school-specific holiday dates that are not clearly defined on compliant signage.

4. Conflicting Information
As noted by the Tribunal in the cases above, the advance signage and the entry signage at Salisbury Road are contradictory and confusing. This fails the statutory requirement to provide "adequate guidance" to motorists under the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
Conclusion

Given that the CCTV only captures the rear of a sign that has already been adjudicated as legally defective, there is no basis for this PCN. Should the Council reject this representation, I will appeal to the London Tribunals and seek an order for costs on the grounds that the Council is acting unreasonably by pursuing a PCN based on signage it knows to be non-compliant.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]

I have now received a rejection of Formal representations and would appreciate any help on what I need to do next. Thanks!!

Please post-up their letter of rejection.

OK. so you should now register an appeal at London Tribunals. In the box for your appeal, you just put "I rely on my formal representations to the council". Appeals have been won on "Term Times" signs.  If you lose, it will be the £160, the same as Havering are demanding, and of course, if you win, you pay nothing, but Havering will have had the PITA of having to prepare an evidence pack and also pay the adjudication fee.

Hold fire please. The NOA should also include their website with wrong grounds too.

Well done !