Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hey all, thank you very much for the feedback. I have made some revisions. I hope this more accurately reflects the circumstances and challenge.

I wish to make formal representations against the issuance of this PCN on the following grounds:

1. Mitigating Circumstances – Rerouting Due to Roadworks
On the date of the alleged contravention (17 July 2025), my wife was the driver of the vehicle. While travelling in the area, she encountered roadworks and was rerouted by temporary signage into an unfamiliar route. This diversion took her into the restricted School Street zone unintentionally.

Due to the diversion, she was unable to take her usual route and had no advance warning of the restriction. The diversion signage did not indicate that it would lead into a restricted zone, and the School Street sign was only visible at the point of entry — by which time it was too late to turn back safely. As a result, the contravention was not wilful but caused by the lack of appropriate advance warning.

2. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage – “Term Time Only”
The signage at the restriction point includes the phrase **“School Streets Restricted Access – Term time only”**. This wording is ambiguous and unhelpful to motorists, especially when term dates vary across schools and are not clearly displayed at the location.

Adjudicators have repeatedly found this wording problematic:

* In **Rodney Quinn v Redbridge (2240530827)**, the adjudicator ruled that a motorist cannot be expected to know school term dates while driving, and allowed the appeal on the grounds that the signage did not clearly convey the restriction.
* In **Malcolm Batki v Redbridge (2250084692)**, it was concluded that this term-time wording undermines the clarity of the restriction and is contrary to guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual.

In our case, the alleged contravention occurred very close to the end of term (Redbridge’s website confirms term ran until 22 July). Even if the signage had been seen, the vagueness of "term time only" makes it impossible for a reasonable motorist to be sure of the restriction’s validity on that date.

Conclusion
This PCN should be cancelled on the grounds of:

* Mitigating circumstances due to emergency rerouting,
* Ambiguous and misleading signage,

The contravention was not intentional and arose due to a combination of diversion and poor signage. I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.

@Hippocrates, does this do the job?

I wish to make formal representations against the issuance of this PCN on the following grounds:

1. Mitigating Circumstances – Rerouting Due to Roadworks
On the date of the alleged contravention (17 July 2025), my wife was the driver of the vehicle. While travelling in the area, she encountered roadworks and was rerouted by temporary signage into an unfamiliar route. This diversion took her into the restricted School Street zone unintentionally.

Due to the diversion, she was unable to take her usual route and had no advance warning of the restriction. The diversion signage did not indicate that it would lead into a restricted zone, and the School Street sign was only visible at the point of entry — by which time it was too late to turn back safely. As a result, the contravention was not wilful but caused by the lack of appropriate advance warning.

2. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage – “Term Time Only”
The signage at the restriction point includes the phrase **“School Streets Restricted Access – Term time only”**. This wording is ambiguous and unhelpful to motorists, especially when term dates vary across schools and are not clearly displayed at the location.

Adjudicators have repeatedly found this wording problematic:

* In **Rodney Quinn v Redbridge (2240530827)**, the adjudicator ruled that a motorist cannot be expected to know school term dates while driving, and allowed the appeal on the grounds that the signage did not clearly convey the restriction.
* In **Malcolm Batki v Redbridge (2250084692)**, it was concluded that this term-time wording undermines the clarity of the restriction and is contrary to guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual.

Redbridge’s website confirms term ran until 22 July. The vagueness of "term time only" makes it impossible for a reasonable motorist to be sure of the restriction’s validity on that date.

Conclusion
This PCN should be cancelled on the grounds of:

* Mitigating circumstances due to emergency rerouting,
* Ambiguous and misleading signage,

According to Regulation 6 and Schedule 18 of TSRGD 2016, the said sign is not authorised by law. The contravention was not intentional and arose due to a combination of diversion and poor signage. I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.

@Hippocrates
Thanks for the feedback. I have made some subtle changes to use extenuating circumstances

I wish to make formal representations against the issuance of this PCN on the following grounds:

1. Extenuating Circumstances – Rerouting Due to Roadworks
On the date of the alleged contravention (17 July 2025), I was the driver of the vehicle. While travelling in the area, I encountered roadworks and was rerouted by temporary signage onto an unfamiliar route. This diversion led me into the restricted School Street zone unintentionally.

Due to the diversion, I was unable to follow my usual route and had no advance warning of the restriction. The rerouting signage gave no indication that it would lead into a restricted area. The School Street signage was only visible at the point of entry, by which time it was too late to turn around safely. The alleged contravention was not wilful, but arose due to circumstances beyond my control and a lack of clear advance warning.

2. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage – “Term Time Only”
The signage at the restriction point includes the phrase “School Streets Restricted Access – Term time only”. This wording is inherently unclear and unhelpful to motorists, especially as term dates vary across schools, boroughs, and school types. No dates or contextual guidance are provided at the location.

London Tribunals have repeatedly found such signage non-compliant:

* In **Rodney Quinn v Redbridge (2240530827), the adjudicator ruled that a motorist cannot be expected to know school term dates and allowed the appeal due to unclear signage.

* In **Malcolm Batki v Redbridge (2250084692), the adjudicator found that “term time only” undermines clarity and fails to comply with the required standard of signage.

Redbridge Council’s own term calendar confirms that term continued until 22 July 2025. However, the phrase “term time only” offers no certainty or transparency at the point of compliance, rendering the signage ineffective for enforcement purposes.

Conclusion
This PCN should be cancelled on the grounds of:

- Extenuating circumstances caused by emergency rerouting,
- Ambiguous and misleading signage,

According to Regulation 6 and Schedule 18 of the TSRGD 2016, the said sign is not authorised by law. The alleged contravention was not intentional and arose from diversion and unlawful signage. I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.

I had a similar situation recently and drafted the following, although didn't in the end have to use it. It may be useful:

[Signage saying] that restrictions apply in School term times.  This is proscribed by Regulation 6 and Schedule 18 of the TSRGD by reason of omission. Such a period is not one of the permitted expressions in para 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 18. In plain English, a driver cannot be expected to know what school term dates are. He might have a good idea that the middle of November, say, is term time but not on which precise date at the beginning of July the summer holidays will start.

So there are particular types of notice that ARE permitted according to the TSRGD, such as "Match Days only" but there is no mention of "Term Times only" and as the list must be read as prescriptive, this implies that any other type of exception signage must not be permitted, i.e. proscribed. I note that you have picked up the TSRGD reference in your re-draft OP.

My particular "offence" was committed on 2 July and the term dates for the public school just up the road, which as a matter of fact I attended many years ago, have the school holidays starting on 4 July. So who is to say whether term dates are only for state schools of the borough in which they are located? Public (which of course means private!) schools are also schools and have term times and holiday times.

@Chaseman @Hippocrates

Should i replace

Redbridge Council’s own term calendar confirms that term continued until 22 July 2025. However, the phrase “term time only” offers no certainty or transparency at the point of compliance, rendering the signage ineffective for enforcement purposes.

with

Additionally, this type of signage is not permitted under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016. According to Regulation 6 and Schedule 18, “term time only” is not one of the legally prescribed time-based exceptions listed in paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 18. This omission makes it proscribed by law. Permitted expressions such as “Match Days only” are explicitly listed, but “term time only” is not, and therefore cannot be used to impose enforceable restrictions.

Furthermore, “term time” itself is not a uniform or legally defined period. Term dates vary between state and independent schools, and across local authority boundaries. In this case, even if Redbridge schools continued until 22 July, there is no way for a reasonable motorist to know this at the point of entry.

Would this lend a little more weight? or should i stick to the draft above?

@stamfordman
Thank you for raising these points. The car is registered to my wife and she was the driver at the time. I have corrected the grammar. I'm just doing the donkey work on her behalf. And i have redacted the point about confusion as this was the not the case. She just didn't see the sign due to being distracted by the rerouting.

Can we play with the wording a little to strengthen the case?