Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi All. Hope you are all well. Just wanted to say this work is fantastic. It is an absolute shame that majority of people will not fight after the appeal is rejected. Redbridge Council know exactly what they are doing.

1. Appeal was refused
2. Unfortunately there is nothing on Google Maps as not up to date.
3. Will upload photos.

My Intial appeal was based on a genuine emergency for which there was plenty of evidence. As I have never used this road ever!

After intense research I realised about "term time". However on the video evidence I couldn't see it. I went today and saw that they have indeed covered "term time" on all the blue signs.

I have plenty of points with regards fettering discretion, Also how the signs are usually folded by other London Boroughs during term time. Also all the recent cases to support this. On their website no mention of emergencies unlike other Boroughs ie Waltham Forest. There isn't any warning sign except the main sign. Lastly the blue sign cannot be legally enforceble as not approved. "School streets restricted access" is still ambiguous as to what streets exactly. The sign in general is still confusing and how is anyone suppose to make sense of this when driving - worse when I am in an emergency. Lastly there video evidence shows - that once I have entered I slow down as I was trying to figure out what it said - as mentioned I was in an emergency.

My problem is that they have covered "term time only" on the blue sign. But in explaining the contravention in their rejection - they say "this is strictly enforced during term time"

How has removing term time text made a difference when you have put it in the letter?

I just wanted to confirm if I can still Cite procedural impropriety as the letter mentions term time but this has been removed from the sign?

Hopefully these links work. It is for the video and PCNs.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/191o4wuMOnOZOWx93AdKE0Yr1M2HiKClT/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pCO0TSp-vgaLh6LIMV-geitp9SglS834/view?usp=drivesdk

PCN is missing information which is mandatory.

Please post-up their letter of rejection.

The essential question is, are you prepared to take them to London Tribunals, and risk the full PCN amount ? If you aren't then there's not really much more that can be said. Clearly Redbridge have hearts not just of mere stone, but of granite, but like all London councils, they are venal and rapacious, and so far, government seem quite happy for this situation to continue. I would hope that a London Tribunals, the adjudicator would recognise the circumstances.

IMO, your circumstances go to mitigation only which an adjudicator could not consider.

If you drive, then you're deemed competent to understand and comply with traffic signs.

IMO, if you were to take this further then as a minimum you would need to obtain written support from competent persons/bodies regarding your claim as regards your son's issue with alighting when you aren't present.

As regards the signs, does anyone know what the actual prohibition is in this street? The council's position is that this is as per the sign and is 'actively enforced during term time'.

IMO, this is unlawful.

If the order states 52 weeks per year then officers are required by law to enforce such a restriction. It does NOT lie with officers or members to interfere with the law.

So, is it a 'term-time' only restriction in law i.e. in an order, or not?

OP, and judging by the addressee on the NOR, there's a backstory here. Who is 'the Company Secretary'?

Are you, as in you by name, actually the registered keeper. If so, then 'The Company Secretary', which indicates a corporate body and not private individual,  cannot be you IMO, although you may be authorised. Pl clarify who's who so that should this go to appeal this is conducted by a competent person.

I must say that the odd numbers in St Andrews Road have more than their fair share of entries in the Companies House registers!

IMO, your circumstances go to mitigation only which an adjudicator could not consider.

If you drive, then you're deemed competent to understand and comply with traffic signs.

IMO, if you were to take this further then as a minimum you would need to obtain written support from competent persons/bodies regarding your claim as regards your son's issue with alighting when you aren't present.

As regards the signs, does anyone know what the actual prohibition is in this street? The council's position is that this is as per the sign and is 'actively enforced during term time'.

IMO, this is unlawful.

If the order states 52 weeks per year then officers are required by law to enforce such a restriction. It does NOT lie with officers or members to interfere with the law.

So, is it a 'term-time' only restriction in law i.e. in an order, or not?

OP, and judging by the addressee on the NOR, there's a backstory here. Who is 'the Company Secretary'?

Are you, as in you by name, actually the registered keeper. If so, then 'The Company Secretary', which indicates a corporate body and not private individual,  cannot be you IMO, although you may be authorised. Pl clarify who's who so that should this go to appeal this is conducted by a competent person.

I must say that the odd numbers in St Andrews Road have more than their fair share of entries in the Companies House registers!

    

Thank you for your reply.

Exactly, as there is no option for mitigation and again it would purely be advisory. So do I accept the £80 charge or do I fight ahead to prove their obvious lack of compassion when dealing with the most vulnerable by relying on a contravention has occrued.

Yep, I can get a letter regarding his issues about leaving transport.There was plenty of evidence for my son. As well as photos of what happens when things go wrong. The photos are pretty graphic.

With regards to myself, there was a lot of evidence explaining how my disability and medication impact me.

It is on lease so that might be why.

The case for the emergency is conclusive but I feel I will stall fall foul.

As I said I haven't come across an appeal of this kind.

I understand their argument but from a moral standpoint I don't think I can walk away.

Forget the contravention pl.

Deal with: It is on lease so that might be why.

Date of contravention: 2 Oct 2025.
Date of PCN: 9 Oct. 2025.

An implausibly short period of time for the authority to issue a prior PCN to a 'lease' company as registered keeper, for them to send representations to the authority, for these to be accepted and for a second, your, PCN to be issued.

OP, procedure first pl.

Who is the registered keeper?

What's the significance of 'lease' (It is on lease so that might be why)and why would the authority address the PCN to 'The Company Secretary'?