Thanks again to
@H C Andersen for your kindly drafted argument to the adjudicator and @ Incandescent for your comments.
I have tinkered with the draft and I paste it below for comment before registering my appeal with London Tribunals, my last day to appeal being 15/09/2025 I believe.
Appeal to London Tribunals - PCN GR15616561
Primary Ground: Traffic Regulation Order not properly indicated by appropriate traffic signs
Summary of CaseI parked opposite 2 Gallions Road on 24/05/2025, approaching via Peartree Way (northbound), then east along Bugsby's Way and south along Gallions Road.
No CPZ entry signs were visible from this approach route, constituting a fundamental breach of regulatory requirements.
Detailed Grounds for Appeal1. INADEQUATE SIGNAGE - PRIMARY GROUNDFactual PositionThe authority states in their NOR: "Entry signs into the CPZ explain the restriction... These have been checked and we believe that they are correct in line with the regulations and adequately placed for the purpose of enforcement."
However, objective evidence contradicts this assertion.
Evidence of Non-ComplianceGoogle Street View evidence (dated 2 months ago):
https://maps.app.goo.gl/gNUbmSW8kU49c7SdACritical deficiencies identified:•
Sign orientation failure: Using a clock face reference, the nearside sign faces approximately 10-4 position, while the offside sign (evidenced by shadow casting) is oriented 9-3,
parallel to the dual carriageway•
Visibility failure: Neither sign is clearly visible to drivers approaching on the 30mph dual carriageway
•
Regulatory non-compliance: Signs fail to meet TSRGD requirements for visibility and orientation
Legal Requirements Not MetUnder
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD):• Signs must be positioned to be
"clearly visible" to approaching traffic
• Signs must provide
adequate advance warning of restrictions
• Orientation must ensure
maximum visibility to vehicles entering the zone
The authority has failed to discharge its burden of proving regulatory compliance.2. ABSENCE OF LOADING RESTRICTION SIGNAGEThe authority claims: "loading and waiting restrictions are in place... Entry signs into the CPZ explain the restriction on driving, parking, loading and unloading inside the zone."
This is factually incorrect:• The CPZ signs
do not refer to loading restrictions•
No loading restriction markings are placed within the zone
• Authority has provided
no evidence of specific loading restriction signage
This represents either: a)
Misstatement of the restrictions actually in force, or
b)
Inadequate signage for the restrictions claimed
3. AUTHORITY'S INVESTIGATION DEFICIENCIESThe NOR states: "These have been checked and we believe that they are correct in line with the regulations."
Evidence suggests no proper investigation occurred:•
No site-specific assessment of sign visibility from my approach route
•
No consideration of sign orientation defects
•
Generic response without addressing specific technical failures raised
•
Failure to examine central issue of sign visibility and regulatory compliance
This constitutes a
procedurally flawed decision based on inadequate investigation.
4. PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETIES IN NOTICE OF REJECTIONThe NOR fails to comply with
Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, Regulation 6(6)(a):Specific Breaches:1.
Failure to describe appeal procedures - No reference to adjudicator's power to register late appeals (Appeals Regs 6(6)(a)(iii) and 7(2)(b))
2.
Failure to indicate costs powers - No mention of adjudicator's power to award costs (Appeals Reg 6(6)(a)(ii))
Important Note: The inclusion of a generic tribunal leaflet
does not substitute for specific statutory requirements in the NOR itself, nor does it relieve the authority of its regulatory duties under the 2007 Regulations.
Authority's Burden of Proof Not DischargedThe authority must prove:
1.
Adequate signage was in place and visible from my approach route
2.
Regulatory compliance with TSRGD requirements
3.
Proper investigation of the specific concerns raised
None of these requirements have been satisfied.Remedy SoughtI respectfully request that the adjudicator:
1.
Allow this appeal and direct cancellation of PCN GR15616561
2.
Find that the traffic regulation order was not properly indicated by appropriate signs
3.
Find that the authority failed to properly investigate the representations made
4.
Consider costs given the procedural deficiencies and inadequate investigation by the authority
Supporting Evidence• Google Street View link demonstrating sign orientation defects
• Photographic and video evidence of approach route
ConclusionThe fundamental principle that parking restrictions must be
clearly and adequately signed has not been met. The objective evidence demonstrates that the CPZ signs are
improperly oriented and
neither are visible from the relevant approach route.
The authority's superficial investigation and procedurally defective NOR compound these substantive failings.
It is felt that this PCN is legally unenforceable and should be cancelled.Thanks in advance.
