Free Traffic Legal Advice

If there is no CPZ entry sign on your route then you win - it has to be there. I'll have a close look later.

If you pass a boundary between two CPZs there must be a sign at this border giving the restrictions of the entered CPZ.
Are the restrictions different in each of the CPZs you've mentioned ?

If you pass a boundary between two CPZs there must be a sign at this border giving the restrictions of the entered CPZ.
Are the restrictions different in each of the CPZs you've mentioned ?

Yes, the Bermondsey CPZ is the only zone with restrictions in place at 9pm on Saturdays (which is entirely unreasonable if you ask me, but that's a separate matter). Rotherhithe is Monday to Friday, 8am to 6:30pm, London Bridge Monday to Saturday, 8am to 6:30pm.

I recall now other cars in this zone. There is only one sign in Shad Thames and it's not right and the road entrance and is ranged to the left.

Some recent tribunal cases have been allowed where Southwark hasn't got its act together with evidence that zone signage and the traffic order are in place.

Could you point me towards those tribunal cases? I looked at the spreadsheet but did not find them.

The council seems to favour putting the signs up where red routes end rather than where CPZ borders are: for example if we look at tower bridge road which is the border between Bermondsey and London Bridge CPZ, the signs are put here https://maps.app.goo.gl/sMkEZpfdy5ChF2xM9 after you turn onto Queen Elizabeth street. Meaning, if you turn left onto Tooley Street, you are now in CPZ G with no sign alerting you to the new CPZ hours.

I do imagine there's some reasoning behind that to the tune of 'it would be contradictory to put a CPZ hours sign above a red route' but not sure if this is a proper way of doing things according to the law, or, more importantly, how an adjudicator would view this.

Go here and search by road name and council and look for recent cases or use the date range as well - say past 3 years. Trying some other roads in the zone may reveal more.

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals

Thank you, that was very helpful.

I have searched for Gainsford, Lafone, and Queen Elizabeth Street and Horselydown Lane.

After filtering the appeals to only those for code 01 and discarding the non-contested ones (on either side), this is what I found for anyone seeing this in the future:

Horselydown (right next to the signs if it matters):

2240353878 -> allowed because a sticker was covering the pm portion of the sign
2240030096 -> refused as adjudicator satisfied as to quality of the signage
2230564265 -> refused, same as above
2230422475 -> refused, same as above
2230370928 -> refused, same as above
2220549480 -> refused, same as above
2230310314 -> allowed due to procedural impropriety (not clear why)

Queen Elizabeth Street:
2240168865 -> refused, shoddy arguments by appellant

Gainsford Street:

2230480802 -> allowed, goes to great length into required signage quality, fairness, etc. I will reference this in my appeal for sure.

2230254439 -> allowed, a bit of a mess, EA reps were unprepared, adjudicator was confused by what the EA presented.

2230204827 -> refused, shoddy arguments by appellant, but EA did not prepare a photo pack showing the signs so adjudicator had to guess whether they passed by a sign or not.

2230542320 -> allowed, again EA did not prepare photo pack. I did not understand this part "Indeed, the schedule to the TMO containing the 'map tile' does not even seem to have been provided. Instead, there appear to be screenshots from a website." from the adjudicator's decision.

2230215914 -> allowed, EA did not produce photo pack showing the signs.

Based on the above, would it be better not to raise the signage issue before the appeal so that I increase the chances they mess up and not provide a photo pack to the adjudicator? Also, can someone explain the 'map tile' TMO part to me? Finally, I guess I should head over there and take photos of how the sign looks from the perspective of the driver?

2230480802 seems to be very good precedence, is there any way I can see the documents provided by the appellant to the adjudicator?

Leaving the adjudicator's confusing double negative to one side(para. referencing Oxfordshire), this decision boils down to: I was persuaded that the single sign was partially obscured from a driver’s viewpoint.

Does this apply in your case?

Well evidently I did not see the sign. It could very well have been obscured or stickered over or any number of things. It is a half hour drive to go back and take pictures but I might have to do so.

The 'map tile' seems to be a supplementary point, but should I not try and include that as well?

@flourishkey view count links to what exactly?

In any case click counter links are only needed once you have a notice to owner.

Photographs showing the absence of CPZ signs at the border between Rotherhithe and Bermondsey, and how obscured the sign at Shad Thames is.

Anyway, I figured out how to use https://www.shorturl.at/ to do it.

And to answer my own previous question, it appears you cannot see the evidence packs from other appeals as a third party.