Free Traffic Legal Advice

The vehicle was loading book recycling collection boxes weighing at least 300kg in total from two charity shops, Crisis and Mind, adjacent to the bay it stopped in to load from. This was 15 boxes weighing at least 20kg each and thus impossible to do without a vehicle. Further given the weight and bulk (the boxes are 60x40x25cm each), it would be very difficult to take this amount of boxes to the nearest single yellow line area across the junction within 20 minutes restriction, meaning loading from spot was vital given lack of alternatives. The driver, NAME REMOVED, was not our usual driver and was unaware of the experimental traffic order on this bay and, as we demonstrate below, the signage was inadequate for this information to be conveyed to them. We have receipts from the shop, a drivers route, and evidence this is a weekly collection, and from the rejection letter that we were loading does not seem to be in dispute with the authority.

The bay in question has a sign stating it is a permit parking pay for one type of permit. The sign has no mention of loading restrictions or any other restrictions. The pavement has no 'pips' or markings that suggest any form of restriction on loading. Rule 247 of the highway code which relates to loading states 'Do not load or unload where there are yellow markings on the kerb and upright signs advise restrictions are in place. This may be permitted where parking is otherwise restricted. ' Therefore the loading in this location is compliant with the highway code. LondonCouncils.gov.uk, of which Southwark is a member, states you can load for 20 minutes in any parking bay other than diplomatic or suspended bays. The government know your traffic signs publication states "Where loading restrictions apply in addition to waiting restrictions (‘loading’ means both loading and unloading), these are indicated by yellow kerb marks and white plates" neither of which are present here.

We now understand there is a experimental traffic order on this bay, however this was not clearly signposted on the permanent metal sign or in markings and therefore enforcement is invalid. The council states there is an electronic sign, however this does not appear to be a road sign as it is at a lower height, uses different typography, is electronic, and resembles an advert not a sign. Further it does not provide clear, concise instructions the way parking signs do. Schedule 4 of TSRGD (pages 81 - 84) states requirements for the loading restriction sign that the electronic sign clearly does not comply with, and the normal sign which might do does not mention loading restrictions.

I would suggest to Southwark that their bay sign should read 'Permit holders 1WR only. No loading at any time except by prior booking see electronic sign' rather than just 'Permit holders 1WR only'. This would clearly state the restriction they wish to enforce and would be obvious and enforceable. My understanding is the basis of the rejection of our appeal was that the authority believes their signage is adequate to enforce no loading, the basis of our appeal is the signage is clearly non-compliant and needs to be modified, and any previous PCNs to others loading here cancelled and refunded as they currently do not convey the requirement to pre-book and therefore cause law abiding drivers to be issued with PCNs while following standard universal procedures for identifying where they can load. If Southwark is allowed to win this tribunal, it would set a dangerous precedent that in effect modifies UK traffic law on how loading restrictions are signposted making it impossible for millions of commercial drivers to follow the law due to lack of clear rules.

I have already spent significant time on appealing to Southwark twice, while I am sure they know I am correct about signage, and therefore I believe their rejection was vexatious and compensation should be awarded to ourselves for time spent appealing.