Couple of same adjudications from Redbridge not encouraging but they are both for the same school pedestrian zone by the same adjudicator.
Here's one.
-----------
Case reference 2250447038
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM FE65JUJ
PCN Details
PCN AF20525756
Contravention date 22 Jul 2025
Contravention time 15:14:00
Contravention location Cleveland Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 08 Jan 2026
Adjudicator Chez Cotton
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons Introduction
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (Code 53).
2. This a postal appeal.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is set out as, ‘My vehicle entered the temporary pedestrian zone on Cleveland Road at 15:14 on 22nd July 2025. The restriction applies during school hours on school days and the nearest school in that area is Cleveland Primary School which broke up for the summer holidays at 1:30 PM on the same day (as stated in their newsletter). Therefore, by 15:14, the school was closed, and the restriction was no longer in effect. Given that the contravention occurred outside of term time, I respectfully request that this penalty charge be cancelled.’
4. A copy of the relevant newsletter has been provided.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
5. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on footage to show the contravention occurred. A plan and photographs of the signage has been provided. The EA says this shows the restriction is signed and clear, and, further, enforceable under a valid Traffic Management Order (TMO), a copy of which is provided.
6. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations. The EA state, ‘Whilst the school closed early at 13:30 on 22 )uly 2025. The restriction under Code 53-J is based on published and legally enforceable time periods, not on the operational status of the school on any given day. The signage clearly indicates the restricted hours, and enforcement is valid during those times regardless of whether pupils are present. The contravention is based on failing to comply with a traffic sign, not the presence of children.’
7. The EA has provided a screenshot of the Redbridge Council website showing Summer Term dates are, ‘Tuesday 22 April 2025 to Tuesday 22 July 2025.’
8. The EA does not wish to exercise their discretion.
9. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
10. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully.
11. Based on the footage provided, and additional evidential materials from the EA, I am satisfied the Appellant’s vehicle was in the relevant location, at the relevant time. I am satisfied that the signage complies with the relevant regulations and is adequately clear to inform a motorist. I am therefore satisfied that the contravention occurred and that it is enforceable by way of a valid Traffic Management Order, which I have seen.
12. I accept the EA evidence that the Summer Term is Tuesday 22 April to Tuesday 22 July 2025. I accept the school in the relevant location may have closed earlier on the 22 July 2025. However, I accept the EA evidence that this is a discrete ‘operational’ decision of the relevant school. On balance, I find this does not mean the stated term time has changed. It follows that I find, on balance, the restriction was in force at the relevant time.
13. The circumstances set out by the Appellant amount to mitigation, which no adjudicator is allowed to consider. This was confirmed in the case of Walmsley v TfL and others [2005] EWCA Civ 1540. It is an established principle that adjudicators in these cases do not have a discretion, nor can they direct an Enforcing Authority to exercise its discretion to consider mitigating circumstances.
14. For these reasons I find a contravention occurred and the PCN has been validly issued.
Decision
15. The appeal is refused.
