Thank you very much for your input,
Assuming I know nothing about the best way to fight this is the safest assumption and I’m really appreciative of knowing where I’ve made mistakes.
I have referred to the restrictions as PPA in my previous appeals (informal and formal). I had assumed CPZ was a more generic term for restrictions, rather than the council getting this completely wrong.
Having reviewed the link you shared, I can see that this distinction is quite clear.
I am happy to adjust my argument to account for this mistake and include a new draft lower down the page.
Your help is really appreciated.
Here are the photos that are provided by the council on the Redbridge site:
Redraft:
I am appealing on the grounds that the contravention did not occur due to defective entry signage on the Permit Parking Area (PPA).
On the date of the alleged contravention, I entered Wellington Road turning left from the High Street. A map of the location is provided in image 1.
The PPA entry sign on the left-hand side of the carriageway was rotated approximately 90 degrees, meaning it was not visible. Photographic evidence of this sign in its rotated condition is provided in image 2.
I parked on an unmarked section of Wellington Road about 150 metres from the junction with the high street shown in image 3 and the CEO photos.
As a result, I contend that the contravention did not occur.
I appealed to the council, citing these facts and a previous adjudication for this specific entry point and signage defect. In case 2250151042 (Adjudicator Philippa Alderson, 23 May 2025), an appeal was allowed for a vehicle parked on Wellington Road in materially identical circumstances.
The adjudicator found the left-hand entry sign rotated approximately 90 degrees and not sufficiently visible to drivers entering the road. Having considered the council's photographic evidence, they found the right-hand sign alone insufficient to indicate the restriction. Adjudicator Alderson found in case 225015104 that a driver who missed the entry sign may reasonably conclude, in the absence of road markings, that the street is unrestricted. The full decision is provided at document 1.
The council has rejected this appeal, however their Notice of Rejection of Representation incorrectly identifies the zone as a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) instead of a Permit Parking Area (PPA). The council's Civil Enforcement Officer photographs do not include a photograph of the entry sign as it appeared at the time of the contravention.
The CEO photos show my car parked on an unmarked length of road. The sign shown in the CEO evidence is a zone repeater on a lamppost within the road, which is not clearly visible in the wider photographs of the vehicle. A repeater sign cannot substitute for a defective mandatory entry sign on a PPA. The council has not evidenced that the mandatory entry sign was compliant on the day.
Thoughts on this proposed appeal - regardless of how extensive the changes required - are very welcome.
