Free Traffic Legal Advice

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.

Thanks very much,

A couple of things I wasn’t sure about:
Did you mean with or without the additional photos and references to them that I included previously? I don’t feel entirely comfortable leaving out those photos (which show the defective sign, in particular), but I have no relevant experience of these cases. I have left in for now.

Where you say “did not pass any sign which indicated”, I’m a bit worried that this wording could be argued because it turns out I did pass signs, I just wasn’t aware of passing those signs as they were not clearly visible. I have opted for: “I did not pass any signs which clearly indicated that I was within an area where parking was restricted.”

The sections that have not been explicitly referenced, I have left in.

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 parked on an unmarked section of Wellington Road (shown in image 1 and the CEO photos) about 150 metres from the junction with the high street.

I did not pass any sign which clearly indicated that I was within an area where parking was restricted.

I entered Wellington Road turning left from the High Street. A map of the location is provided in image 2.

That the mandatory signs were not clearly visible is supported by your CEO's photos. That these fail to show the necessary sign is not an oversight, it is because photos would have shown that they were not clearly visible.

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 3.

This situation is not unknown to the council as can be seen in the following adjudication decision regarding the same facts which applied around a year ago.
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 in document 1.

As a result, I contend that the contravention did not occur.

I appealed to the council, citing these facts and the previous adjudication for this specific entry point and signage defect.

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 council’s response is included in document 2.

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.

Further thoughts and feedback extremely welcome.

Thanks very much for your responses,
A few questions:
Under point 4, I have added where the council mistakenly suggests this case differs from case 225015104 because of a sign on the right-hand side and under point 5 I have added what appears to be an additional mistake by the council relating to whether adjudicators rulings are binding.
Is there any reason I should not include these?

You mention not needing to restate my reps, will all of what I have submitted so far to the council be provided to the adjudicator or do I need to include any of that information?
If it will be included, will I be sent this before the adjudication to check everything is there? Will I have an opportunity to include things that have been missed? Or should I include all the evidence I wish to refer to in my tribunal submission?

Are there any other changes you would suggest before submitting to the tribunal website?

Redraft:
I am appealing on the grounds that the contravention did not occur due to defective entry signage for the Permit Parking Area (PPA).

1. I was puzzled to receive the PCN as I had parked in what looks like an unrestricted section of road with no parking signs on Wellington Road (shown in image 1 and the CEO photos). This is about 150 metres from the junction with the high street (map shown in image 2).

2. The council relies on entry signs to this zone at the junction with the high street but the key sign on my approach was twisted as also found in adjudicated case 225015104 and in image 3.

3. In its notice of rejection, the council misidentifies the area as a controlled parking zone (CPZ), which would have all kerbsides marked as bays or yellow lines. This is not such a zone - it is a permit parking area, and the council has mischaracterised it as a CPZ.

4. The council’s notice of rejection also mistakenly suggests that there is a difference between this case and adjudicated case 225015104 due to the presence of a sign on the right-hand side of the road in this case. The adjudication of case 225015104 explicitly addresses the existence of a sign on the right-hand side, stating that the right-hand sign is insufficient, “I am not satisfied that this right-hand sign alone is sufficient to indicate the restriction to drivers entering the road”.
The differentiation the council seeks to make is not accurate. The key elements of the cases are identical.

5. Additionally in its notice of rejection, the council states that “adjudicator decisions are not binding”, whilst the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators “Your right to appeal” document which was also enclosed with the notice of rejection states under the “Appeal Procedure” section that “The adjudicator’s decision is binding in law”.
The council is incorrect in several key facts when enforcing the PCN – these have not misled me, and I hope they do not mislead the adjudicator!

6. I draw the adjudicator's attention to guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual on permit parking areas and map of the area in question (image 4):

Not all roads will be suitable for this type of signing. A cul de sac or a small network of roads with little or no through traffic would be the most appropriate. Otherwise the lack of road markings might tempt drivers unfamiliar with the area to park.


I contend this large area has breached the guidance.

Evidence I would attach if needed:
Image 1:


Image 2:


Image 3:


Image 4:


Document 1:
Case: 2250151042 from tribunal website

Document 2 (will convert to single pdf for submission):
Council's rejection letter

Adjudicator decisions are not legally binding, in fact one adjudicator some years ago changed his mind from a previous decision of his, and found against the appellant who had quoted his own decision in his representations !