Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: darreninthenet on July 15, 2026, 12:10:42 pm
-
5) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - the Notice Of Rejection fails to specify proper details on appealing to the TPT. The Local Authority cannot discharge this duty by referring a person to a third parties general website.
Too vague: it's a conclusion. The adjudicator isn't going to compare the NOR with the legislation, that's your job: specify exactly where the NOR is defective.
-
IMO, this is not your leading argument which remains the signage is not consistent with the alleged contravention.
You would also draw the adjudicator's attention to the council's evidence pack, item **. I have had great difficulty understanding their references, but if they are relying upon s4 and therefore Schedule 2, I have read this and have extracted 4(1) below:
4(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2) of this Article, any person causing any vehicle to proceed in a road or length of road specified in column 2 of an item in Schedule 2 shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter into the road or length of road specified in relation thereto in column 3 of that Schedule at the times stated in relation thereto in column 4 of that Schedule.
I respectfully suggest that this does not create a prohibition but instead requires motorists to follow a prescribed route i.e. 'shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter [the road prescribed in column 3].
Many thanks! Should I add the following as evidence then?
1) The traffic signs were ambiguously worded - as per our original appeal to Medway, our interpretation (whilst controlling a moving vehicle on a busy road) of these signs were that there was a "No Vehicles Except for Access" on "Saturdays 10am-4pm". Medway in their response have indicated their intention was the sign to mean "No Vehicles" "Except for Access on Saturdays 10am-4pm". There is no possible way a driver could distinguish the intention between these two meanings without receiving the clarification Medway have provided in the Notice of Rejection. For example, a better and unambiguous way of wording this sign could have been "No Vehicles except for:" and then underneath "Access only on Saturdays 10am - 4pm" which would leave a driver in no doubt. We actually waited for around an hour in a nearby restaurant until it was past 4pm just so we could drive down the high street to collect a heavy item purchased at an antique shop!
2)The contravention did not occur - the PCN states Code 51J contravention of No Entry restriction - there was no "No Entry" restriction, the sign driven past was a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (which is Code 52V for this sign, which even I managed to discover with just five minutes on Google), and although this sign can have a similar effect, namely that at certain times vehicles should not pass them, this does not mean they are the same for legislative and enforcement purposes. They are distinguished in the regulations, and separate contravention descriptions exist for them. From the Statutory Guidance: Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect.
3) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - they failed to properly consider my representations. They refer to the representations as “mitigation”, which they were clearly not - they were that the contravention did not occur (for the reasons given). They also failed to consider the representation that the contravention on the PCN did not occur because there was no No Entry sign. Even now in their evidence pack to the TPT, Medway continue to refer to my appeal as being an appeal to their discretion, and my appeal to the TPT being based on “further discretion”. Both the appeal to Medway and the TPT are, as stated here, based on failure to issue a PCN for the contravention they allege, failure to follow the procedures they are lawfully required to follow and using a traffic sign which is ambiguously worded and could have easily been worded in an unambiguous fashion.
4) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - the original PCN failed to specify that “Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority” is a valid ground of representation.
5) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - the Notice Of Rejection fails to specify proper details on appealing to the TPT. The Local Authority cannot discharge this duty by referring a person to a third parties general website.
6) I would also like to draw the adjudicator's attention to the council's evidence pack, item 11. I have had difficulty understanding their references, but if they are relying upon s4 and therefore Schedule 2, I have read this and have extracted 4(1) as below:
“4(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2) of this Article, any person causing any vehicle to proceed in a road or length of road specified in column 2 of an item in Schedule 2 shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter into the road or length of road specified in relation thereto in column 3 of that Schedule at the times stated in relation thereto in column 4 of that Schedule.”
I respectfully suggest that this does not create a prohibition at all, but instead requires motorists to follow a prescribed route i.e. 'shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter [the road prescribed in column 3].
-
IMO, this is not your leading argument which remains the signage is not consistent with the alleged contravention.
You would also draw the adjudicator's attention to the council's evidence pack, item **. I have had great difficulty understanding their references, but if they are relying upon s4 and therefore Schedule 2, I have read this and have extracted 4(1) below:
4(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2) of this Article, any person causing any vehicle to proceed in a road or length of road specified in column 2 of an item in Schedule 2 shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter into the road or length of road specified in relation thereto in column 3 of that Schedule at the times stated in relation thereto in column 4 of that Schedule.
I respectfully suggest that this does not create a prohibition but instead requires motorists to follow a prescribed route i.e. 'shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter [the road prescribed in column 3].
-
Thanks.
any person causing any vehicle to proceed in a road or length of road specified in column 2 of an item in Schedule 2 shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter into the road or length of road specified in relation thereto in column 3 of that Schedule
So if you're proceeding in a specified road you shall cause that vehicle to enter another specified road.
;)
So just to check my understanding, the TRO doesn't actually prohibit this activity? Would the TFT arbitrator accept that or just consider it an "error" that can be ignored?
-
Thanks.
any person causing any vehicle to proceed in a road or length of road specified in column 2 of an item in Schedule 2 shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter into the road or length of road specified in relation thereto in column 3 of that Schedule
So if you're proceeding in a specified road you shall cause that vehicle to enter another specified road.
;)
-
Can you work out what the Schedule means, I can't.
I can't cut and paste and it's a long reference, presumably 4(1). But it doesn't seem to prohibit, it merely describes.
We're looking for '..except as provided ..no person shall cause a vehicle to .. from ..into ...during the period...except for access...
'No vehicles' point restriction operating 'at any time' except for access to off-street premises at
certain times
4.
(1)
Except as provided by paragraph (2) of this Article, any person causing any vehicle to proceed in a road or length of road specified in column 2 of an item in Schedule 2 shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter into the road or length of road specified in relation thereto in column 3 of that Schedule at the times stated in relation thereto in column 4 of that Schedule.
(2)
Nothing in paragraph (1) of this Article shall apply in relation to a vehicle which is entering into or proceeding in a road or length of road specified in column 2 of an item in Schedule 2 for the purpose of accessing off-street premises only accessible therefrom, between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Saturdays.
-
Can you work out what the Schedule means, I can't.
I can't cut and paste and it's a long reference, presumably 4(1). But it doesn't seem to prohibit, it merely describes.
We're looking for '..except as provided ..no person shall cause a vehicle to .. from ..into ...during the period...except for access...
-
On which provision in the Order and Schedule thereto are the council relying, surely it's referred to in their Evidence schedule or highlighted in the order itself?
The adjudicator is not going to get out an OS map and try and work this out.
They included this in their evidence summary:
Evidence 10
Evidence Type: Map showing location Published Date: August 21, 2026 15:23 Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Corporation St Map Screenshot 2026-08-21 152317.png
Description: Copy of map showing location Evidence 11
Evidence Type: TRO/Schedule (add references in description) Published Date: August 21, 2026 15:30 Published By: Authority Manager Attachment: High St Moving Traffic Contraventions - Made TRO 713.pdf Description: Copy of TRP specifically page 4 schedule2 item 1.
Evidence 11
Evidence Type: TRO/Schedule (add references in description) Published Date: August 21, 2026 15:30 Published By: Authority Manager Attachment: High St Moving Traffic Contraventions - Made TRO 713.pdf Description: Copy of TRP specifically page 4 schedule2 item 1.
-
On which provision in the Order and Schedule thereto are the council relying, surely it's referred to in their Evidence schedule or highlighted in the order itself?
The adjudicator is not going to get out an OS map and try and work this out.
-
Bump for any comments on the TRO or my proposed evidence/statement?
-
Where's the traffic order pl.
Let's start with this.
Thank you, I've uploaded it here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gg_noC4ssHlB97CX3boxQAOvfyrCbQzQ/view?usp=drive_link
-
Where's the traffic order pl.
Let's start with this.
-
LA has responded with an evidence pack, and I've opted for a telephone hearing. This is their summary
This statement is submitted in response to the appellant's appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice issued for failing to comply with the No Entry restriction.
The signage at this location, items 7 & 9, is clear, prominent, compliant with regulations, and positioned so as to be visible to any motorist approaching the restriction. This is demonstrated in the photographic evidence, item 5 & the video evidence, item 6, uploaded with the PCN and has been supplied to the Tribunal in full.
The appellant argument that there was no 'No Entry' restriction as the signage is incorrect and that the contravention did not occur as the signage states "No Vehicles Except for Access" restriction only applies on Saturdays 10am - 4pm. As we entered after 4pm, this restriction did not apply, is factually incorrect as the compliant signage clearly states 'No vehicles Except for access on Saturdays 10am-4pm' as the appellant entered at 16:18 the penalty charge notice was issued correctly.
The signage, at this location, is positioned on both sides of the carriageway, fully compliant & visible to the motorist, evidence item 7 & CCTV warning signage, prior to the location, evidence item 8. As clearly stated in the Highway Code, Signs with red circles are mostly prohibitive, with a plate below qualifying their message, as in this case 'No vehicles Except for access on Saturdays 10am-4pm' evidence items 7 & 9.
It is the driver’s responsibility to check for signage that is in place. Motorists are expected to notice all road traffic signage on every journey, understand its meaning and act accordingly.
In summary, the contravention is clearly observed in the photographic evidence Item 5, specifically photographs 2 & 4 and video evidence item 6, taken at time of the contravention. The vehicle is clearly seen travelling through the 'No Entry' when not permitted.
The Authority is satisfied that the signage in question is fully compliant with the requirements of the road traffic legislation.
A reasonably observant motorist would have been aware of the restriction before entering Chatham High Street .
Signage is Clear and Fully Compliant
The restriction is clearly marked with prescribed signs on either side of the carriage way
The signs are positioned at the decision point before entering the High Street
Completion of the manoeuvre into the High Street demonstrates that the restriction was passed and the prohibition contravened.
Discretion Was Considered and Declined
The appellant requests the Tribunal to consider whether additional discretion should apply.
The Council has already considered discretion when responding to the formal representations and determined that it was not appropriate to cancel the PCN.
The explanations provided by the appellant do not align with the legal requirements or the evidence available.
For the reasons above, the authority respectfully requests that the appeal be refused and the penalty charge upheld.
Immediate things I noted:
- They've ignored the wrong code on PCN issue
- They've ignored the poorly worded signs
- They keep referring to our appeal as discretion, which it wasn't, and we aren't appealing on the basis of further discretion as they've stated
- They've ignored all the procedural impropriety parts
I presume I now "Add Evidence" to post up my full appeal statement? I'm proposing the following, all suggestions and additions gratefully received!
1) The contravention did not occur - the PCN states Code 51J contravention of No Entry restriction - there was no "No Entry" restriction, the sign driven past was a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (which is Code 52V for this sign, which even I managed to discover with just five minutes on Google), and although this sign can have a similar effect, namely that at certain times vehicles should not pass them, this does not mean they are the same for legislative and enforcement purposes. They are distinguished in the regulations, and separate contravention descriptions exist for them. From the Statutory Guidance: Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect.
2) The traffic signs were ambiguously worded - as per our original appeal to Medway, our interpretation (whilst controlling a moving vehicle on a busy road) of these signs were that there was a "No Vehicles Except for Access" on "Saturdays 10am-4pm". Medway in their response have indicated their intention was the sign to mean "No Vehicles" "Except for Access on Saturdays 10am-4pm". There is no possible way a driver could distinguish the intention between these two meanings without receiving the clarification Medway have provided in the Notice of Rejection. For example, a better and unambiguous way of wording this sign could have been "No Vehicles except for:" and then underneath "Access only on Saturdays 10am - 4pm" which would leave a driver in no doubt. We actually waited for around an hour in a nearby restaurant until it was past 4pm just so we could drive down the high street to collect a heavy item purchased at an antique shop!
3) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - they failed to properly consider my representations. They refer to the representations as “mitigation”, which they were clearly not - they were that the contravention did not occur (for the reasons given). They also failed to consider the representation that the contravention on the PCN did not occur because there was no No Entry sign. Even now in their evidence pack to the TPT, Medway continue to refer to my appeal as being an appeal to their discretion, and my appeal to the TPT being based on “further discretion”. Both the appeal to Medway and the TPT are, as stated here, based on failure to issue a PCN for the contravention they allege, failure to follow the procedures they are lawfully required to follow and using a traffic sign which is ambiguously worded and could have easily been worded in an unambiguous fashion.
4) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - the original PCN failed to specify that “Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority” is a valid ground of representation.
5) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - the Notice Of Rejection fails to specify proper details on appealing to the TPT. The Local Authority cannot discharge this duty by referring a person to a third parties general website.
-
TPT appeal submitted as per suggestion, will update when (if?) the LA responds
-
Contravention did not occur covers their order and signs.
-
Thank you! Does "procedural impropriety" cover the issues of the unclear signage?
No, it's a separate matter for the incorrect informationon their documents.
-
Thank you! Does "procedural impropriety" cover the issues of the unclear signage?
-
You have received a NOR date 31 July.
Your options are to pay or register an appeal, in either case no later than 31 Aug.
Registering an appeal is a simple, streamlined and quick process. I suggest you get online and register, all the details are in the NOR*, and rely upon grounds:
Contravention did not occur;
Procedural impropriety.
The body of your appeal at this stage, I suggest:
As regards the contravention, I rely upon my formal representations and as regards procedural impropriety that the decision notice fails to comply with regulatory requirements regarding an owner's rights of appeal and that payment dates are unclear. Both grounds would be developed upon receipt of the council's evidence pack.
You do not rehearse your formal reps because these would be in evidence anyway.
*- except for the appeals specifics which you would have to consult a third-party website to discover AND which are incorrect anyway as regards the law as it applies to councils!!
For example, the first thing you'd find would be:
You have 28 days to submit an appeal
after receiving an NoR letter
No you don't.
The tribunal does not apply the strict 28-day period. This is its right.
But it has s*d all to do with a council's duty which is to notify you that your STATUTORY right lapses after the end of the period of 28 days beginning on the date of service of the NOR.
-
Bumping one last time in case anyone else has any other comments or suggestions, otherwise will submit to TPT next week :-)
-
Looks good. Opt for a telephone or online hearing if possible.
-
Thanks for the responses, this is my proposed TPT appeal, any thoughts would be happily received:
1) The contravention did not occur - the PCN states Code 51J contravention of No Entry restriction - there was no "No Entry" restriction, the sign driven past was a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (which is Code 52V for this sign, which even I managed to discover with just five minutes on Google), and although this sign can have a similar effect, namely that at certain times vehicles should not pass them, this does not mean they are the same for legislative and enforcement purposes. They are distinguished in the regulations, and separate contravention descriptions exist for them. From the Statutory Guidance: Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect.
2) The traffic signs were ambiguously worded - as per our original appeal to Medway, our interpretation (whilst controlling a moving vehicle on a busy road) of these signs were that there was a "No Vehicles Except for Access" on "Saturdays 10am-4pm". Medway in their response have indicated their intention was the sign to mean "No Vehicles" "Except for Access on Saturdays 10am-4pm". There is no possible way a driver could distinguish the intention between these two meanings without receiving the clarification Medway have provided in Notice of Rejection. For example, a better and unambiguous way of wording this sign could have been "No Vehicles except for:" and then underneath "Access only on Saturdays 10am - 4pm" which would leave a driver in no doubt.
3) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - they failed to properly consider my representations. They refer to the representations as “mitigation”, which they were clearly not - they were that the contravention did not occur (for the reasons given). They also failed to consider the representation that the contravention on the PCN did not occur because there was no No Entry sign.
4) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - the original PCN failed to specify that “Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority” is a valid ground of representation.
5) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - the Notice Of Rejection fails to specify proper details on appealing to the TPT. The Local Authority cannot discharge this duty by referring a person to a third parties general website.
-
I'm having a senior moment, but shouldn't the PCN's grounds of representation include 'procedural impropriety'?
The NOR is disgraceful IMO. I don't see how authorities can discharge their duties by referring the owner to a third party's general website! FFS, it's not the owner's job to navigate TPT's website, IMO it's the authority's to specify details in the NOR.
-
The rejection is junk. They say 'unable to accept as mitigating circumstances' but the reps are whether the contravention occurred.
And there's no such thing as a 'no entry zone'.
So should I add "failed to consider representations properly" (blah blah not mitigation but did not occur blah blah)?
-
The rejection is junk. They say 'unable to accept as mitigating circumstances' but the reps are whether the contravention occurred.
And there's no such thing as a 'no entry zone'.
-
I've had a response from Medway (no surprises they rejected it!)
For reference, here is the representations I put in (on 21/7):
1) The contravention did not occur - the PCN states Code 51J contravention of No Entry restriction - there was no "No Entry" restriction, the sign driven past was a prohibition on certain types of vehicles, and although this sign can have a similar effect, namely that at certain times vehicles should not pass them, this does not mean they are the same for legislative and enforcement purposes. They are distinguished in the regulations, and separate contravention descriptions exist for them. From the Statutory Guidance: Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect.
2) The contravention did not occur - the wording on the sign clearly states that the "No Vehicles Except for Access" restriction only applies on Saturdays 10am - 4pm. As we entered after 4pm, this restriction did not apply.
(for those that have been following/replying/advising from the start, I kept point (2) worded like that as it was our genuine understanding of the situation, it was only since people replied on here that it's been pointed out it was ambiguously worded, which is what I will change in the appeal to going forward, also as part the LA's response is them clarifying what the signs are actually supposed to mean)
Here is the NOR:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/C6hfVYX_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/eko3DjK_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/boH6npB_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/NTkLuSS_xl.jpeg)
Here is my proposed appeal to the TPT:
1) The contravention did not occur - the PCN states Code 51J contravention of No Entry restriction - there was no "No Entry" restriction, the sign driven past was a prohibition on certain types of vehicles, and although this sign can have a similar effect, namely that at certain times vehicles should not pass them, this does not mean they are the same for legislative and enforcement purposes. They are distinguished in the regulations, and separate contravention descriptions exist for them. From the Statutory Guidance: Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect.
2) The traffic signs were ambiguously worded - as per our original appeal to Medway, our interpretation (whilst controlling a moving vehicle on a busy road) of these signs were that there was a "No Vehicles Except for Access" on "Saturdays 10am-4pm". Medway in their response have indicated their intention was the sign to mean "No Vehicles" "Except for Access on Saturdays 10am-4pm". There is no possible way a driver could distinguish the intention between these two meanings without receiving the clarification Medway have provided in Notice of Rejection. For example, a better and unambiguous way of wording this sign could have been "No Vehicles except for:" and then underneath "Access only on Saturdays 10am - 4pm" which would leave a driver in no doubt.
Any advice or thoughts, or any issues with the NOR would be most gratefully received.
-
IMO, the alleged contravention could not and did not occur because it isn't the prohibition indicated by the signs.
The fact that in practice PZ, No Entry, All vehicles prohibited except non-mechanically propelled vehicles pushed by pedestrians(the regulatory meaning of the signs actually in place here) etc. can have similar effects, namely that at certain times vehicles should not pass them, does not mean they are the same for legislative and enforcement purposes. They are distinguished in the regs and separate contravention descriptions exist for them.
There aren't any No Entry signs therefore the contravention did not occur.
For good measure from the Statutory Guidance: Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect,
-
As far as I can see it is only to access to the first 30m or so of the road till you get to the pedestrianised (Sat 10-4 only) section, to give access to premises.
Ah yes so there's another restriction a bit further in. That one does ban vehicles on Saturday 10-4.
Best to leave this out as you say and just stick with the wrong contravention.
-
Just before I post the appeal... is this likely to win if they push as far as the adjudicator? It's been a while since I've been involved in this kind of thing but as I recall putting the wrong contravention is likely to kill it anyway?
-
2 is wrong - the restriction was in force; the argument there is that the signage is inadequate / misleading
I agree that's likely what it will become but right now from our perspective, we entered outside the enforcement period (and wouldn't appealing initially on this basis adds strength to the argument that it's misleading?)
Ah, yes, that's seems a reasonable plan, but no doubt they will just reject it out of hand and say it was in force - you could maybe expand that you were informed access was OK at the time of the alleged contravention, and read the sign that way, but subsequent research has suggested that in fact the reverse is true, and the signs do not convey this in the short time available to read them as a motorist driving - also as far as I can see in GSV (Oct 24) there is no advanced warning, nor any signage at the junction that there is no access; and the signs are pretty well hidden behind the lights as you approach (and have to cross the bus lane)
Spot the restriction sign!
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RkydTAfQmpMZ3aWW6
-
But why would they want traffic there only at the busiest shopping time.
Make it make sense.
It's a council thing, that's not possible 8)
As far as I can see it is only to access to the first 30m or so of the road till you get to the pedestrianised (Sat 10-4 only) section, to give access to premises.
-
2 is wrong - the restriction was in force; the argument there is that the signage is inadequate / misleading
I agree that's likely what it will become but right now from our perspective, we entered outside the enforcement period (and wouldn't appealing initially on this basis adds strength to the argument that it's misleading?)
-
But why would they want traffic there only at the busiest shopping time.
Make it make sense.
-
Eats, shoots, and leaves! ;D
There is a proposed new TRO to extend the restrictions on the high street to Sundays and BHs: https://www.medway.gov.uk/downloads/file/9692/proposed_tro_for_rochester_high_street
The idea (I think) is normally access to that section of road is from the other end, but 10-4 Saturdays that is pedestrian only, so they have allowed access from this end on Saturday 10-4.
This looks like one of those cases where (as Gov agencies like to do) they have tried to dumb down things, but ended up making it so complicated in double speak that it's actually harder to understand.
I think it's supposed to say:
No vehicles
10 am - 4 pm
Except for access
on Saturdays
Based on the above that's not right either, better might have been:
No Vehicles except for:
Access only on Saturdays 10am - 4pm
If they implement the new TRO, it will be even more complicated and confusing!!
-
2 is wrong - the restriction was in force; the argument there is that the signage is inadequate / misleading
The wording is confusing and I think the order is wrong.
It says:
No vehicles
Except for access
on Saturdays
10 am - 4 pm
I think it's supposed to say:
No vehicles
10 am - 4 pm
Except for access
on Saturdays
But who knows. It would be odd if there was no access for deliveries except on the busiest shopping time but why then allow access then.
-
2 is wrong - the restriction was in force; the argument there is that the signage is inadequate / misleading
-
That looks OK. I'm all for short and sweet. Wait for tincombe.
-
So, from the responses on here and our own genuine (and understandable, given the replies on here) confusion of the poor wording on the sign our appeal will be:
1) The contravention did not occur - Code 51J contravention of No Entry restriction - there was no "No Entry" restriction, the sign driven past was a prohibition on certain types of vehicles
2) The contravention did not occur - the wording on the sign clearly states that the "No Vehicles Except for Access" restriction only applies on Saturdays 10am - 4pm. As we entered after 4pm, this restriction did not apply.
Does this seem reasonable for our first-but-they'll-reject-it-anyway appeal?
-
With respect, it's not a PZ sign, that's of a different form:
Yes - I thought it was another Medway location.
So the contravention should be:
Code 52: Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle etc.
-
We've had other cases on Medway pedestrian zones but where they're in a muddle on waiting restrictions and signage.
This looks like a straightforward wrong contravention. Instead of a:
Code 53: Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone
They've given:
Code 51: Failing to comply with a no entry restriction
Pics of the entry signs would clarify.
You can see the signs on the first pic I posted, and the GSV picture (the first GSV link I supplied) of where we "contravened" is correct.
-
With respect, it's not a PZ sign, that's of a different form:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
Section 6.
-
We've had other cases on Medway pedestrian zones but where they're in a muddle on waiting restrictions and signage.
This looks like a straightforward wrong contravention. Instead of a:
Code 53: Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone
They've given:
Code 51: Failing to comply with a no entry restriction
Pics of the entry signs would clarify.
-
..this crossed with others...
I think you misunderstand the associated plate meaning.
See the TSM https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
Putting aside the fact that the sign shouldn't be used, its associated plate means(confusingly IMO) that the prohibition is 24/7 except for those Sat hours. Your 'contravention' didn't occur on a Saturday.
It was Saturday 11th July
-
..this crossed with others...
I think you misunderstand the associated plate meaning.
See the TSM https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
Putting aside the fact that the sign shouldn't be used, its associated plate means(confusingly IMO) that the prohibition is 24/7 except for those Sat hours. Your 'contravention' didn't occur on a Saturday.
-
Does the fact it was after 16:00 anyway mean there should never have been a PCN?
No, because the restriction applies at all times except Saturday 10 - 4. But I had to read it 3 times to understand that; and I'm not driving!
It's a strange one because all the shops say you can drive down there any time that isn't Saturday 10-4...! I'm going to go back in a few days and check the signs around it because it's not wholly clear.
-
Does the fact it was after 16:00 anyway mean there should never have been a PCN?
No, because the restriction applies at all times except Saturday 10 - 4. But I had to read it 3 times to understand that; and I'm not driving!
-
IMO, it is NOT a 'No Entry' sign, therefore the alleged contravention and the signage are at odds.
The sign is to diagram 617 which 'prohibits all vehicles'. See Items 10 and 11 in the Part 2 sign table of Schedule 3 to the regs: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3
As per the Traffic Signs Manual, the sign in situ is used where 'the prohibition applies to the whole of the road in both directions'. It should NOT be used to 'indicate one-way traffic flow'
But it is!
IMO,
The alleged contravention did not occur because the prescribed signs were not in place;
The signs in place may not be used to indicate one-way traffic flow anyway. So they're not only wrong as regards the alleged contravention, they're wrong in terms of the requirements of the Traffic Signs etc. Regs because traffic is not prohibited in both directions, only one.
I think my original description muddied the waters a bit and I've updated it, however just to make sure I'm understanding you - the PCN says we didn't comply with a No Entry restriction, however the sign if a No Vehicles restriction, therefore they've put the wrong contravention on it? Is that correct?
Does the fact it was after 16:00 anyway mean there should never have been a PCN?
-
IMO, it is NOT a 'No Entry' sign, therefore the alleged contravention and the signage are at odds.
The sign is to diagram 617 which 'prohibits all vehicles'. See Items 10 and 11 in the Part 2 sign table of Schedule 3 to the regs: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3
As per the Traffic Signs Manual, the sign in situ is used where 'the prohibition applies to the whole of the road in both directions'. It should NOT be used to 'indicate one-way traffic flow'
But it is!
IMO,
The alleged contravention did not occur because the prescribed signs were not in place;
The signs in place may not be used to indicate one-way traffic flow anyway. So they're not only wrong as regards the alleged contravention, they're wrong in terms of the requirements of the Traffic Signs etc. Regs because traffic is not prohibited in both directions, only one.
-
GSV link, please.
GSV link of turning with sign from the alleged offence - https://maps.app.goo.gl/tn2ky8meMTcWQGePA
GSV link of the place where the No Entry sign is - note GSV is out of date and this conditional No Entry sign is just a simple No Entry now - https://maps.app.goo.gl/7eThfkzqRegsVnn8A
I've also updated my original post thanks
-
GSV link, please.
-
Hi all,
Got this through the post today, details are as follows:
1) was on Rochester high street and we saw a small antique desk in a shop, which we purchased
2) the high street is pedestrianised during the day on a Saturday and the shop advised we could drive down after 16:00 to collect it
3) about 16:20 the driver turned into the top of the high street where there is a no mechanically propelled vehicle sign with a plate with the time/date restrictions on it.
4) a short distance down the road we encountered an actual No Entry sign prohibiting driving down the high street any further that we weren't aware of - the driver u-turned the vehicle and exited back out onto the main road
5) we then drove around the houses due to various no right/left turn signs to find out where we could legally turn down the section of the high street we wanted - desk collected, drove home.
It's at step (3) above we have the PCN for, where we drove into the top of the high street, then found out you simply can't drive the length of it and had to enter halfway down if you wanted that section of the high street, and turned around. We took the first No Vehicles sign (the one we have the PCN for) to mean the restriction only applied Saturdays 10:00-16:00, which matched the advice of the shop.
Any thoughts please? My immediate reaction is we didn't breach anything because it was after 16:00!
Thanks for your help!
GSV link of turning with sign from the alleged offence - https://maps.app.goo.gl/tn2ky8meMTcWQGePA
GSV link of the place where the No Entry sign is - note GSV is out of date and this conditional No Vehicles sign is just a simple No Entry now - https://maps.app.goo.gl/7eThfkzqRegsVnn8A
Pics of everything:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/TrYaJKg_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Vr84omm_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Ru7i3j4_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/L5yVdQM_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/pz7g7L4_xl.jpeg)