Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: bigred247 on June 08, 2025, 11:39:03 am
-
Sharing the adjudicator’s reasons below for everyone else’s benefit.
Adjudicator's Decision
The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has allowed the appeal.
The reasons for the adjudicator's decision are enclosed.
The adjudicator directs London Borough of Redbridge to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
If any penalty or fees have already been paid, the Enforcement Authority must now issue a refund
without delay. Enquiries regarding payment of the refund should be made to the Enforcement
Authority.
An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic penalty appeals
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils
Calls to London Tribunals will be recorded for training and quality purposes
Adjudicator's Reasons
The Appellant's Authorised Representative, Mr xxxx xxxxxx, attended the hearing of the appeal by
video, via Teams. The Appellant did not attend. She is Mr xxxxxx's wife, and she was the driver of
the vehicle at the time. The Authority were not due to attend or to be represented.
It is the Authority's case that the Appellant's vehicle failed to comply with a restriction on vehicles
entering a pedestrian zone on Rutland Road on 20 May 2025. They rely in evidence on CCTV footage
and on photographs of the entrance and advance warning signage. The wording/times on the
entrance signage in the CCTV footage and in the Authority's photographs is barely legible. I would
have expected the Authority to have produced legible photographs. However, it is common ground
that the blue signs beneath the entrance signs indicated that the restriction only operated during term
time. The Authority maintain in their Case Summary that "The 'Term-time only' is commonly used and
legally accepted phrase in traffic signage. While it does not list specific dates, it is the responsibility of
drivers to be aware of school term times, particularly in areas near schools. This type of signage has
been upheld as enforceable in multiple adjudications". They have not cited or produced any
Adjudicator decisions that support their position. They go on to say: "Term-time dates are publicly
available and consistent with local education authority calendars. We also acknowledge the
appellants statement that he was unaware of the restrictions. However, lack of awareness is not a
valid ground cancellation under the statutory framework".
Mr xxxxxx takes issue with the fact that the signage indicated the restriction only operated during
term time. He maintains that such an indication is "fundamentally unclear" on the basis that a motorist
cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of school term times applicable in respect of a restriction.
Mr xxxxxx has cited another adjudicator's decision (Case Number: 2240078999) in which it was
held: "The use of the phrase 'during term times' is not authorised for the simple reason that it requires
motorists to know what the term times are... it is about a lack of clarity as to when the restriction
operates... If an advance warning sign is needed and it is not clear, the Adjudicator is entitled to
conclude the overall signage is inadequate."
I agree with the case put by the Appellant. The blue signs lack clarity and are inherently ambiguous. It
is, in my view, unreasonable to expect a motorist to be aware of school term times applicable in
respect of a restriction, which may well vary depending on the local authority in question and the type
of school. Although the Authority say that "Term-Time Only" signage is commonly used, that is not my
experience, but what is common, is the use of fold-over signs, such that the signs show as blank
during school holidays. This leaves the motorist in no doubt as to whether the restriction is active.
The Authority have a duty to ensure that signage is clear and unambiguous and conveys all the
necessary information to the motorist. In this case the blue sign created a lack of clarity and an
ambiguity. Accordingly, the Authority failed in the said duty, and so I take the view that the
contravention cannot be established and I allow the appeal.
George Dodd
Adjudicator
23rd October 2025
2250346143
AF20158451
-
It was Mr Dodd :)
-
@Incandescent @Hippocrates
I had a call with the tribunal earlier today, and the adjudicator accepted my appeal based on point 1. He didn't bother reading the other points. He completely agreed, and was even more satisified due to the citing of the preceding cases in the appeal.
Happy days ;) I'll post his comments when i receive them via email/post.
Thank you very much folks.
Mr Dodd or Mr Hoare?
-
@Incandescent @Hippocrates
I had a call with the tribunal earlier today, and the adjudicator accepted my appeal based on point 1. He didn't bother reading the other points. He completely agreed, and was even more satisified due to the citing of the preceding cases in the appeal.
Happy days ;) I'll post his comments when i receive them via email/post.
Thank you very much folks.
-
I like it.
Me too.
Councils get away with far too much these days, and you're lucky having the London Tribunal adjudicators, because I have seen an alarming case at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal where an adjudicator decided that because no prejudice was caused to the appellant, (his opinion, naturally), the blatant procedural impropriety the council had committed could be ignored. So it seems this adjudicator is happy for a council to do what they damn well like in any circumstances.
-
Fantastic. I'm going to go ahead and make the appeal. Will keep you folks updated regardless of outcome ;)
-
I like it.
-
@Hippocrates, I've expanded more on the blue sign. What do you think?
I am writing to appeal against the issuance of the Penalty Charge Notice, served for an alleged contravention under code 52M — Failing to comply with a restriction on motor vehicles (motor vehicles prohibited) at Rutland Road on 26 May 2025.
My appeal is based on the following grounds:
1) Unenforceable and Ambiguous Signage – “Term Time Only”
The restriction signage at this location includes the following text:
“Mon–Fri 8.00–9.15am and 2.45–4.00pm – Term-time only”
This restriction is fundamentally unclear for the following reasons:
- There is no specification of dates, months, or defined term periods on the signage itself.
- Term dates are not universal — they vary across schools, boroughs, and types of institution (e.g. academies, private schools).
- A driver is not under any legal duty to research or know school calendars in the area they are driving through.
- The restriction therefore fails the legal standard of clarity, as it does not make the time and period of the restriction clear at the point of compliance.
The blue supplementary plate stating "Term Time Only" further compounds the ambiguity. It does not indicate which school the restriction refers to, which calendar year, or even what constitutes “term time” for enforcement purposes. This makes the sign effectively meaningless for those unfamiliar with the local education schedule — particularly drivers without school-age children or visitors to the borough.
In Conor Costelloe v London Borough of Merton (Case No. 2240078999), the adjudicator ruled:
“The use of the phrase 'during term times' is not authorised for the simple reason that it requires motorists to know what the term times are… it is about a lack of clarity as to when the restriction operates... If an advance warning sign is needed and it is not clear, the Adjudicator is entitled to conclude the overall signage is inadequate.”
This case reflects a wider consensus at London Tribunals under the category “Adequacy of Signs and Lines”, where adjudicators have repeatedly ruled that signage stating “term-time only” is unenforceable unless the date ranges are explicitly defined on the sign itself. Anything less fails to give motorists the certainty required in law.
The restriction is also discriminatory in practice, as it assumes knowledge that only those with school-connected responsibilities may possess. This creates an unfair system where lawful compliance depends not on clear signage, but on a motorist’s parental status or insider knowledge.
2) No Advance Warning or Safe Diversion
There is no advance warning signage provided prior to the restriction to inform drivers or allow them to divert legally. The restriction appears abruptly, leaving motorists — especially those unfamiliar with the area — no reasonable opportunity to avoid a contravention safely or lawfully. This compounds the unfairness and further undermines enforceability.
Conclusion
Due to the lack of legally adequate and unambiguous signage — particularly the vague “term-time only” blue plate — and the absence of advance warning, this restriction fails the required standard of clarity under traffic enforcement regulations and established London Tribunal case law.
I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
-
Request for evidence: I would omit as they will address this in the NOR.
Attack the blue plate with cases and the signage and how they are easily missed.
-
@Hippocrates
Can “Conor Costelloe v London Borough of Merton Case No. 2240078999” be used here?
where the adjudicator said:
“The use of the phrase "during terms times" is not authorised for the simple reason that it requires motorists to know what the term time are so it is just about non-compliance, it is about a lack of clarity as to when the restriction operates. If an advance warning sign is needed and it is not clear, the Adjudicator is entitled to conclude the overall signage is inadequate. The application is refused.”
-
@Hippocrates
Should I say "I rely upon my initial representation"? I have quoted my representation below. Do you feel this needs adjusting?
I just cooked up this draft as a backup just in case. Not sure its that great but worth a punt. I'll hold of til 1130pm'ish otherwise will make reps.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to make formal representations against the issuance of the above Penalty Charge Notice, served for an alleged contravention under code 52M — Failing to comply with a restriction on motor vehicles (motor vehicles prohibited) at Rutland Road on 26 May 2025.
My representation is based on the following grounds:
1) Unenforceable and Ambiguous Signage – “Term Time Only”
The restriction signage at this location displays the following text:
“Mon–Fri 8.00–9.15am and 2.45–4.00pm – Term-time only”
There is no indication of specific dates or term periods. It is not lawful or reasonable to expect a motorist to know or check school term dates while driving. The signage therefore fails to clearly convey the restriction and has been found unenforceable in similar cases at London Tribunals.
Adjudicators have repeatedly ruled that “term-time only” restrictions must show defined date ranges or risk being invalid, as seen in publicly referenced cases on the London Tribunals website under Adequacy of Signs and Lines.
2) No Advance Warning / Safe Diversion
There is no advance signage before this restriction to warn unfamiliar drivers or allow a legal diversion. The restriction appears suddenly and is difficult to comply with safely.
3) Request for Evidence
I request the following:
- The Traffic Management Order in force for this restriction.
- Evidence of how term-time dates are communicated to drivers at this location.
- Certification of the enforcement camera.
Due to the lack of clear signage and the legal ambiguity of “term-time only” restrictions, I respectfully request cancellation of this PCN.
-
I mean what you are going to say.
-
:-\
-
@Hippocrates
I have added my notice of appeal below:
(https://i.imgur.com/5bL1wf6.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/aaJSqlF.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/J4ZMQvR.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/1uTeSkI.jpeg)
-
Please share your Notice of Appeal details first though.
-
@Hippocrates
Thanks for the reply.
I'll go ahead and raise an appeal with the tribunal.
-
Well, you know what I say?!
-
Hi all,
Just recieved an NOR from redbridge. Any advice here? Do I simply rely on my initial representation when appealing to London Tribunals?
(https://i.imgur.com/ONwghjz.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ASf5D8C.jpeg)
-
I just cooked up this draft as a backup just in case. Not sure its that great but worth a punt. I'll hold of til 1130pm'ish otherwise will make reps.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to make formal representations against the issuance of the above Penalty Charge Notice, served for an alleged contravention under code 52M — Failing to comply with a restriction on motor vehicles (motor vehicles prohibited) at Rutland Road on 26 May 2025.
My representation is based on the following grounds:
1) Unenforceable and Ambiguous Signage – “Term Time Only”
The restriction signage at this location displays the following text:
“Mon–Fri 8.00–9.15am and 2.45–4.00pm – Term-time only”
There is no indication of specific dates or term periods. It is not lawful or reasonable to expect a motorist to know or check school term dates while driving. The signage therefore fails to clearly convey the restriction and has been found unenforceable in similar cases at London Tribunals.
Adjudicators have repeatedly ruled that “term-time only” restrictions must show defined date ranges or risk being invalid, as seen in publicly referenced cases on the London Tribunals website under Adequacy of Signs and Lines.
2) No Advance Warning / Safe Diversion
There is no advance signage before this restriction to warn unfamiliar drivers or allow a legal diversion. The restriction appears suddenly and is difficult to comply with safely.
3) Request for Evidence
I request the following:
- The Traffic Management Order in force for this restriction.
- Evidence of how term-time dates are communicated to drivers at this location.
- Certification of the enforcement camera.
Due to the lack of clear signage and the legal ambiguity of “term-time only” restrictions, I respectfully request cancellation of this PCN.
-
Found this on google maps from Sept 24.
(https://i.imgur.com/N8HEUce.jpeg)
-
@rsg444
Thank you for the advice. I will definitely keep that in the back pocket just in case.
-
I believe for Redbridge many of these PCNs are having appeals allowed due to the presence of the "Term Time Only" sign on the blue plate underneath the actual restriction sign. My understanding is that adjudicators have stated that drivers can't be expected to check when term time is, the signs should have it all on there.
Keep that in your back pocket in case you don't receive a response by the end of the day but I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will respond.
-
Just bumping this as the discount period expires tonight and eager to get this over the line.
-
@Hippocrates
Thank you.
-
I have two cases shortly but will get back later this evening.
-
@Martyn21uk
Thanks for pointing that out. It was me being a numpty.
-
I still don't seem to be able to login using the PCN AF20158451 and vehicle registration number LR13ASV. May this be a PCN registration issue or me being a numpty?
Are you trying the first of the two options from this page?
https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/parking/challenge-a-parking-ticket/
It should be the one that says "PCN starts with either AF1, AF2, AF4 or AF5, challenge the PCN here"
Not the one that says "PCN starts with any other number not listed above, challenge the PCN here"
-
I still don't seem to be able to login using the PCN AF20158451 and vehicle registration number LR13ASV. May this be a PCN registration issue or me being a numpty?
-
@Hippocrates
Did you get a chance to look at that draft?
-
@Hippocrates
Thank you for taking a look. Look forward to the template and advice.
-
I'll do a draft later and check it out. Looks like a schools street one again.
-
Hi all,
The family and I have been in and out of hospital the past 2 weeks, and have just not had the chance to check all of our mail. I just spotted this PCN from Redbridge council for "failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone". I believe i have until Monday, 9 June 2025 (tomorrow) to reply to be inside the 14 day discount period.
The address details are vague with no postal code. And when i tried checking online, i couldn't seem to login to th redbridge portal nut it could be that the service is down.
Any advice?
Are there any grounds for appeal here?
(https://i.imgur.com/p37zjWe.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/q6voP9y.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/g7SwV21.png)