Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: bigred247 on July 28, 2025, 05:25:11 pm
-
Rescheduled to July.
-
Sorted. The game is afoot.
-
Hi folks,
Just receieved the evidence pack from Redbridge council. It's about 26 pages so I have added a google drive link to the full doc below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HbOUJl-fjU3WG0PRouklIDC_ToF1HEHd/view?usp=sharing
Any thoughts on this?
I cannot access th4 case at all.
-
Please see my PM and I will deal with this.
-
For the record, i did get an email back from the council earlier this afternoon. They want "written authorisation from the Registered Keeper" to allow me to speak on their behalf (my wife is the registered keeper). At this point, I'll hold fire and won't respond.
-
The Tribunal also states this in their scheduling letter:
All further evidence to be supplied 7 days before the hearing. This covers most laws.
One adjudicator asked me for opposing views in June which I provided.
I tend not to give previous decisions these days. Councils do not follow this anyway.
All adjudicators are their own. And most of them have dealt with the notorious issues.
My main point is this: surely, if a vital piece of information is missing e.g. Schedule in a TMO or anything else in a Bus Lane Case, surely it would be prejudicial to alert the council in advance? All this can be raised at the hearing and the adjudicators I have experienced mostly continue. Clearly, if I need to advance a new argument, I make sure it is adduced 7 days before the hearing and/or phone for a reschedule.
-
Each to their own.
IMO, the obvious advantage to my suggested course of action is to establish the basis of their claims. If you do challenge them at the hearing, then the adjudicator might adjourn, would you want this? If you don't, then IMO you do yourself no favours.
On being asked the questions, they might choose to not contest because there is no basis for the claims, see below.
The advantages are clear, but if this is to be taken off line then we won't be able to advise at the remaining intermediate stages.
From the Tribunal's Practice Direction No. 2 of 2024:
The appellant’s representations to the Authority and their Notice of Appeal, together with the Authority’s Case Summary, will be sufficient in most cases to enable the Adjudicator to decide the matter.
c. Parties should consider, and may be asked to justify, why their case has not been contained in the Notice of Appeal or case summary respectively.
d. A Skeleton Argument or additional representations must:
- be concise
- identify the statutory ground or grounds of appeal relied upon
- clearly and briefly outline the issues with reference to the relevant ground,
- include a chronology of the facts, if it would assist the Adjudicator
- be set out in numbered paragraphs with the use of headings where appropriate
- be cross referenced to any relevant documents
- not include extensive quotations from documents or extensive repetition of the
evidence
- include a list of the relevant authorities, if any, and identify those that assist and do not assist the party’s case
-
And are the cited case numbers correct? If so, how does the authority think this bolsters their position?
-
Not really. I'll e mail you.
-
@Hippocrates any further advice?
-
Noted. Thanks for pointing this out.
-
You should not be contacting the council. It is their job to adduce their evidence to prove their case. What advantage does this kind of strategy viz. to point out flaws in a council's evidence (which includes their case summary) before a hearing? ::) Answer: NONE.
-
Sorry - I meant the parking and traffic enforcement team at redbridge (parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk) for the missing evidence per @H C Andersen suggestion in #40.
-
Why are you contacting the council?
-
I've just sent the email to Redbridge council and will keep you folks posted.
-
@H C Andersen
Thanks for this. Do you know the best contact email address for Redbridge? They sent the evidence pack by post.
parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk
-
@H C Andersen
Thanks for this. Do you know the best contact email address for Redbridge? They sent the evidence pack by post.
-
The Case Summary is presented to the adjudicator. In itself it does not form evidence but refers to evidence e.g. the signs, your reps, CCTV of your car passing the signs etc.
IMO, anything which is included should, if intended to be material, exist as evidence.
So, where is the DfT guidance on School Streets which the council implemented?
'The use of conditional expressions such as 'Term time only' has been accepted by the Department of Transport for these schemes.' So where is it?
IMO, in both cases if it's not in evidence then it doesn't exist.
I would write back to Parking and Traffic Enforcement.
Sir,
PCN *********; Case No. ********
Thank you for a copy of the evidence you have submitted to the adjudicator in respect of the above appeal. I thank you for providing this at such an early stage because it gives me time to consider this in detail and for the authority to provide what appear to be missing items of evidence.
My request refers to the extracts from the Traffic Management Order and to your Case Summary.
TMO
1. Please provide me with the relevant provision within the TMO or any principal order which applies as regards 'traffic signs';
2. Please provide the relevant provision within this order or any principal order which applies to the effect that the prohibition may be varied summarily by officers of the Enforcement Authority or by any other means.
Case Summary
I refer to page 3:
Para. 1: Please provide the document(s) e.g. guidance etc. which form the basis of the council's assertion that:
'the use of conditional expressions such as 'term time only' has been accepted by the Department for Transport for these schemes';
'the signage in question..follows DfT guidance on School Streets'.
Para. 2
I cannot find the referenced appeal cases on the ETA database, have you quoted the correct numbers? I should be permitted to examine these as the authority wish the adjudicator to have regard to their reasoning and conclusion that 'this shows that adjudicators have upheld enforcement under similar wording when the signage meets statutory requirements'. At present, I cannot see how this statement helps the authority because one of the key issues at large and to be determined is whether in fact the council's signage does in fact meet statutory requirements.
Yours,
-
Yes just read it. They have removed all the plates now which is a strong point.
Not round the corner from me they haven't. And on some of these signs, the blue matching tape/film which was used to cover up "term-time only" has mysteriously disappeared, exposing and displaying the phrase once again.
I've just skimmed the Evidence Pack and (unless I've missed it), whilst LBR rely upon and refer to it explicitly in the 1st paragraph on pg6, the TMO itself makes no reference to the term "Term-Time only" or its related sign. Why the sign then? As it only leads to confusion as term-time is not 24/7, 365 days of the year, which the TMO implies.
The TMO also makes numerous reference to Column 5 of the Schedule.....which doesn't exist??
Is this more missing evidence? What is the best approach in getting hold of any missing/referenced evidence?
-
Got the date. Do you want representation?
@Hippocrates
Yes please :)
-
Thanks.
OP, I cannot find the following in the evidence:
Support for the statements in para.1 of page 3 of the Council's Summary e.g. DfT guidance etc.
The part of the TMO which refers to 'traffic signs'.
For others, I cannot find the cited ETA decisions in para. 2, have they been referenced correctly?
For what it's worth, as regards the contravention IMO the issues for the adjudicator are:
1.What does the Traffic Management Order provide;
2.Is this conveyed adequately by traffic signs to meet the legal test i.e. as a minimum LATOR?
1. An all-year round restriction as set out in col. 4 of item 1 of the Schedule to the TMO. There is NO legal authority for 'term-time' only within the order.
2. The signs comprise an unspecified advance warning sign and at the entrance to the restricted area a prescribed traffic sign together with 'colourful on-street information signs that are designed to catch the eye of ... drivers.'
The 'colourful signs' are therefore considered by the council to form part of the regulatory signage at this point. However, the signs in combination do not convey the legal position which is, according to the TMO, a 365-day restriction.
Self-evidently, the council has failed to meet the LATOR test.
The council appears to want matters both ways: to have a TMO which is made by a formal process of corporate council decision-making and consultation which is then varied at a whim by departmental officers who ignore its provisions by failing to enforce as required.
If 'procedural impropriety' was a ground of appeal, I'd include it.
@H C Andersen
I've just gone through the evidence pack (hard copy) again, and there are only 13 pages (26 sides) - are you saying some of the evidence is missing?
-
Thanks.
OP, I cannot find the following in the evidence:
Support for the statements in para.1 of page 3 of the Council's Summary e.g. DfT guidance etc.
The part of the TMO which refers to 'traffic signs'.
For others, I cannot find the cited ETA decisions in para. 2, have they been referenced correctly?
For what it's worth, as regards the contravention IMO the issues for the adjudicator are:
1.What does the Traffic Management Order provide;
2.Is this conveyed adequately by traffic signs to meet the legal test i.e. as a minimum LATOR?
1. An all-year round restriction as set out in col. 4 of item 1 of the Schedule to the TMO. There is NO legal authority for 'term-time' only within the order.
2. The signs comprise an unspecified advance warning sign and at the entrance to the restricted area a prescribed traffic sign together with 'colourful on-street information signs that are designed to catch the eye of ... drivers.'
The 'colourful signs' are therefore considered by the council to form part of the regulatory signage at this point. However, the signs in combination do not convey the legal position which is, according to the TMO, a 365-day restriction.
Self-evidently, the council has failed to meet the LATOR test.
The council appears to want matters both ways: to have a TMO which is made by a formal process of corporate council decision-making and consultation which is then varied at a whim by departmental officers who ignore its provisions by failing to enforce as required.
If 'procedural impropriety' was a ground of appeal, I'd include it.
-
I've just skimmed the Evidence Pack
Has this been posted?
Post #29
-
I've just skimmed the Evidence Pack
Has this been posted?
-
Yes just read it. They have removed all the plates now which is a strong point.
Not round the corner from me they haven't. And on some of these signs, the blue matching tape/film which was used to cover up "term-time only" has mysteriously disappeared, exposing and displaying the phrase once again.
I've just skimmed the Evidence Pack and (unless I've missed it), whilst LBR rely upon and refer to it explicitly in the 1st paragraph on pg6, the TMO itself makes no reference to the term "Term-Time only" or its related sign. Why the sign then? As it only leads to confusion as term-time is not 24/7, 365 days of the year, which the TMO implies.
The TMO also makes numerous reference to Column 5 of the Schedule.....which doesn't exist??
-
Yes just read it. They have removed all the plates now which is a strong point.
-
7th January 2026 at 14:00
-
Got the date. Do you want representation?
-
Hi folks,
Just receieved the evidence pack from Redbridge council. It's about 26 pages so I have added a google drive link to the full doc below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HbOUJl-fjU3WG0PRouklIDC_ToF1HEHd/view?usp=sharing
Any thoughts on this?
-
Can we play with the wording a little to strengthen the case?
-
If you say she did not see the blue sign this will be a major problem!
-
@stamfordman
Thank you for raising these points. The car is registered to my wife and she was the driver at the time. I have corrected the grammar. I'm just doing the donkey work on her behalf. And i have redacted the point about confusion as this was the not the case. She just didn't see the sign due to being distracted by the rerouting.
-
It's already long and the points about signage made.
The blue supplementary plate displaying “term time only” contributed directly to the confusion. My wife was unfamiliar with the area and did not realise the restriction was in force, particularly given the time of year — just days before the end of the school year.
It looks like your wife is the keeper? So the reps must come from her so this is wrong.
And if an adjudicator asks her about this what would she truthfully say?
But some adjudicators will just consider the signage non-compliant without question but let Hippo guide you.
But confirm who the PCN was served on.
-
@Chaseman @Hippocrates
Should i replace
Redbridge Council’s own term calendar confirms that term continued until 22 July 2025. However, the phrase “term time only” offers no certainty or transparency at the point of compliance, rendering the signage ineffective for enforcement purposes.
with
Additionally, this type of signage is not permitted under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016. According to Regulation 6 and Schedule 18, “term time only” is not one of the legally prescribed time-based exceptions listed in paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 18. This omission makes it proscribed by law. Permitted expressions such as “Match Days only” are explicitly listed, but “term time only” is not, and therefore cannot be used to impose enforceable restrictions.
Furthermore, “term time” itself is not a uniform or legally defined period. Term dates vary between state and independent schools, and across local authority boundaries. In this case, even if Redbridge schools continued until 22 July, there is no way for a reasonable motorist to know this at the point of entry.
Would this lend a little more weight? or should i stick to the draft above?
-
The alleged contravention!
I just added "alleged" in the two places where it was missing in the above draft.
-
I had a similar situation recently and drafted the following, although didn't in the end have to use it. It may be useful:
[Signage saying] that restrictions apply in School term times. This is proscribed by Regulation 6 and Schedule 18 of the TSRGD by reason of omission. Such a period is not one of the permitted expressions in para 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 18. In plain English, a driver cannot be expected to know what school term dates are. He might have a good idea that the middle of November, say, is term time but not on which precise date at the beginning of July the summer holidays will start.
So there are particular types of notice that ARE permitted according to the TSRGD, such as "Match Days only" but there is no mention of "Term Times only" and as the list must be read as prescriptive, this implies that any other type of exception signage must not be permitted, i.e. proscribed. I note that you have picked up the TSRGD reference in your re-draft OP.
My particular "offence" was committed on 2 July and the term dates for the public school just up the road, which as a matter of fact I attended many years ago, have the school holidays starting on 4 July. So who is to say whether term dates are only for state schools of the borough in which they are located? Public (which of course means private!) schools are also schools and have term times and holiday times.
-
The alleged contravention!
-
@Hippocrates
Thanks for the feedback. I have made some subtle changes to use extenuating circumstances
I wish to make formal representations against the issuance of this PCN on the following grounds:
1. Extenuating Circumstances – Rerouting Due to Roadworks
On the date of the alleged contravention (17 July 2025), I was the driver of the vehicle. While travelling in the area, I encountered roadworks and was rerouted by temporary signage onto an unfamiliar route. This diversion led me into the restricted School Street zone unintentionally.
Due to the diversion, I was unable to follow my usual route and had no advance warning of the restriction. The rerouting signage gave no indication that it would lead into a restricted area. The School Street signage was only visible at the point of entry, by which time it was too late to turn around safely. The alleged contravention was not wilful, but arose due to circumstances beyond my control and a lack of clear advance warning.
2. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage – “Term Time Only”
The signage at the restriction point includes the phrase “School Streets Restricted Access – Term time only”. This wording is inherently unclear and unhelpful to motorists, especially as term dates vary across schools, boroughs, and school types. No dates or contextual guidance are provided at the location.
London Tribunals have repeatedly found such signage non-compliant:
* In **Rodney Quinn v Redbridge (2240530827), the adjudicator ruled that a motorist cannot be expected to know school term dates and allowed the appeal due to unclear signage.
* In **Malcolm Batki v Redbridge (2250084692), the adjudicator found that “term time only” undermines clarity and fails to comply with the required standard of signage.
Redbridge Council’s own term calendar confirms that term continued until 22 July 2025. However, the phrase “term time only” offers no certainty or transparency at the point of compliance, rendering the signage ineffective for enforcement purposes.
Conclusion
This PCN should be cancelled on the grounds of:
- Extenuating circumstances caused by emergency rerouting,
- Ambiguous and misleading signage,
According to Regulation 6 and Schedule 18 of the TSRGD 2016, the said sign is not authorised by law. The alleged contravention was not intentional and arose from diversion and unlawful signage. I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.
-
In would add she was confused by the blue plate. Use: Extenuating circumstances rather than mitigating. I like it though.
-
@Hippocrates, does this do the job?
I wish to make formal representations against the issuance of this PCN on the following grounds:
1. Mitigating Circumstances – Rerouting Due to Roadworks
On the date of the alleged contravention (17 July 2025), my wife was the driver of the vehicle. While travelling in the area, she encountered roadworks and was rerouted by temporary signage into an unfamiliar route. This diversion took her into the restricted School Street zone unintentionally.
Due to the diversion, she was unable to take her usual route and had no advance warning of the restriction. The diversion signage did not indicate that it would lead into a restricted zone, and the School Street sign was only visible at the point of entry — by which time it was too late to turn back safely. As a result, the contravention was not wilful but caused by the lack of appropriate advance warning.
2. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage – “Term Time Only”
The signage at the restriction point includes the phrase **“School Streets Restricted Access – Term time only”**. This wording is ambiguous and unhelpful to motorists, especially when term dates vary across schools and are not clearly displayed at the location.
Adjudicators have repeatedly found this wording problematic:
* In **Rodney Quinn v Redbridge (2240530827)**, the adjudicator ruled that a motorist cannot be expected to know school term dates while driving, and allowed the appeal on the grounds that the signage did not clearly convey the restriction.
* In **Malcolm Batki v Redbridge (2250084692)**, it was concluded that this term-time wording undermines the clarity of the restriction and is contrary to guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual.
Redbridge’s website confirms term ran until 22 July. The vagueness of "term time only" makes it impossible for a reasonable motorist to be sure of the restriction’s validity on that date.
Conclusion
This PCN should be cancelled on the grounds of:
* Mitigating circumstances due to emergency rerouting,
* Ambiguous and misleading signage,
According to Regulation 6 and Schedule 18 of TSRGD 2016, the said sign is not authorised by law. The contravention was not intentional and arose due to a combination of diversion and poor signage. I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.
-
Hey all, thank you very much for the feedback. I have made some revisions. I hope this more accurately reflects the circumstances and challenge.
I wish to make formal representations against the issuance of this PCN on the following grounds:
1. Mitigating Circumstances – Rerouting Due to Roadworks
On the date of the alleged contravention (17 July 2025), my wife was the driver of the vehicle. While travelling in the area, she encountered roadworks and was rerouted by temporary signage into an unfamiliar route. This diversion took her into the restricted School Street zone unintentionally.
Due to the diversion, she was unable to take her usual route and had no advance warning of the restriction. The diversion signage did not indicate that it would lead into a restricted zone, and the School Street sign was only visible at the point of entry — by which time it was too late to turn back safely. As a result, the contravention was not wilful but caused by the lack of appropriate advance warning.
2. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage – “Term Time Only”
The signage at the restriction point includes the phrase **“School Streets Restricted Access – Term time only”**. This wording is ambiguous and unhelpful to motorists, especially when term dates vary across schools and are not clearly displayed at the location.
Adjudicators have repeatedly found this wording problematic:
* In **Rodney Quinn v Redbridge (2240530827)**, the adjudicator ruled that a motorist cannot be expected to know school term dates while driving, and allowed the appeal on the grounds that the signage did not clearly convey the restriction.
* In **Malcolm Batki v Redbridge (2250084692)**, it was concluded that this term-time wording undermines the clarity of the restriction and is contrary to guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual.
In our case, the alleged contravention occurred very close to the end of term (Redbridge’s website confirms term ran until 22 July). Even if the signage had been seen, the vagueness of "term time only" makes it impossible for a reasonable motorist to be sure of the restriction’s validity on that date.
Conclusion
This PCN should be cancelled on the grounds of:
* Mitigating circumstances due to emergency rerouting,
* Ambiguous and misleading signage,
The contravention was not intentional and arose due to a combination of diversion and poor signage. I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.
I have redacted. You should finish with this: According to Regulation 6 and Schedule 18 of TSRGD 2016, the said sign is not authorised by law.
-
Hey all, thank you very much for the feedback. I have made some revisions. I hope this more accurately reflects the circumstances and challenge.
I wish to make formal representations against the issuance of this PCN on the following grounds:
1. Mitigating Circumstances – Rerouting Due to Roadworks
On the date of the alleged contravention (17 July 2025), my wife was the driver of the vehicle. While travelling in the area, she encountered roadworks and was rerouted by temporary signage into an unfamiliar route. This diversion took her into the restricted School Street zone unintentionally.
Due to the diversion, she was unable to take her usual route and had no advance warning of the restriction. The diversion signage did not indicate that it would lead into a restricted zone, and the School Street sign was only visible at the point of entry — by which time it was too late to turn back safely. As a result, the contravention was not wilful but caused by the lack of appropriate advance warning.
2. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage – “Term Time Only”
The signage at the restriction point includes the phrase **“School Streets Restricted Access – Term time only”**. This wording is ambiguous and unhelpful to motorists, especially when term dates vary across schools and are not clearly displayed at the location.
Adjudicators have repeatedly found this wording problematic:
* In **Rodney Quinn v Redbridge (2240530827)**, the adjudicator ruled that a motorist cannot be expected to know school term dates while driving, and allowed the appeal on the grounds that the signage did not clearly convey the restriction.
* In **Malcolm Batki v Redbridge (2250084692)**, it was concluded that this term-time wording undermines the clarity of the restriction and is contrary to guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual.
In our case, the alleged contravention occurred very close to the end of term (Redbridge’s website confirms term ran until 22 July). Even if the signage had been seen, the vagueness of "term time only" makes it impossible for a reasonable motorist to be sure of the restriction’s validity on that date.
Conclusion
This PCN should be cancelled on the grounds of:
* Mitigating circumstances due to emergency rerouting,
* Ambiguous and misleading signage,
The contravention was not intentional and arose due to a combination of diversion and poor signage. I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.
-
Edit.
-
I will have to give this my most serious consideration. From the outset though, this is far too much. Back later. Basic point: was the driver misled by the term time bit? If not, Herron case will be thrown into the mix.
-
You missed the steer from Hippo/Andersen and made no mention of the personal circumstances on the day, instead just making template reps.
Needs careful wording to avoid untruths.
-
Does this capture all of the points?
I am writing to formally challenge PCN AF2049861A, issued for an alleged contravention under Code 53J — “Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone”.
My representation is based on the following grounds:
1) Defective and Ambiguous Signage – “Term Time Only”
The restriction is signed with:
"Mon–Fri 8.00–9.00am and 2.15–3.45pm – Term-time only"
This wording is fundamentally unclear and unenforceable, for the following reasons:
- The term “Term-time only” is not defined on the sign.
- Term dates vary across schools and boroughs. A motorist cannot reasonably be expected to know the specific academic calendar.
- There is no reference to dates or time periods that could enable lawful compliance at the point of approach.
- The signage does not comply with the TSRGD 2022 and has no visible DfT authorisation allowing this variation.
In Rodney Quinn v LB Redbridge (Case 2240530827), the adjudicator ruled:
"...a motorist cannot be expected to know whether or not a relevant date falls within school term times and I am not therefore satisfied that this restriction was clearly conveyed to the appellant."
Similarly, in Malcolm Batki v LB Redbridge (Case 2250084692), the adjudicator found the blue sign stating “School Streets Restricted Access Term time only” was non-statutory and undermined the clarity of the restriction.
These cases reflect a growing recognition that signage relying on undefined “term time” language fails the legal requirement of clarity and enforceability.
2) Confusion Due to Date Near End of School Term
The alleged contravention occurred on 17 July 2025. According to Redbridge Council’s own website:
Summer Term 2025: 22 April – 22 July 2025
(https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/schools/term-dates/)
This was within the final few school days of the academic year, when many parents and schools have already broken for the summer — adding to public confusion.
Drivers without school-age children or unfamiliar with Redbridge’s exact term calendar may reasonably believe the term had ended — particularly when no dates are specified on signage. This ambiguity is exacerbated by Redbridge’s reported practice of leaving restriction signs in place even outside of term time, misleading motorists further.
3) Tribunal Precedents – Redbridge
In addition to the cases already cited, you will also be aware of Costelloe v LB Merton (Case 2240078999), where similar signage using “school term time” was deemed “substantially non-compliant”, and the appeal was allowed.
There is now a clear pattern of adjudicators finding these types of restrictions invalid due to poor signage and ambiguous wording.
Conclusion
For all the reasons stated above — namely:
- Defective and unauthorised signage
- Unreasonable ambiguity around term-time enforcement
- Documented tribunal rulings cancelling Redbridge PCNs on identical grounds
I respectfully request that PCN AF2049861A be cancelled.
Should I add point 3 to point 1?
-
To put it mildly. Watch this space.
-
..I can see that Anthony Chan's review decision has had effect(a tad harsh IMO)!
OP, you were not driving therefore you could not have been confused. However, having spoken to the driver, your wife, she did say that..........
-
Any representations must be handled carefully. To include seeing the blue sign and being confused by it.
-
Ah yes but 17 July is holiday time in my book and even if it wasn't the signage is defective at any time.
Am I missing something as the link provided to the terms dates:
https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/schools/term-dates/
shows that the date of the offence (17th July), was in term time:
Summer Term 2025
Tuesday 22 April 2025 to Tuesday 22 July 2025
Half term break - Monday 26 May 2025 to Friday 30 May 2025
Sorry - wasn't being clear. 17 July is near the end of term so reinforces the defence that a driver couldn't know term times to the exact day.
-
Ah yes but 17 July is holiday time in my book and even if it wasn't the signage is defective at any time.
Am I missing something as the link provided to the terms dates:
https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/schools/term-dates/
shows that the date of the offence (17th July), was in term time:
Summer Term 2025
Tuesday 22 April 2025 to Tuesday 22 July 2025
Half term break - Monday 26 May 2025 to Friday 30 May 2025
-
@stamfordman @Princeperch
Thanks for the insight and details :) I have started a draft representation and will post it here when ready.
-
Ah yes but 17 July is holiday time in my book and even if it wasn't the signage is defective at any time.
-----------
Case reference 2240530827
Appellant Rodney Quinn
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM NK18UJY
PCN Details
PCN AF99386799
Contravention date 21 Oct 2024
Contravention time 15:02:00
Contravention location Rutland Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 19 Feb 2025
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this vehicle failed to comply with a pedestrian zone restriction. The restriction is signed by regulatory signs posted on either side of the entrance to this road. There is a plate below each sign with the following wording thereon set against a blue background: 'School Streets Restricted Access Term time only'. The appellant thought that the restriction was not in force as he believed that it was outside school term times. I am satified on the council's case that it wasn't, but a motorist cannot be expected to know when driving whether or not a relevant date falls within school term times and I am not therefore satisfied that this restriction was clearly conveyed to the appellant. The contravention has not therefore be proved. I allow the appeal.
----------
Case reference 2250084692
Appellant Malcolm Batki
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM YB73ZJN
PCN Details
PCN AF30296677
Contravention date 18 Dec 2024
Contravention time 15:01:00
Contravention location Ashford Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 27 May 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons It seems to me that the Appellant’s contention as to the clarity of the signage is in one respect well founded.
Under the terms of the Traffic Management Order the restriction on the Zone sign applies on all days during the restricted hours. There is no limitation as to school term time nor does any such limitation appear on the Zone signs. The Council, however, has added a blue sign stating “School Streets Restricted Access Term time only” This non-statutory sign is intended no doubt to inform motorists that the Council, as matter of discretion, will not enforce the prohibition out of term time. However I agree with the Appellant that a motorist will not necessarily know what is and is not term time, particularly on a date so close to Christmas. For this reason, references to term time on signage have always been frowned upon in the Traffic Signs Manual. The addition of this sign inevitably undermines the clarity of the Zone sign which correctly reflects the TMO.
The site photographs show the presence of advance warning signs and, for the avoidance of doubt, had it not been for the presence of the blue signs I would have held that the signage is otherwise perfectly clear. Motorists cannot assume that because a route was open to them on a previous occasion that will never change. Evidence of the number of contraventions, requested under FO,I is of virtually no value unless one knows the converse (which in practice one never does) i.e. how many motorists found the signage clear and complied with it.
Nevertheless as I am not satisfied the signage was clear in its present form the Appeal must be allowed.
-
Redbridge have a nasty little habit of not taking down the signs even when the school term is over.
Couple this with their own website which gives some reassurance that the school term was over when the alleged contravention was committed, id be very tempted to defend this one until the end.
https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/schools/term-dates/
-
21/7 is the date of notice
17/7 is the said date of offence
-
You are right. I've put some pics from the other side of the school i think. I have now removed these from the OP. The location is about 10 mins from my home, so i'll drive back to the location and get the right pics.
-
Cases have been won on the term time sign and the date - 21 July - is certainly open to being out of term time.
Looks like you've also put some pics that aren't at this location.
(https://i.ibb.co/vxLH6WC5/Um-JHe-Ux-PVGR3-T3-RFek-NJLz-M4-Sm-Zya29-FZXJr-QUp-YT2-U4-UEh-QYn-Fz-SDRSRHd-UWWh-OZWx6a1-Yr-Y3-Fke.gif)
-
Hi all,
My wife just received a PCN through the post. Due to roadworks and closures in the area, she had to reroute, which may have caused some confusion. Can this be challenged on the basis of the ambiguous "term-time only" signage?
Honestly, I'm fed up with how easy it is to get a ticket these days—I’m even considering getting her a push bike for local commuting!
(https://i.imgur.com/Usmeg8e.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/yIp8n6a.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8vWj4xG.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/poKfMPo.jpeg)