Received this email declaring that LBN will be contesting this at the tribunal:
It seems their core point is this:
The appellant’s core argument amounts to a semantic
distinction between suspension terminology and waiting restrictions. This does not
affect the legality of the restriction, nor the correctness of the contravention issued.
London Tribunals have recently informed London Borough of Newham (LBN) of your application
to appeal the decision to reject your representations relating to the above mentioned Penalty
Charge Notice(s). Following a review of your original representation(s), the Notice of Rejection
letter(s) and all of the subsequent documentation that you have provided, London Borough of
Newham wish to contest this appeal.
...
We the London Borough of Newham submit that Penalty Charge Notice (PCN)
PN23465850 was correctly issued and served. We can also confirm that the PCN
complies with The Traffic Management Act 2004.
...
The location hosted suspension stating “Tuesday 2nd September 2025 - Tuesday 2nd
September 2025 8am – 4pm Credon Road E13 (All spaces outside 67 Credon Road
to outside 77 Credon Road) for Tree works.
Authority’s position:
The contravention occurred and the PCN was correctly issued.
Temporary Traffic Order and Restriction
A Temporary Traffic Order (TTO) was in force at the location on the date of the
contravention. The purpose and effect of the order was to prohibit waiting within
the affected length of highway during the relevant period.
While the appellant refers to the use of the term “suspension” within
correspondence, the legal effect of the TTO was to remove the parking place and
impose a waiting restriction. Once a parking place is suspended or removed under
a temporary order, the area ceases to operate as a parking place for the duration of
the order and becomes subject to a waiting prohibition. Enforcement is therefore
correctly undertaken under contravention code 01.
The descriptive term “suspension” is commonly used to explain the effect of a
temporary restriction to motorists, but this does not alter the legal nature of the
restriction created by the order nor invalidate the contravention alleged.
Signage and Prescribed Hours
The TTO provides that the restriction applies when appropriate prescribed traffic
signs are placed. On the date of enforcement, temporary traffic signage was in
situ, as evidenced by the CEO photographs.
The signage clearly conveyed:
• that the previous parking provision was not available, and
• the hours during which waiting was prohibited (8am–6pm).
The authority contends that the signage was clear, visible, and adequate to inform
a reasonably diligent motorist of the restriction in force. Temporary traffic orders
commonly operate for defined periods rather than “at any time”, and the inclusion of
operational hours on the sign does not invalidate the restriction or render the signage
inappropriate.
The appellant has not demonstrated that the signage failed to comply with the Traffic
Signs Regulations or that it was misleading. The mere absence of identical wording
between the order and the sign does not negate enforceability where the restriction
is clearly conveyed.
Consideration of Representations
The authority considered the appellant’s informal and formal representations and
responded accordingly. The appellant’s core argument amounts to a semantic
distinction between suspension terminology and waiting restrictions. This does not
affect the legality of the restriction, nor the correctness of the contravention issued.
The authority was satisfied, at both stages, that:
• a valid TTO was in force,
• appropriate signage was displayed, and
• the vehicle was parked in contravention of the temporary waiting restriction.