Free Traffic Legal Advice

EA has burden of proof but only to prove someone passed the motor Vehicles Prohibited sign?

So is it incumbent on the driver to prove the 'Access Only' exemption applies?

Without full CCTV coverage and/or no definitive evidence for reason for access it comes down to balance of probability.

Journey without stopping is 1 min 15 secs.  Video evidence shows 1 min 35 secs on the estate. Adjudicator has to decide if the 20 secs difference is because the driver stopped for access. 52/48 in favour of appellant?

Redbridge certainly play hardball and seem to reject everything.

They will always state that the PCN was issued correctly and that is hard to disagree with because the CEO works on what the system says. Is there is a valid session active or not? No, issue PCN.

Discretion sits with the back office team and they are expected to follow Sec of State Guidance which covers fairness, proportionality, using discretion sensibly and reasonably and use it objectively without regard to any financial interest.

They clearly do not follow the guidance. Lucky dip with the adjudicators as usual.

Anyway, I think the OP has a good chance with the lack of road markings. There isn't a recognisable bay. No bay, then the signage indicates the residents permit is valid?
What do others think?

Or search the London Gazette. I believe it's the 2021 Traffic Order and there's several amendments for Grosvenor Road since then.

A search for 'Redbridge Grosvenor' should provide what you're looking for.

The experts might know of a better way to get it.

Up to the OP if they want to take it further.
Not as nailed on as I thought.

These are the council photos.
Does it prove the contravention?
Can you see the bay?

This looks useful and applicable to my current case.  Has it been proven at Tribunal yet? Be handy to quote a case.

Quote from: flash2005 on May 28, 2026, 03:43:00 pm

Is any member able to help with this please ?

There is an issue with the PCN which uses the old 2007 legislation re "served" rather than "occurred". I will dig out my skeleton argument. It is worth using as they may well mess up their reply or fail to consider.

The PCN

This states the old 2007 wording re served rather than “occurred” as provided at Schedule 2 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022

Particulars to be included in a penalty charge notice given under regulation 9

2.  The information to be included in a penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 is—
(a)the date on which the notice is served,
(b)the regulatory matters,
(c)the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer issuing the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable,
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred,
(e)that if the penalty charge is paid no later than the applicable date, the penalty charge will be reduced by the amount of any applicable discount, and
(f)that if the penalty charge is not paid within the period of 28 days referred to in sub-paragraph (d), a notice to owner may be served by the enforcement authority on the owner of the vehicle.

Further, I do not believe the meaning of the highlighted part is sufficiently expressed on the PCN as provided at Part 2 para. 3 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022
3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the following information—

(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;

(b)that if, before a notice to owner is served, representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified in the notice for the purpose those representations will be considered by the enforcement authority;

(c)that if a notice to owner is served despite the representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.

Redbridge website is rubbish.

Didn't get a confirmation of submission of the formal Representation.

Said 28 days have expired or PCN has been paid - Both wrong - can't see the status.

Checked the payment amount - initially £110. Kept checking to ensure they didn't issue a charge certificate.

No Rejection yet but I suspect it's in the post because amount has dropped to £55 - re-offering the discount?

Assuming rejection is coming I'm going to Tribunal with this one.

Adjudicators are usually tied to the law. mandatory regulations and correct process.

It's pretty clear to me that Redbridge disregard the Sec of State guidelines.
I assume the Adjudicator will take the line that it's guidelines and not enforceable, or will they consider 'the general principals of public law'?
However, if Redbridge ignore that part of the Reps, is it a failure to consider?

What is the code on your annual permit?
It would need to be WD to be valid there.