Free Traffic Legal Advice

Couple of same adjudications from Redbridge not encouraging but they are both for the same school pedestrian zone by the same adjudicator.

Here's one.

-----------


Case reference 2250447038
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM FE65JUJ
 
PCN Details
PCN AF20525756
Contravention date 22 Jul 2025
Contravention time 15:14:00
Contravention location Cleveland Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
 
Referral date -
 
Decision Date 08 Jan 2026
Adjudicator Chez Cotton
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons Introduction
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (Code 53).
2. This a postal appeal.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is set out as, ‘My vehicle entered the temporary pedestrian zone on Cleveland Road at 15:14 on 22nd July 2025. The restriction applies during school hours on school days and the nearest school in that area is Cleveland Primary School which broke up for the summer holidays at 1:30 PM on the same day (as stated in their newsletter). Therefore, by 15:14, the school was closed, and the restriction was no longer in effect. Given that the contravention occurred outside of term time, I respectfully request that this penalty charge be cancelled.’
4. A copy of the relevant newsletter has been provided.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
5. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on footage to show the contravention occurred. A plan and photographs of the signage has been provided. The EA says this shows the restriction is signed and clear, and, further, enforceable under a valid Traffic Management Order (TMO), a copy of which is provided.
6. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations. The EA state, ‘Whilst the school closed early at 13:30 on 22 )uly 2025. The restriction under Code 53-J is based on published and legally enforceable time periods, not on the operational status of the school on any given day. The signage clearly indicates the restricted hours, and enforcement is valid during those times regardless of whether pupils are present. The contravention is based on failing to comply with a traffic sign, not the presence of children.’
7. The EA has provided a screenshot of the Redbridge Council website showing Summer Term dates are, ‘Tuesday 22 April 2025 to Tuesday 22 July 2025.’
8. The EA does not wish to exercise their discretion.
9. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.

Findings and Conclusion
10. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully.
11. Based on the footage provided, and additional evidential materials from the EA, I am satisfied the Appellant’s vehicle was in the relevant location, at the relevant time. I am satisfied that the signage complies with the relevant regulations and is adequately clear to inform a motorist. I am therefore satisfied that the contravention occurred and that it is enforceable by way of a valid Traffic Management Order, which I have seen.
12. I accept the EA evidence that the Summer Term is Tuesday 22 April to Tuesday 22 July 2025. I accept the school in the relevant location may have closed earlier on the 22 July 2025. However, I accept the EA evidence that this is a discrete ‘operational’ decision of the relevant school. On balance, I find this does not mean the stated term time has changed. It follows that I find, on balance, the restriction was in force at the relevant time.
13. The circumstances set out by the Appellant amount to mitigation, which no adjudicator is allowed to consider. This was confirmed in the case of Walmsley v TfL and others [2005] EWCA Civ 1540. It is an established principle that adjudicators in these cases do not have a discretion, nor can they direct an Enforcing Authority to exercise its discretion to consider mitigating circumstances.
14. For these reasons I find a contravention occurred and the PCN has been validly issued.
Decision
15. The appeal is refused.

Thanks - so not sounding good for me 

Hi All, thanks for your help thus far. Finally received the NTO. I believe the 28-day deadline would end 15 Jan 2026.  Please can you help. Here is my proposed challenge (which I used for the appeal previously - originally using links and not attachments, but now including attachments):

To Whom It May Concern
The driver believed the no stopping sign with specified times applied only
during term time. Their sons finished school early that day, see attached proof.  Based on the fact the term had ended, enforcement could not apply according to the order.
 
Although term time isn’t stated on the sign, it’s illogical to enforce such specific
Times year-round when school isn’t in session. Research revealed the Harrow
(Prohibition of Stopping Outside Schools) (Amendment No. 1) Traffic Order 1998,
which confirms the restriction applies during term time only (see attached).

The sign contradicts the order by implying year-round enforcement. Therefore,
The PCN should be cancelled.

If not, please provide the Traffic Management Order that supersedes the 1998 one
and explicitly authorises all-year restrictions, rather than relying on misleading
signage..

You didn't post a draft - you should have copied the school's term info and then said as the term had ended enforcement could not apply according to their order.

All you have is a template rejection.

You can write to them now spelling this out to try and head off the NTO or paying.

Sorry, I should of explained. I posted the school terms info with proof that it closed early that day.

Is it 'hired' or is it 'leased'?

Unfortunately, the issue is fundamental, not incidental, because, as already stated, should your informal reps be rejected and the matter progress to a NTO this would be sent to the hire/lease company and then you're in their hands.

So, let's get the best informal reps as we can compiled.

Actually, it's a lease.

You have redacted the PCN and VRM details.

The PCN details are shown in the image. Here it is again (in case you can't see it): IY00136465
Sorry, I didn't show the VRM (wasn't too sure what to show). It's LL24 GYO.
Thanks

Quote from: challenge_cheaters on June 02, 2025, 10:04:32 pm

At this point do I need to respond again?

Yes, pointing out any flaws in their evidence. We'll need to see it if you want our help.

Quote from: challenge_cheaters on June 02, 2025, 10:04:32 pm

Additionally, Horizon have reached out to me again with a Notice to keeper. Is that expected/ correct?

They shouldn't once you've appealed to POPLA - what date did you submit your POPLA appeal?

I appealed to POPLA on Sunday 18th May. It seems like they issued their reminder on Saturday 17th May but I didn't receive it until after I issued the POPLA appeal. Saturday is not a typical office day, so doesn't that sound suspicious?

Quote from: challenge_cheaters on May 09, 2025, 12:40:22 pm

Quote from: Hippocrates on May 08, 2025, 01:47:00 pm

The amount outstanding on the PCN is £80.00, and will increase to £160.00 on Mon, 19 May 2025. Please pay £80.00 now.

Date is wrong.

Highlighted in red are wrong/inappropriate.

In bold limits to theft.

The contravention did not occur
I was not the owner of the vehicle at the time the contravention occurred
The vehicle had been taken without the keepers consent (i.e. it was stolen)
We are a hire firm and will provide details of the hirer
The PCN exceeded the amount applicable
The PCN has been paid
I am a key worker
I wish to make representations about this PCN for other reasons

Thanks for the feedback, although I am a little confused about what you advised and what to say. Please could you clarify? One thing I forgot to mention: the PCN was addressed to my Mum as she's the keeper of the car, but it was my dad who was driving.

Please could you help clarify? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks

Hi, any clarity would be much appreciated.

Hi all...as I approach my last day is there anyone that can provide assistance?  Many Thanks