Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi

My insurer is not offering to renew my policy. In their letter (Text pasted below) they state that "This does not need to be declared". It is not clear to me whether they mean the whole not offering to renew or something else. Haven't looked around yet so not too sure what specific questions insurers ask.

Can I rely on their instruction not to declare? Does their letter amount to have had insurance declined. Not too sure what questions insurers ask on this subject.

"Hello
Your car insurance for your FORD xxxxxxx is due to expire soon.

Based on the current information we hold for you we're not going to offer to renew your policy -your car insurance will end at 23:59 on 25 Jun 2026.

We're sorry we can't continue covering you. Thank you for being with us.

Why have we taken this decision?

Within the last year we have amended our appetite for whom we insure which means your details now fall outside these criteria. This could include:

Your make or model of vehicle.
Your occupation and/or use limitation for the vehicle.
The drivers and/or combination of drivers and their driving experience.

This does not affect your ability to obtain alternative insurance elsewhere as we are not cancelling your insurance, so this does not need to be declared."

Hi All,

Costs Application won.

Adjudicator's Reasons:
1. This is an application by the appellant for the costs of his appeal, which I heard on 24 March 2026 and allowed.

2. The Appellant subsequently applied for costs.
 
3. On 31 March 2026 the Authority was directed to file any submissions on the Appellant's costs application within 14 days. According to the Tribunal’s records the Authority has not submitted any views in relation to the costs application.
 
4. An Adjudicator must not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses but may, subject to representations from a party, make such an order if he/she is of the opinion that the party has acted frivolously or vexatiously, or that his/her conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable. Costs must be costs and expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings-proceedings mean from the issue of the Notice of Rejection.

5. The Appellant submits that the Authority intentionally presented a Google Streetview image from December 2020 to try to prove compliant signage, when more recent images show it to be noncompliant. The Appellant submits that this was a deliberate act as the person who selected the image had to select a sub menu and then select the date in question from many both before and after images. The Appellant submits that it is not credible that this image was captured in error from Google Streetview. The Appellant comments that “it is hard to conceptualise any other motive for presenting this image than an attempt to mislead proceedings”. The appellant comments that the Authority did not clarify the date of the image or its source. The Appellant submits that presentation of the December 2020 image amounts to the presentation of false evidence, which is ‘wholly unreasonable” behaviour.

6. The Appellant also submits that the Authority’s conclusions in its Notice of Rejection were irrational. As the Authortiy submitted a case summary for a different case in the appeal, the Appellant submits that the Notice of Rejection should stand for the case summary. The Appellant submits that the Authority’s conclusion that he entered from a different direction due to the position of his vehicle is perverse. The Appellant had explained that he had turned around and parked with the direction of the traffic as required.

7. The Authority has not provided any explanation for why it used the December 2020 image.

8. I allowed the appeal because I found that the signage in place was not adequately visible or clear to put the Appellant on notice of the restriction. During the hearing, I found that the Appellant had demonstrated that the Authority’s image of the CPZ signage on Canterbury Street, at evidence tab 11, was not a photograph, rather it was a cropped screenshot from Google Street View dated December 2020, although the date of the image did not appear on the Authority’s image.

9. The Authority failed to consider the Appellant’s route, set out in his submissions, or photographic evidence as to the conditions of the signage during the appeal process. The Appellant has shown that the Authority intentionally selected photographs from years before the alleged contravention, in December 2020, to provide a misleading view of the signage in place at the time of the alleged contraventions and to discredit the Appellant’s photographic evidence. The Authority used the images from December 2020, instead of other Google images available from October 2022, May 2023 or October 2024, which showed the sign to be rotated and not clearly visible to motorists.

10. In the circumstances, I am persuaded that the Authority acted wholly unreasonably in producing this image and presenting it as a reflection of the signage in place either at the time of the alleged contravention or at the time of the appeal hearing. The Authority has not responded to the Appellant’s suggestion that it was deliberate attempt to mislead.

11. I have considered the Appellant's request, and my finding is that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to award the £72 costs sought, as set out under the heading “Costs claimed” attached to his application.

It's possible to get an MoT up to 4 weeks before the expiry of the current one. Is the bike insured would be more of a worry.

It's insured but no point taxing over winter when I know I'm not going to ride it, and I object to buying partial months of tax.

Hi,

Can I take a SORNED vehicle to a pre-booked MOT without road tax, even though the current MOT is still valid and I could tax it?

Thanks

Jim

Hi All,

Just to update, appeal won.

Adjudicator accepted my account of route into zone. Medway didn't turn up. Don't think she was terribly impressed with their use of 5 year old street view images.

Thanks for your assistance with this.

Jim

There's only the one photo of the junction I drove through (canterbury/stafford st) i.e. the other is a different location - the two photos posted above in total, no other images.

To get an image of two compliant signs at the canturbury/stafford st junction they would have to have gone back even further in time and then there a huge billboard behind the sign on the left making it more obviously different to mine.

I suspect they're hoping the adjudicator would see two compliant signs and a close up and just assume the same location.

I can currently add evidence, but I've no idea of cut off date.

What the portal does allow is to give comments on each piece of evidence, so i could add some similar wording there instead or as well as.

The procedure was Medway send a code with the NoR.
I then registered the appeal stating case for appeal, which  is the same as the text above (it was added automatically to the evidence pack).
I believe there was also a tick box for grounds i.e. contravention did not occur.
At that time I uploaded one photo as evidence - the same as I had used at earlier appeal stages.
Within 14 day Medway had to reply, which they, did with their evidence. From that date (last thursday) I had seven days to select the hearing type or it defaults to not in person.
I have now added some additional photos of signage to rebut medways deception.

There's no covering letter with the evidence pack. It basically the text I posted above plus an evidence list, as follows

Evidence 1
Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)
Published Date: February 10, 2026 15:08
Published By: Appellant
Attachment: Appoaching start of cpz_3.jpg
Description: Photo showing (lack of) entry signs passed on entry
to CPZ. Location of signs arrowed for clarity.

Evidence 2
Evidence Type: Case Status Report/System Audit/Progression
History
Published Date: February 26, 2026 10:57
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: MW00080-2602 INGRAM.pdf
Description: Copy of ticket history.

Evidence 3
Evidence Type: Photographs
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:02
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: MW00080-2602 INGRAM Photos.pdf
Description: Copy of photographs taken at time of
contravention.

Evidence 4
Evidence Type: Informal Challenge Rejection
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:03
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: MW00080-2602 INGRAM Informal rejection.pdf
Description: Copy of informal challenge rejection.

Evidence 5
Evidence Type: Notice of Rejection of Representation
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:05
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: MW00080-2602 INGRAM formal rejection.pdf
Description: Copy of notice of rejection of formal
representations.

Evidence 6
Evidence Type: Informal Challenge
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:08
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: 20251106-145732-Workflow attachment added-
30051.eml01291333.eml
Description: Copy of informal representations.

Evidence 7
Evidence Type: Formal Representation
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:10
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: 20260108-204633-Workflow attachment added-
30051.eml01296150.eml
Description: Copy of formal representations

Evidence 8
Evidence Type: Notice to Owner
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:16
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: INGRAM-26-02-2026-11-14-06.pdf
Description: Copy of Notice To Owner.

Evidence 9
Evidence Type: Map showing location
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:19
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Canterbury St Map Screenshot 2026-02-26
105910.png
Description: Copy of map showing location.

Evidence 10
Evidence Type: Photographs
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:20
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: CPZ Canterbury StScreenshot 2026-02-26
091014.png
Description: Copy of photograph showing CPZ signage on entry
to location.

Evidence 11
Evidence Type: Photographs
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:21
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Canterbury St CPZ sign Screenshot 2026-02-26
085701.png
Description: Copy of signage showing CPZ signage.

Evidence 12
Evidence Type: MW031 - The Medway Council (Gillingham and
Brompton) (Parking Places and Waiting, Loading and Stopping
Restrictions) Consolidation Order 2016
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:23
Published By: Authority Manager
Description: Copy of TRO specifically page 125, item 2/44
schedule 2.

Evidence 13
Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)
Published Date: February 28, 2026 17:10
Published By: Appellant
Attachment: view from stafford st accross canterbury st 1.jpg
Description: Photo showing view of cpz signage from stafford st
looking towards canterbury st

Evidence 14
Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)
Published Date: February 28, 2026 17:13
Published By: Appellant
Attachment: view from stafford st accross canterbury st 2.jpg
Description: view of cpz signage from stafford st looking across
canterbury st

Evidence 15
Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)
Published Date: February 28, 2026 17:20
Published By: Appellant
Attachment: viewfrom cant st of cpz signs corner with staff
st.jpg
Description: photo showing view from canterbury st of signs at
junction with stafford st

Evidence 16
Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)
Published Date: February 28, 2026 17:25
Published By: Appellant
Attachment: view from canterbury st down stafford st 1.jpg
Description: wider view of entrance to stafford st from canterbury
st added just to give context to zoomed in image of cpz signs on
right hand side