Show Posts - jimzzr

I now have a hearing date for the 24/03/2026

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.

How does this sound.SUMMARY RESPONSE TO MEDWAY'S EVIDENCE PACKMy Original Representations against this PCN1) My car was parked on a single yellow line with no time plate in a controlled zone and the signs I passed at the entrance to the controlled zone were rotated to the point that for all practical purposes they were absent (i.e. at right angles to the direction of travel). I did not pass any other controlled zone signs prior to parking2) The council have therefore failed to sign the restriction correctly or adequately, the restriction was therefore of no effect and therefore a contravention could not have been committed under these circumstances.My response to the Council's Evidence1) The Council's summary responds to the case of a Mr.Miah, completely different to my own PCN and case.The Council makes not attempt to rebut my appeal/2)The councils evidence ‘photo’ a3d26c93-f4af-4ceb-8657-149fa8f35100_CPZ Canterbury StScreenshot 2026-02-26 091014.png:a)   shows controlled zone signs that I did NOT pass at any point prior to parking.b)    from the notice to owner appeal rejection it can be inferred that this image relates to the erroneous assumption by Medway, that due to my parked direction I did not enter the controlled zone where I did. However,1) I have consistently stated that I turned around prior to parking2) As this was at night and not a marked bay, Highway Code rule 248 demands that I park the car in the direction of travel I did.c)   Medways attempt to draw an adverse inference from the direction in which I parked is therefore baseless and should be disregarded.3) The councils evidence photo c04b5ae6-f478-454e-828c-3b9ee3ec7dc7_Canterbury St CPZ sign Screenshot 2026-02-26 085701.pngThis image shows the sign I passed heading north on Canterbury St at the junction with Stafford St. However, the ‘photo’ is a screen grab from google street view taken in December 2020. The most recent google street view images from October 24 (see my evidence 17 Oct24vsDec20streetview images copy.jpg) show non compliant signage consistent with my evidence photos (Evidence 2, 13 to 16) .Evidence 17 also gives the December 2020 streetview image, which from, vehicles, fencing and billboards shows indisputably  that it is the source of the councils photo.The councils photo amounts to an attempt to mislead the TPT into thinking there is compliant signage when there is not. Their evidence photo must therefore be disregarded as it does not reflect the current state of the signage.

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.

Council evidence images belowMapThe cpz signs I didn't drive through, not exactly sure of their location (probably north end of canterbury st looking south)The cpz sign I did drive through junction canterbury and stafford street. Image Medway have screen grabbed from google streetview Dec 2020. See https://maps.app.goo.gl/xE1HdqZd4Njzvjkg8 notice fencing and red taxi. Most/more recent streetview streams show non compliant signage

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 followsEvidence 1Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)Published Date: February 10, 2026 15:08Published By: AppellantAttachment: Appoaching start of cpz_3.jpgDescription: Photo showing (lack of) entry signs passed on entryto CPZ. Location of signs arrowed for clarity.Evidence 2Evidence Type: Case Status Report/System Audit/ProgressionHistoryPublished Date: February 26, 2026 10:57Published By: Authority ManagerAttachment: MW00080-2602 INGRAM.pdfDescription: Copy of ticket history.Evidence 3Evidence Type: PhotographsPublished Date: February 26, 2026 11:02Published By: Authority ManagerAttachment: MW00080-2602 INGRAM Photos.pdfDescription: Copy of photographs taken at time ofcontravention.Evidence 4Evidence Type: Informal Challenge RejectionPublished Date: February 26, 2026 11:03Published By: Authority ManagerAttachment: MW00080-2602 INGRAM Informal rejection.pdfDescription: Copy of informal challenge rejection.Evidence 5Evidence Type: Notice of Rejection of RepresentationPublished Date: February 26, 2026 11:05Published By: Authority ManagerAttachment: MW00080-2602 INGRAM formal rejection.pdfDescription: Copy of notice of rejection of formalrepresentations.Evidence 6Evidence Type: Informal ChallengePublished Date: February 26, 2026 11:08Published By: Authority ManagerAttachment: 20251106-145732-Workflow attachment added-30051.eml01291333.emlDescription: Copy of informal representations.Evidence 7Evidence Type: Formal RepresentationPublished Date: February 26, 2026 11:10Published By: Authority ManagerAttachment: 20260108-204633-Workflow attachment added-30051.eml01296150.emlDescription: Copy of formal representationsEvidence 8Evidence Type: Notice to OwnerPublished Date: February 26, 2026 11:16Published By: Authority ManagerAttachment: INGRAM-26-02-2026-11-14-06.pdfDescription: Copy of Notice To Owner.Evidence 9Evidence Type: Map showing locationPublished Date: February 26, 2026 11:19Published By: Authority ManagerAttachment: Canterbury St Map Screenshot 2026-02-26105910.pngDescription: Copy of map showing location.Evidence 10Evidence Type: PhotographsPublished Date: February 26, 2026 11:20Published By: Authority ManagerAttachment: CPZ Canterbury StScreenshot 2026-02-26091014.pngDescription: Copy of photograph showing CPZ signage on entryto location.Evidence 11Evidence Type: PhotographsPublished Date: February 26, 2026 11:21Published By: Authority ManagerAttachment: Canterbury St CPZ sign Screenshot 2026-02-26085701.pngDescription: Copy of signage showing CPZ signage.Evidence 12Evidence Type: MW031 - The Medway Council (Gillingham andBrompton) (Parking Places and Waiting, Loading and StoppingRestrictions) Consolidation Order 2016Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:23Published By: Authority ManagerDescription: Copy of TRO specifically page 125, item 2/44schedule 2.Evidence 13Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)Published Date: February 28, 2026 17:10Published By: AppellantAttachment: view from stafford st accross canterbury st 1.jpgDescription: Photo showing view of cpz signage from stafford stlooking towards canterbury stEvidence 14Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)Published Date: February 28, 2026 17:13Published By: AppellantAttachment: view from stafford st accross canterbury st 2.jpgDescription: view of cpz signage from stafford st looking acrosscanterbury stEvidence 15Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)Published Date: February 28, 2026 17:20Published By: AppellantAttachment: viewfrom cant st of cpz signs corner with staffst.jpgDescription: photo showing view from canterbury st of signs atjunction with stafford stEvidence 16Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)Published Date: February 28, 2026 17:25Published By: AppellantAttachment: view from canterbury st down stafford st 1.jpgDescription: wider view of entrance to stafford st from canterburyst added just to give context to zoomed in image of cpz signs onright hand side

Hi John,1) I do not yet have a hearing date2) I have not yet selected hearing type but need to do so before thursday, I guess I need to select in person.3) I only have the text for the other persons case in the evidence pack, see below (the name I've deleted is nothing like mine)Appellant Explanation and Authority SummaryAppellant ExplanationI rely on my representation to Medway Council.I would like to addthat Medway council are mistaken in their belief that I hadn't turnedaround in the CPZ having only passed the entry under dispute(photo attached). (I am almost certain that I mentioned my changein direction of travel in my informal reps)For completeness thewording of my formal appeal to Medway council is below:"I amappealing on the grounds that the contravention did not occur. Thesingle yellow line on which I was parked had no time plate and inaddition the signage at the entry to the CPZ is for all practicalpurposes absent.Specifically:The CPZ sign on the left hand side ofCanterbury street cannot be seen at all driving into the zone – ithas been rotated completely through 90 degrees and only its poleis visible.The sign on the right hand side is also severely rotated: itcan just be made out that there is a sign there, but is at such anacute angle that it is impossible to read it or identify it as a CPZsign, if you see it at all, particularly when driving at night as I was.Ihave taken a picture to show this (enclosed).As the council hasfailed to comply with its duty to maintain signs that convey therestriction to the drivers, the PCN must be cancelled and I lookforward to early confirmation."Authority SummaryThis statement is submitted in response to Mr xxxxxxxxx appealsagainst the Penalty Charge Notices issued for parking adjacent todouble yellow lines.Mr Miah's argument that the vehicle wasparked on a single yellow line when parking is allowed all day on aSunday, but the rear wheel was only slightly on the Double Yellowline. Is not supported by evidence provided by Medway Council,which clearly shows that the vehicle has its rear axle parkedadjacent to the Double Yellow lines, which is enforceable at anytime.In summary, the contravention is clearly observed in thephotographic evidence Item 6, specifically photograph 5,photographs taken at time of the contravention. The vehicles rearaxle has clearly parked adjacent to the yellow lines which is incontravention of the Highway code.Whilst Medway Councilappreciate that parking in the area may be demanding theenforcement officer cannot discriminate when issuing a ticket. If avehicle is seen to be parked adjacent to yellow lines and is notexempt, it will receive a ticket. Yellow lines, whether double orsingle, are installed for safety or access reasons and thereforemust be kept clear.The explanations provided by the appellant donot align with the legal requirements or the evidence available.Forthe reasons above, the authority respectfully requests that theappeal be refused and the penalty charge upheld.4) There doesn't appear to anything submitted as to why my appeal should be denied, only within the evidence i.e. the NoR to the appear to NTO posted earlier in this thread. They are essentially arguing I must have entered the zone from the opposite end of canterbury street from what I did based on the direction my car is parked and have included an  image of these signs. Plus the image from 2020 of the sign I did pass.

Hi All,I have now received a response/evidence from medway to my appeal to the traffic penalty tribunal.I have some issues I would like some advice on.1) Medway have submitted the text for another case in their outline of their case. Can they correct this.2) In relation to the cpz signage heading north on canterbury st Medway have included an image of the sign on the LHS only showing a compliant sign. However, on investigation I have discovered that this image in in fact a screen grab from google street view back in December 2020. This is not the default street view image, more/most recent images shown non compliant signage. The 2020 image also shows different fencing.Given that it's not possible to accidently screen grab past street view images this is clearly an attempted deception.Obviously I can add additional evidence to expose this. However, is there a separate complaint route regarding medways attempt to pervert the proceedings.3) Regarding their direction of travel argument that have included a set of compliant signs from some over entry point, however a) there are more than 2 entry points. b)given that according to Highway Code Rule 248, you must not park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space. I don't see how one can reasonably draw some adverse conclusion from the direction I was parked Many ThanksJim

Yes I'm sure I stated in the informal challenge that I turned around. I've not yet looked at the further tribunal appeal website. Do I get to add additional points if so what. So far Medway have refused to be drawn into commenting on their signage. Do I need more photos?I actually turned around by going right down a side street (green st) then left into theodore pl then right back into green st, finally turning Left onto  canterbury street at the same place I turned off. None of this exits the zone or passes any CPZ signs.I should also say I had two passengers who can corroborate that we entered the going N on canterbury street.

Hi All,They rejected the appeal. It would appear they believe drivers never turn around with a cpz. Letter below

Just an update. I now have the NTO from Medway.I'll put in an appeal sticking to the main point as suggested by HC Andersen, using the same photo as before.draft for comment below.I am appealing on the grounds that the contravention did not occur. The single yellow line on which I was parked had no time plate and in addition the signage at the entry to the CPZ is for all practical purposes absent. Specifically: The CPZ sign on the left hand side of Canterbury street cannot be seen at all driving into the zone – it has been rotated completely through 90 degrees and only its pole is visible.The sign on the right hand side is also severely rotated: it can just be made out that there is a sign there, but is at such an acute angle that it is impossible to read it or identify it as a CPZ sign, if you see it at all, particularly when driving at night as I was. I have taken a picture to show this (enclosed).As the council has failed to comply with its duty to maintain signs that convey the restriction to the drivers, the PCN must be cancelled and I look forward to early confirmation. 

Sorry for the delay replying. For some reason didn't get email notification of the last couple of posts.Yes I'm the registered keeper on day of contravention (owned car for many years outright). Details are all correct.@roythebus the signs have been rotated. I've included what was my view (N. on canterbury) and a view from the road on the left (stafford st). From the stafford st view you can see a zone E entry sign and behind it across the road the reverse side (zone end) of the other zone E entry sign.

Hi,As was predicted Medway have rejected the informal appeal. Have made no reference to my photos of the sign(s) and state "The times are clearly indicated on the entry signs to the Controlled Parking Zone.".I guess I now need to wait for the NTO and put it in (the same?) again, which I happy to do so long as you guys think the odds are on my side.Rejection here for those interested

Quote from: stamfordman on 05 Nov, 2025 16:45Yes I wasn't sure about the CPZs. I had a look on Maps and there is a parking bay outside KFC where the time ends at 10pm to match the CPZ, but there is another bay on the opposite side near where you were that ends at 6pm (if still current). While CPZs control only single yellow lines, bay times are often the same.Is my edited version in post above OK, or is it worth me taking a trip out to check the bay times?I know one of the bays on opposite side was definitely earlier (not sure if 6 or 8 pm) as there was a space about a ft too short for me I tried to get into. edit GSV suggests I'm wrong about the bays on the side I parked adjoining the SYL and are 10 pm.ThanksJim

Need to change this slightly I'm not sure there are any 6.30 cpzs. CPZ are only really used in gillingham (their map is confusing as it actually shows permit parking areas, some of which are also cpz's.How does this sound?--------I am challenging PCN number MW93865873 on the basis that the contravention did not occur owing to inadequate signage. I parked on a single yellow line on Canterbury Street and did not see any controlled zone signs on my route, and also checked the yellow line for a timeplate, finding none.I am an occasional visitor to Gillingham and am well aware of controlled zones.  On a previous visit to Gillingham I recalled the CPZ operating from 8am to 8pm. This was only 0.5 km from where I parked on this visit, so felt sure this was also the case.I was puzzled to get the PCN and spent some time retracing my route which was, north on Canterbury Street, before turning around and parking outside Medway Medals.I managed to find seriously defective entry signs:The sign on the left hand side of the road cannot be seen at all – it has been rotated completely through 90 degrees and only its pole is visible. The sign on the right hand side is also severely rotated: it can just be made out that there is a sign there, but is at such an acute angle that it is impossible to read it when driving or even to spot it’s there.I have taken a picture to show this (enclosed).As the council has failed to comply with its duty to maintain signs that convey the restriction to the drivers, the PCN must be cancelled and I look forward to early confirmation. I hope too this will aid you in restoring the signs to their compliant positions.[/quote]