Free Traffic Legal Advice

I'm bumping this as I have to get my appeal into the tribunal by the end of this week, is there a consensus amongst the scholars here relating to the points made by @SITR and @MrChips?

Thanks in advance.

Thanks again to @H C Andersen for your kindly drafted argument to the adjudicator and @ Incandescent for your comments.

I have tinkered with the draft and I paste it below for comment before registering my appeal with London Tribunals, my last day to appeal being 15/09/2025 I believe.


Appeal to London Tribunals - PCN GR15616561

Primary Ground: Traffic Regulation Order not properly indicated by appropriate traffic signs

Summary of Case

I parked opposite 2 Gallions Road on 24/05/2025, approaching via Peartree Way (northbound), then east along Bugsby's Way and south along Gallions Road. No CPZ entry signs were visible from this approach route, constituting a fundamental breach of regulatory requirements.

Detailed Grounds for Appeal

1. INADEQUATE SIGNAGE - PRIMARY GROUND

Factual Position

The authority states in their NOR: "Entry signs into the CPZ explain the restriction... These have been checked and we believe that they are correct in line with the regulations and adequately placed for the purpose of enforcement."
However, objective evidence contradicts this assertion.

Evidence of Non-Compliance

Google Street View evidence (dated 2 months ago): https://maps.app.goo.gl/gNUbmSW8kU49c7SdA

Critical deficiencies identified:

•   Sign orientation failure: Using a clock face reference, the nearside sign faces approximately 10-4 position, while the offside sign (evidenced by shadow casting) is oriented 9-3, parallel to the dual carriageway
•   Visibility failure: Neither sign is clearly visible to drivers approaching on the 30mph dual carriageway
•   Regulatory non-compliance: Signs fail to meet TSRGD requirements for visibility and orientation

Legal Requirements Not Met

Under Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD):
•   Signs must be positioned to be "clearly visible" to approaching traffic
•   Signs must provide adequate advance warning of restrictions
•   Orientation must ensure maximum visibility to vehicles entering the zone

The authority has failed to discharge its burden of proving regulatory compliance.

2. ABSENCE OF LOADING RESTRICTION SIGNAGE

The authority claims: "loading and waiting restrictions are in place... Entry signs into the CPZ explain the restriction on driving, parking, loading and unloading inside the zone."

This is factually incorrect:

•   The CPZ signs do not refer to loading restrictions
•   No loading restriction markings are placed within the zone
•   Authority has provided no evidence of specific loading restriction signage

This represents either: a) Misstatement of the restrictions actually in force, or
b) Inadequate signage for the restrictions claimed

3. AUTHORITY'S INVESTIGATION DEFICIENCIES

The NOR states: "These have been checked and we believe that they are correct in line with the regulations."

Evidence suggests no proper investigation occurred:

•   No site-specific assessment of sign visibility from my approach route
•   No consideration of sign orientation defects
•   Generic response without addressing specific technical failures raised
•   Failure to examine central issue of sign visibility and regulatory compliance

This constitutes a procedurally flawed decision based on inadequate investigation.

4. PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETIES IN NOTICE OF REJECTION

The NOR fails to comply with Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, Regulation 6(6)(a):

Specific Breaches:

1.   Failure to describe appeal procedures - No reference to adjudicator's power to register late appeals (Appeals Regs 6(6)(a)(iii) and 7(2)(b))
2.   Failure to indicate costs powers - No mention of adjudicator's power to award costs (Appeals Reg 6(6)(a)(ii))

Important Note: The inclusion of a generic tribunal leaflet does not substitute for specific statutory requirements in the NOR itself, nor does it relieve the authority of its regulatory duties under the 2007 Regulations.

Authority's Burden of Proof Not Discharged

The authority must prove:

1.   Adequate signage was in place and visible from my approach route
2.   Regulatory compliance with TSRGD requirements
3.   Proper investigation of the specific concerns raised

None of these requirements have been satisfied.

Remedy Sought

I respectfully request that the adjudicator:

1.   Allow this appeal and direct cancellation of PCN GR15616561
2.   Find that the traffic regulation order was not properly indicated by appropriate signs
3.   Find that the authority failed to properly investigate the representations made
4.   Consider costs given the procedural deficiencies and inadequate investigation by the authority

Supporting Evidence

•   Google Street View link demonstrating sign orientation defects
•   Photographic and video evidence of approach route

Conclusion

The fundamental principle that parking restrictions must be clearly and adequately signed has not been met. The objective evidence demonstrates that the CPZ signs are improperly oriented and neither are visible from the relevant approach route.

The authority's superficial investigation and procedurally defective NOR compound these substantive failings.

It is felt that this PCN is legally unenforceable and should be cancelled.

Thanks in advance.

Coming off at the third exit on that roundabout even if you were in the outside lane of the carriageway, you would struggle to see the entry sign on the westbound carriageway. I only noticed it when I walked the route to take the pictures and shoot the video.

@John UK,

My wife was going to the dental practice on the corner of Gallions Road with our son, the intention was to drop him off and leave him with his brother and then park in the retail car park adjacent. Unfortunately the younger son became unwell whilst in the surgery resulting in the prolonged stay.   

@H C Andersen,

Thank you for the draft response, I'll wait to see what if any further comments are made by others.

@Incandescent I have another video of me standing at the CPZ entry sign which can be viewed here with a few more images attached taken on 14/07/25 showing the angle of the sign from the footway.

Thanks for all of your comments.

Hi All,

As previously mentioned my wife received a PCN which wasn't challenged during the reduced 14 day period, when the Notice to Owner arrived I drafted a representation and sent to Greenwich prior to me know of this site.

The particulars of the representation and the rejection letter, along with images and a video are attached for perusal and comment.

CPZ entry sign not visible from the highway

Entering CPZ from Peartree Lane Roundabout

Thanks in advance.

Hi @Pastmybest,

Correct as on the GSV and the attached jpeg image, this is the box in question.

Thanks in advance.

Hi John,

Video link shared in my now edited original post.

Thanks in advance,