Free Traffic Legal Advice

Yeah I am the registered Keeper!
Will submit the appeal asap but was wondering if there was anything I should add to it.

this was my write-up below:


Ground of Appeal Selected:

☑ The contravention alleged by the authority did not occur

Details of Appeal:

The Appellant appeals on the ground that the contravention did not occur.

The Appellant does not accept that the Enforcement Authority has discharged the burden of proving the alleged contravention and requires strict proof of all elements relied upon by the Authority.

Whilst the Notice of Rejection makes a number of assertions regarding the restriction, signage and advance warning signs, the Appellant has not been provided with sufficient evidence to verify those assertions.

In particular, the Appellant requires the Authority to provide:

• The complete CCTV evidence relied upon;
• Evidence identifying the precise location of the alleged contravention;
• Evidence of the restriction in force at the material time;
• Evidence of all regulatory signs relied upon by the Authority;
• Evidence of the positioning, visibility and adequacy of those signs from the driver's perspective;
• Evidence of any advance warning signs referred to in the Notice of Rejection;
• The relevant Traffic Management Order and any amendments applicable to the location.

The Notice of Rejection states that the location was checked and that the signage is compliant, visible and adequate. It further states that advance warning signs were present prior to the restriction. The Appellant requires the Authority to substantiate those assertions with contemporaneous evidence.

The Appellant respectfully submits that the burden rests with the Authority to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the restriction was correctly signed and that the alleged contravention occurred as stated.

The Appellant reserves the right to provide further submissions upon receipt and review of the Authority's evidence pack.

For completeness, the Appellant has also requested that the Authority exercise discretion in light of exceptional personal circumstances supported by medical evidence that was not available when the original representations were made. Whilst the Appellant understands that mitigation alone is not ordinarily a basis upon which an appeal can be allowed, the Appellant respectfully requests that the Adjudicator take note of these circumstances and, if appropriate, consider whether the matter should be referred back to the Authority for further consideration of discretion.

The Appellant therefore requests that the appeal be allowed and the PCN cancelled.

Hi Tincombe!

Fair questions, let me think out loud too - cos to be honest, I'm still figuring out my best argument.

To clarify, I am not saying that I definitely did or did not pass a CPZ sign on the day. My point is that the council appears to assume that I must have passed and observed one, but I have not yet seen evidence from the council showing:

* the specific CPZ sign relied upon on 30/11/2025;
* the wording displayed on that date;
* where that sign was located relative to my route; or
* evidence that it was unavoidable and sufficiently visible to a motorist.

The September sign I posted was not intended to be evidence of the sign on the day. It was simply a Google Street View example of what appears to be the likely nearest CPZ entry sign that I may have encountered when approaching the location. After receipt of the PCN, I checked my probable route and was surprised to see this sign.

To answer your questions:

**1. Do I believe I passed a sign with correct wording, but that it was too small to read?**

Yes - it is likely I passed the sign referenced above but I hand-on-heart cannot say I would have been able to read or notice or remember this sign given the small text, and distance before my eventual parking location and belief I had correctly understood the parking restrictions in that area.

**2. Is the CPZ sign I posted the actual sign relied upon by the council on the day?**

No - this a Google Maps screenshot I took to show the sign I likely passed on my way to the parking location. They have not responded with any evidence of the specific CPZ sign I passed. I have no way of showing what the sign looked like on that date.

**3. Has the council provided photographs or evidence of the actual CPZ sign that was in place on 30/11/2025?**

No - I believe not - this is not in the NOR or original PCN evidence.

**4. Has the council identified the route they say I must have taken to reach the parking place?**

Not to my knowledge, this has not been conveyed by the NOR.

**5. Can I establish how I actually approached the location on the day?**

Yeah I drove from Canning Town station to West Ham station on a route that definitely (not 100% due to the time distance from today) would have taken me by the sign I have screenshotted now.

My concern is therefore twofold.

**Firstly, proof.**

The NOR states that I "would have passed at least one of these signs on your way to the above location".

However, I have not seen evidence identifying which sign they rely upon, where it was situated on the relevant date, or that I could not have reached the bay without passing it.

The Edward Houghton decision (2250234820) seems relevant because the adjudicator required the council to prove precisely that point.

**Secondly, adequacy of the signage.**

Even if the council can establish that I passed a CPZ entry sign - even lets say the one i've referenced, I do not believe Event Day information is adequately conveyed to reasonable motorists.

My key frustration is that the Event Day notice appears as a relatively small line of text at the bottom of an already busy CPZ sign which I hope the screenshot can show especially as motorists are expected to absorb while navigating this junction, traffic, road markings, other signage and surrounding vehicles.

In addition, the bay sign itself gave no indication of:

* how Event Days are identified;
* where Event Day information can be found;
* whether motorists should check CPZ signs; or
* whether they should consult a website.

It just says "On event days 9am - 9pm"

This is the aspect that I believe aligns more closely with cases 2240208187 and 2240495930.

So i'm still open to feedback and also the hope that they don't have their wits together and file a poor case against me.

But I think my primary argument is not "I definitely didn't pass a CPZ sign".

Rather, it is:

(a) the council has not yet proved what sign I allegedly passed, that it displayed the relevant information, or that it was unavoidable; and

(b) even if I did pass one, the overall signage regime did not adequately convey the restriction to a reasonably diligent non-resident motorist.

Does that seem like the correct way to frame it, or am I still missing something important?

Haven't taken on Newham before - but I think I surely have some kind of case here.

Thank you, that's super helpful.

The case you've mentioned seem to back my point and it sounds like Newham isn't great at putting together their own evidence or legal case well enough - so she essentially won just by taking it to ETA and them being inadequate. That's worked for me on a separate occasion tbf! I could try that?

Looking at my own case, one issue I intend to raise is whether Newham can actually prove that I could not have reached my parking location without passing and observing the CPZ signs they rely upon. Recently with all the roadworks near West Ham station, I'm even more convinced that it's possible to not see any - I've genuinely not seen any when coming from Ilford/Barking sides to where I parked over the last few months (down the same road with West Ham station).

From my recollection of last Nov when I got this PCN - there weren't roadworks as closeby but even the sign I likely passed on my journey coming from Canning Town station is a decent distance away from where I ended up parking and the Event Day information is a small line of text at the bottom of an already busy sign at a busy roundabout. But it seems signage is not relevant to why she won - more just the good fortune of the council not be prepared enough.

I guess my question is in terms of a tribunal appeal, are there any new particular pieces of evidence you think I should prioritise gathering now? Or should I share the same appeal I sent to the council and the evidence I've put in the folder to the tribunal and hope for the best.

My own case was last Nov 2025 so I guess maybe the sign perhaps could still have the two event date issue but I have no photos or proof of that.

If anyone has any further thoughts I'd be appreciative, i think it's genuinely robbery how they get away with the very very inadequate signage - i'll probably appeal on Sunday (3 days from now) if there's no more responses perhaps.

Hi all,
I received a rejection notice stating this.



Barking & Dagenham
London Borough of Barking &
Dagenham
PO BOX 352
Sheffield
S98 1YE

Date 18/03/2026

Mr -----
Dear Mr ------
Notice of Rejection of Representation

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) Number: BZ82837370
Vehicle Registration: WA17ZJX
Date of Contravention: 23/02/2026
Appeal Verification Code: 82C614

The Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to you because your vehicle was seen performing a turn where it was not permitted to do so.

We have investigated the circumstances raised in your correspondence and have made the decision to not cancel your notice. The reasons for my decision are set out below, along with the options available to you at this stage.
The Council has issued and served a Penalty Charge Notice as the aforementioned vehicle was recorded by an approved device 'performing a prohibited turn. The CCTV footage was reviewed by a CCTV operator who deemed that a contravention has occurred.

As outlined in the Highway Code it is the responsibility of drivers to make themselves aware of any restrictions that are in force and drive accordingly. This restriction is illustrated by a sign with a red outer circle showing you the direction you must not take. The particular sign for this location indicates that a right turn has been banned. You are permitted to carry on straight ahead. The restriction prohibits vehicles from turning right from Reede Road (Dagenham) Mon - Sat 8am - 10am and 4.30 - 7pm.

It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they check signage, whether they are familiar with the area or not, so they are not in contravention. Please note that there is signage at the location in compliance to Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 which indicates the restriction in force.

We have looked at the CCTV footage again as well as consider what you said about the signage, however, we are satisfied that the signs at the location were clear enough and correct, the PCN was correctly issued, and we cannot justify its cancellation.

BZ82837370

I think I'll just pay the £80 discounted fee - I was considering the authorised camera angle and I've submitted a Subject Access Request with a hope to try my hand at the ETA Tribunal but I really don't feel confident that I have much of a case or chance of success. So will just suffer the discounted fee I guess  So crazy to get a £80 parking ticket for driving into Lidl within such arbitrary hours (Mon - Sat 8am - 10am and 4.30 - 7pm, saturday too why?)  - why would I ever go back there? Very discouraging that a first time offence is penalised like that - I can't just apologise and say I'll never do it again? So many people are caught out at that exact same junction given the high levels of PCN issuage and consistent signage issues.

Anyways I have other ones to share with you all haha.

PCN: BZ82837370
Date / Time: 23/02/2026 at 18:00
VR: WA17 ZJX
Location: Reede Road (Dagenham) – junction with service road opposite 9–13
Contravention: Performing a prohibited turn (no right turn)

I am seeking advice before submitting my informal & as I expect formal representation to a PCN that arrived for me in the post today.

On the date and time stated I made a right turn into Reede Road in order to access the Lidl/Iceland car park. I was initially turning into Reede Road from the A1240 main road past the shopping centre. It was dark and raining heavily at the time, which significantly reduced visibility. I followed another vehicle that entered the car park ahead of me and did not notice any restriction indicating that a right turn was prohibited during certain hours.

I later discovered, after reviewing the location on Google Street View, that there is a sign indicating “no right turn” between 08:30–10:00 and 16:30–19:00 Monday to Saturday. However, I did not see this sign when driving because it was not illuminated and visibility conditions were poor due to the weather and time of day. The first time I became aware of the restriction was after receiving the PCN.

My intention was simply to park and shop at Lidl, which I do regularly. I can also retrieve a bank statement or receipt confirming a purchase at Lidl around that time if needed.

From reading other discussions it appears this right turn into Reede Road for the Lidl/Iceland car park has caught out many drivers - seems like an easy cash grab for the council and seemingly random location after turning from the dagenham heathway main A1240 road - you wouldn't expect a random restriction on your way into the local lidl and also trying to avoid getting stuck in the large yellow box.

I have attached the following for review:
• All sides of the PCN - Evidence Folder Here
• The council video evidence - in folder above
• Photographs from the PCN - in folder above
• A Google Street View link to the location - - https://maps.app.goo.gl/uRhirzUvmXJPnfz27

Any advice on whether the signage, lighting, or circumstances may provide grounds to challenge this PCN would be appreciated.

Does anyone know if the camera details in the top corner indicate it's an authorised camera for capturing this type of footage? Maybe there's a defence based on the camera/anpr footage being inaccurate.

PS. Just saw an FOI request for the number of PCNs given at the same location dated November 2023.

"Please provide the number of PCNs issued at location: Reede Road (Dagenham) (Jcn With Service
Road Opposite 9-13) under the contravention of 50r Performing a prohibited turn (no right turn) since
the inception of the traffic restriction to date.
The number of PCNs is 12,920." Read here for more - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pcns_issued_at_reede_road