Free Traffic Legal Advice

@Hippocrates

Thank you very much for representation and getting this one over the line

I have shared the adjudicator's decision below for the benefit of others.

Adjudicator's Decision

The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has allowed the appeal.

The reasons for the adjudicator's decision are enclosed.

The adjudicator directs London Borough of Redbridge to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

If any penalty or fees have already been paid, the Enforcement Authority must now issue a refund without
delay. Enquiries regarding payment of the refund should be made to the Enforcement Authority.

An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic penalty appeals
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils

Calls to London Tribunals will be recorded for training and quality purposes

Adjudicator's Reasons

1. This appeal relates to the issue of a PCN by Redbridge Council on 21 July 2025. It is alleged that, at
08:07 on 17 July 2025, the appellant’s vehicle failed to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone on Christchurch Road.

2. The matter was listed for a virtual hearing on 1 July 2026. [The appelants representative] appeared on behalf of the
appellant and addressed me. There was no appearance on the part of the enforcement authority but
they were not expected to attend. I reserved my decision.

3. I find that the signage was unclear. As the signage was unclear, I find that the restriction was not
adequately conveyed. As the restriction was not adequately conveyed, I find that the contravention
did not occur.

4. In a Freedom of Information response before me, Redbridge stated that: “Why was it altered? The text
“term-time only” has been covered up, as whilst the Council thought that it was being helpful to
drivers by including the phrase “term-time only” on signage, to reduce the number of PCNs issued,
drivers are telling us that it is causing confusion. Hence, it was covered over. There has been no change
to the enforcement regime. School Streets are just enforced during term-time only. Redbridge term
dates can be found at https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/schools/term-dates/.”

5. It is clear from the video evidence that there is a principal sign, setting out the restriction, and an
accompanying blue sign. I agree with the submission made at the hearing that the supplementary blue
sign, pertaining to the term dates, was confusing. I base this finding on the Freedom of Information
response set out above which indicates that such supplementary “term time only” information was
“covered up” as motorists indicated that it was “causing confusion.” I agree, and find, that such
supplementary information, as opposed to restriction, signage would cause confusion as a reasonable
motorist would not necessarily know what the term dates were.

6. I allow the appeal.



Richard Young
Adjudicator
1st July 2026
2250453052
AF2049861A

Hi all, any suggestions on my appeal to tribunal?

bump

bumping this, as i must make reps this evening to catch the discount period.

Thanks @stamfordman. This is very useful to know.

I have posted a draft representation below.

I write to formally contest the above Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that there was no contravention of an order, or failure to comply with an indication on a sign.

The driver entered James Street from the correct end of the road. She then performed a U-turn and drove back out the way she came. In doing so, she passed the reverse side of the "one way" sign. There were no "no entry" signs present at the point of entry or anywhere visible to the driver.

The contravention alleged 29J, failing to comply with a one-way restriction requires evidence that the driver passed prescribed "one way" signage facing them, and then failed to comply with it. That situation did not occur here. The driver entered lawfully from the correct end, and when she exited, she saw only the back of the sign, which carries no legal instruction to a road user.

I rely on the decision of Adjudicator Jack Walsh in case 2230158559 (London Borough of Havering, 15 April 2023), which allowed an appeal against an identical 29J contravention on precisely this basis. The adjudicator held that because the vehicle was travelling in the wrong direction, there was no evidence the driver ever saw or could have seen any prescribed one-way signage facing them. He concluded that the wrong contravention had been alleged and that it was incapable of proof on the evidence available.

The same applies here. The CCTV footage will show the vehicle entering from the correct end, making a U-turn, and exiting. It cannot show the driver passing a "one way" sign face-on and ignoring it, because that did not happen.

I respectfully request that this Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

@Incandescent

I believe she was travelling from North Street, then took a left at the traffic lights (ASDA junction) onto London road, and then further up made the left turn into James Street. She then did a u-turn (seen in the video), dropped my son off at the end of the road, then took a right back onto London road.


I've posted links to PCN and GSV below:

PCN

GSV