So we had the hearing today, and found in our favour but not for all the reasons we thought they might. The LA didn't show at all, here is the summary of what the adjudicator said:

1) Ambiguous signage - adjudicator didn't agree initially and thought the wording was fine, and was going to come back to it after we made further comments around the restrictions on the rest of the high street adding to the confusion. But she didn't need to come back to it in the end so this was never fully addressed.

2) PCN Code - as far as she was concerned Code 51 covered all manner of restriction signs and she "wasn't aware of anything that required code 51 to be a No Entry sign and code 52 to be the no motorised vehicles sign" and she mentioned that the PCN says No Entry "restriction" and that therefore covered all these signs. I don't know if this is correct but everything I could find online indicated 51 = No Entry, 52 = Prohibition on Vehicles 🤷‍♂️ so she didn't find on this point

3) Procedural Impropriety - not considering representations - she said she isn't allowed to consider Procedural Impropriety on moving vehicle offences

4) Procedural Impropriety - PCN failed to specify all grounds of representation - see point 3

5) She found on this point - the TRO doesn't actually create a prohibition, it basically says "if you drive a vehicle down this road, you drive a vehicle down this road" rather than saying "no person shall cause..." as it says on the rest of the TRO paragraphs (many thanks for spotting this Tincombe!)

6) NoR wording with regards to payment dates, TPT information etc - she said she wouldn't have found on this point as she feels "less is more" when it comes to providing the information and she compared it to another LA's PCN and it was very similar in wording, so this must be OK 

So thank you to everyone that contributed... the hearing felt like a bit of a slog to get our point over and it felt like she was trying to find a way to rule in favour of the LA... even the winning point 5 above she tried to come up with something as to why it might be worded differently but we pressed the point and she congratulated us on "finding a way out" 

Both of these sections repeat the misstatement of the council's power to increase the penalty, namely '*** 28 days we may issue/send you a charge certificate''. This is manifestly incorrect because, as the NOR makes clear, events are triggered ' normally 2 working days after posting' which in either case, whether a certificate is 'issued' or 'sent' means that the increased charge does not apply until this point, which is incorrect in law: my increased liability, if any, arises after the 'payment period' has expired: service of a CC could be anything up to 5 days later depending on the time of year. 

Many thanks for your help on this, but the above paragraph has confused me, I'm having trouble following what you're saying. Could you spell it out for an idiot please?

IMO, this is not your leading argument which remains the signage is not consistent with the alleged contravention.

You would also draw the adjudicator's attention to the council's evidence pack, item **. I have had great difficulty understanding their references, but if they are relying upon s4 and therefore Schedule 2, I have read this and have extracted 4(1) below:

4(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2) of this Article, any person causing any vehicle to proceed in a road or length of road specified in column 2 of an item in Schedule 2 shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter into the road or length of road specified in relation thereto in column 3 of that Schedule at the times stated in relation thereto in column 4 of that Schedule.

I respectfully suggest that this does not create a prohibition but instead requires motorists to follow a prescribed route i.e. 'shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter [the road prescribed in column 3].

Many thanks! Should I add the following as evidence then?


1)  The traffic signs were ambiguously worded - as per our original appeal to Medway, our interpretation (whilst controlling a moving vehicle on a busy road) of these signs were that there was a "No Vehicles Except for Access" on "Saturdays 10am-4pm". Medway in their response have indicated their intention was the sign to mean "No Vehicles" "Except for Access on Saturdays 10am-4pm". There is no possible way a driver could distinguish the intention between these two meanings without receiving the clarification Medway have provided in the Notice of Rejection. For example, a better and unambiguous way of wording this sign could have been "No Vehicles except for:" and then underneath "Access only on Saturdays 10am - 4pm" which would leave a driver in no doubt. We actually waited for around an hour in a nearby restaurant until it was past 4pm just so we could drive down the high street to collect a heavy item purchased at an antique shop!

2)The contravention did not occur - the PCN states Code 51J contravention of No Entry restriction - there was no "No Entry" restriction, the sign driven past was a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (which is Code 52V for this sign, which even I managed to discover with just five minutes on Google), and although this sign can have a similar effect, namely that at certain times vehicles should not pass them, this does not mean they are the same for legislative and enforcement purposes. They are distinguished in the regulations, and separate contravention descriptions exist for them. From the Statutory Guidance: Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect.

3) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - they failed to properly consider my representations. They refer to the representations as “mitigation”, which they were clearly not - they were that the contravention did not occur (for the reasons given). They also failed to consider the representation that the contravention on the PCN did not occur because there was no No Entry sign. Even now in their evidence pack to the TPT, Medway continue to refer to my appeal as being an appeal to their discretion, and my appeal to the TPT being based on “further discretion”. Both the appeal to Medway and the TPT are, as stated here, based on failure to issue a PCN for the contravention they allege, failure to follow the procedures they are lawfully required to follow and using a traffic sign which is ambiguously worded and could have easily been worded in an unambiguous fashion.

4) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - the original PCN failed to specify that “Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority” is a valid ground of representation.

5) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - the Notice Of Rejection fails to specify proper details on appealing to the TPT. The Local Authority cannot discharge this duty by referring a person to a third parties general website.

6) I would also like to draw the adjudicator's attention to the council's evidence pack, item 11.  I have had difficulty understanding their references, but if they are relying upon s4 and therefore Schedule 2, I have read this and have extracted 4(1) as below:

“4(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2) of this Article, any person causing any vehicle to proceed in a road or length of road specified in column 2 of an item in Schedule 2 shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter into the road or length of road specified in relation thereto in column 3 of that Schedule at the times stated in relation thereto in column 4 of that Schedule.”

I respectfully suggest that this does not create a prohibition at all, but instead requires motorists to follow a prescribed route i.e. 'shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter [the road prescribed in column 3].

Can you work out what the Schedule means, I can't.

I can't cut and paste and it's a long reference, presumably 4(1). But it doesn't seem to prohibit, it merely describes.

We're looking for '..except as provided ..no person shall cause a vehicle to .. from ..into ...during the period...except for access...

'No vehicles' point restriction operating 'at any time' except for access to off-street premises at
certain times
4.
(1)
Except as provided by paragraph (2) of this Article, any person causing any vehicle to proceed in a road or length of road specified in column 2 of an item in Schedule 2 shall thereupon cause that vehicle to enter into the road or length of road specified in relation thereto in column 3 of that Schedule at the times stated in relation thereto in column 4 of that Schedule.

(2)
Nothing in paragraph (1) of this Article shall apply in relation to a vehicle which is entering into or proceeding in a road or length of road specified in column 2 of an item in Schedule 2 for the purpose of accessing off-street premises only accessible therefrom, between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Saturdays.

Bump for any comments on the TRO or my proposed evidence/statement?

LA has responded with an evidence pack, and I've opted for a telephone hearing. This is their summary

   This statement is submitted in response to the appellant's appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice issued for failing to comply with the No Entry restriction.

The signage at this location, items 7 & 9, is clear, prominent, compliant with regulations, and positioned so as to be visible to any motorist approaching the restriction. This is demonstrated in the photographic evidence, item 5 & the video evidence, item 6, uploaded with the PCN and has been supplied to the Tribunal in full.

The appellant argument that there was no 'No Entry' restriction as the signage is incorrect and that the contravention did not occur as the signage states "No Vehicles Except for Access" restriction only applies on Saturdays 10am - 4pm. As we entered after 4pm, this restriction did not apply, is factually incorrect as the compliant signage clearly states 'No vehicles Except for access on Saturdays 10am-4pm' as the appellant entered at 16:18 the penalty charge notice was issued correctly.

The signage, at this location, is positioned on both sides of the carriageway, fully compliant & visible to the motorist, evidence item 7 & CCTV warning signage, prior to the location, evidence item 8. As clearly stated in the Highway Code,  Signs with red circles are mostly prohibitive, with a plate below qualifying their message, as in this case 'No vehicles Except for access on Saturdays 10am-4pm' evidence items 7 & 9.

It is the driver’s responsibility to check for signage that is in place. Motorists are expected to notice all road traffic signage on every journey, understand its meaning and act accordingly.


In summary, the contravention is clearly observed in the photographic evidence Item 5, specifically photographs 2 & 4 and video evidence item 6, taken at time of the contravention. The vehicle is clearly seen travelling through the 'No Entry' when not permitted.


The Authority is satisfied that the signage in question is fully compliant with the requirements of the road traffic legislation.

A reasonably observant motorist would have been aware of the restriction before entering Chatham High Street .

Signage is Clear and Fully Compliant

The restriction is clearly marked with prescribed signs on either side of the carriage way

The signs are positioned at the decision point before entering the High Street

Completion of the manoeuvre into the High Street demonstrates that the restriction was passed and the prohibition contravened.

Discretion Was Considered and Declined

The appellant requests the Tribunal to consider whether additional discretion should apply.

The Council has already considered discretion when responding to the formal representations and determined that it was not appropriate to cancel the PCN.

The explanations provided by the appellant do not align with the legal requirements or the evidence available.

For the reasons above, the authority respectfully requests that the appeal be refused and the penalty charge upheld.

Immediate things I noted:

• They've ignored the wrong code on PCN issue
• They've ignored the poorly worded signs
• They keep referring to our appeal as discretion, which it wasn't, and we aren't appealing on the basis of further discretion as they've stated
• They've ignored all the procedural impropriety parts

I presume I now "Add Evidence" to post up my full appeal statement? I'm proposing the following, all suggestions and additions gratefully received!

1) The contravention did not occur - the PCN states Code 51J contravention of No Entry restriction - there was no "No Entry" restriction, the sign driven past was a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (which is Code 52V for this sign, which even I managed to discover with just five minutes on Google), and although this sign can have a similar effect, namely that at certain times vehicles should not pass them, this does not mean they are the same for legislative and enforcement purposes. They are distinguished in the regulations, and separate contravention descriptions exist for them. From the Statutory Guidance: Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect.

2) The traffic signs were ambiguously worded - as per our original appeal to Medway, our interpretation (whilst controlling a moving vehicle on a busy road) of these signs were that there was a "No Vehicles Except for Access" on "Saturdays 10am-4pm". Medway in their response have indicated their intention was the sign to mean "No Vehicles" "Except for Access on Saturdays 10am-4pm". There is no possible way a driver could distinguish the intention between these two meanings without receiving the clarification Medway have provided in the Notice of Rejection. For example, a better and unambiguous way of wording this sign could have been "No Vehicles except for:" and then underneath "Access only on Saturdays 10am - 4pm" which would leave a driver in no doubt. We actually waited for around an hour in a nearby restaurant until it was past 4pm just so we could drive down the high street to collect a heavy item purchased at an antique shop!

3) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - they failed to properly consider my representations. They refer to the representations as “mitigation”, which they were clearly not - they were that the contravention did not occur (for the reasons given). They also failed to consider the representation that the contravention on the PCN did not occur because there was no No Entry sign. Even now in their evidence pack to the TPT, Medway continue to refer to my appeal as being an appeal to their discretion, and my appeal to the TPT being based on “further discretion”. Both the appeal to Medway and the TPT are, as stated here, based on failure to issue a PCN for the contravention they allege, failure to follow the procedures they are lawfully required to follow and using a traffic sign which is ambiguously worded and could have easily been worded in an unambiguous fashion.

4) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - the original PCN failed to specify that “Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority” is a valid ground of representation.

5) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - the Notice Of Rejection fails to specify proper details on appealing to the TPT. The Local Authority cannot discharge this duty by referring a person to a third parties general website.

Thank you! Does "procedural impropriety" cover the issues of the unclear signage?

Thanks for the responses, this is my proposed TPT appeal, any thoughts would be happily received:


1) The contravention did not occur - the PCN states Code 51J contravention of No Entry restriction - there was no "No Entry" restriction, the sign driven past was a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (which is Code 52V for this sign, which even I managed to discover with just five minutes on Google), and although this sign can have a similar effect, namely that at certain times vehicles should not pass them, this does not mean they are the same for legislative and enforcement purposes. They are distinguished in the regulations, and separate contravention descriptions exist for them. From the Statutory Guidance: Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect.

2) The traffic signs were ambiguously worded - as per our original appeal to Medway, our interpretation (whilst controlling a moving vehicle on a busy road) of these signs were that there was a "No Vehicles Except for Access" on "Saturdays 10am-4pm". Medway in their response have indicated their intention was the sign to mean "No Vehicles" "Except for Access on Saturdays 10am-4pm". There is no possible way a driver could distinguish the intention between these two meanings without receiving the clarification Medway have provided in Notice of Rejection. For example, a better and unambiguous way of wording this sign could have been "No Vehicles except for:" and then underneath "Access only on Saturdays 10am - 4pm" which would leave a driver in no doubt.

3) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - they failed to properly consider my representations. They refer to the representations as “mitigation”, which they were clearly not - they were that the contravention did not occur (for the reasons given). They also failed to consider the representation that the contravention on the PCN did not occur because there was no No Entry sign.

4) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - the original PCN failed to specify that “Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority” is a valid ground of representation.

5) Procedural impropriety by the Local Authority - the Notice Of Rejection fails to specify proper details on appealing to the TPT. The Local Authority cannot discharge this duty by referring a person to a third parties general website.