DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 124835--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 15, 2026, 1:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
With respect, it's not a PZ sign, that's of a different form:
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
Section 6.
#Post#: 124838--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: darreninthenet
Date: July 15, 2026, 1:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> We've had other cases on Medway pedestrian zones but where
they're in a muddle on waiting restrictions and signage.
>
> This looks like a straightforward wrong contravention. Instead
of a:
>
> Code 53: Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles
entering a pedestrian zone
>
> They've given:
>
> Code 51: Failing to comply with a no entry restriction
>
> Pics of the entry signs would clarify.
>
--- End Quote ---
You can see the signs on the first pic I posted, and the GSV
picture (the first GSV link I supplied) of where we
"contravened" is correct.
#Post#: 124839--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 15, 2026, 1:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> With respect, it's not a PZ sign, that's of a different form:
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes - I thought it was another Medway location.
So the contravention should be:
Code 52: Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types
of vehicle etc.
#Post#: 125130--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: darreninthenet
Date: July 20, 2026, 3:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, from the responses on here and our own genuine (and
understandable, given the replies on here) confusion of the poor
wording on the sign our appeal will be:
1) The contravention did not occur - 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
2) The contravention did not occur - the wording on the sign
clearly states that the "No Vehicles Except for Access"
restriction only applies on Saturdays 10am - 4pm. As we entered
after 4pm, this restriction did not apply.
Does this seem reasonable for our
first-but-they'll-reject-it-anyway appeal?
#Post#: 125148--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 20, 2026, 6:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That looks OK. I'm all for short and sweet. Wait for tincombe.
#Post#: 125150--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: RichardW
Date: July 20, 2026, 6:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
2 is wrong - the restriction was in force; the argument there is
that the signage is inadequate / misleading
#Post#: 125155--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 20, 2026, 6:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RichardW link ---
>
> 2 is wrong - the restriction was in force; the argument there
is that the signage is inadequate / misleading
>
--- End Quote ---
The wording is confusing and I think the order is wrong.
It says:
No vehicles
Except for access
on Saturdays
10 am - 4 pm
I think it's supposed to say:
No vehicles
10 am - 4 pm
Except for access
on Saturdays
But who knows. It would be odd if there was no access for
deliveries except on the busiest shopping time but why then
allow access then.
#Post#: 125158--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: RichardW
Date: July 20, 2026, 6:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Eats, shoots, and leaves! ;D
There is a proposed new TRO to extend the restrictions on the
high street to Sundays and BHs:
HTML https://www.medway.gov.uk/downloads/file/9692/proposed_tro_for_rochester_high_street
The idea (I think) is normally access to that section of road is
from the other end, but 10-4 Saturdays that is pedestrian only,
so they have allowed access from this end on Saturday 10-4.
This looks like one of those cases where (as Gov agencies like
to do) they have tried to dumb down things, but ended up making
it so complicated in double speak that it's actually harder to
understand.
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
>
>
> I think it's supposed to say:
>
> No vehicles
> 10 am - 4 pm
> Except for access
> on Saturdays
>
--- End Quote ---
Based on the above that's not right either, better might have
been:
No Vehicles except for:
Access only on Saturdays 10am - 4pm
If they implement the new TRO, it will be even more complicated
and confusing!!
#Post#: 125161--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 20, 2026, 7:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
But why would they want traffic there only at the busiest
shopping time.
Make it make sense.
#Post#: 125162--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: darreninthenet
Date: July 20, 2026, 7:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RichardW link ---
>
> 2 is wrong - the restriction was in force; the argument there
is that the signage is inadequate / misleading
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree that's likely what it will become but right now from our
perspective, we entered outside the enforcement period (and
wouldn't appealing initially on this basis adds strength to the
argument that it's misleading?)
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page