DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 125164--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: RichardW
Date: July 20, 2026, 7:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> But why would they want traffic there only at the busiest
shopping time.
>
> Make it make sense.
>
--- End Quote ---
It's a council thing, that's not possible 8)
As far as I can see it is only to access to the first 30m or so
of the road till you get to the pedestrianised (Sat 10-4 only)
section, to give access to premises.
#Post#: 125165--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: RichardW
Date: July 20, 2026, 7:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: darreninthenet link ---
>
> [quote author=RichardW link=topic=11449.msg125150#msg125150
date=1784546337]
> 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?)
[/quote]
Ah, yes, that's seems a reasonable plan, but no doubt they will
just reject it out of hand and say it was in force - you could
maybe expand that you were informed access was OK at the time of
the alleged contravention, and read the sign that way, but
subsequent research has suggested that in fact the reverse is
true, and the signs do not convey this in the short time
available to read them as a motorist driving - also as far as I
can see in GSV (Oct 24) there is no advanced warning, nor any
signage at the junction that there is no access; and the signs
are pretty well hidden behind the lights as you approach (and
have to cross the bus lane)
Spot the restriction sign!
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/RkydTAfQmpMZ3aWW6
#Post#: 125173--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: darreninthenet
Date: July 20, 2026, 8:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just before I post the appeal... is this likely to win if they
push as far as the adjudicator? It's been a while since I've
been involved in this kind of thing but as I recall putting the
wrong contravention is likely to kill it anyway?
#Post#: 125197--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 20, 2026, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RichardW link ---
>
> As far as I can see it is only to access to the first 30m or
so of the road till you get to the pedestrianised (Sat 10-4
only) section, to give access to premises.
>
--- End Quote ---
Ah yes so there's another restriction a bit further in. That one
does ban vehicles on Saturday 10-4.
Best to leave this out as you say and just stick with the wrong
contravention.
#Post#: 125212--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 20, 2026, 12:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, the alleged contravention could not and did not occur
because it isn't the prohibition indicated by the signs.
The fact that in practice PZ, No Entry, All vehicles prohibited
except non-mechanically propelled vehicles pushed by
pedestrians(the regulatory meaning of the signs actually in
place here) etc. can have similar effects, namely that at
certain times vehicles should not pass them, does not mean they
are the same for legislative and enforcement purposes. They are
distinguished in the regs and separate contravention
descriptions exist for them.
There aren't any No Entry signs therefore the contravention did
not occur.
For good measure from the Statutory Guidance: Authorities should
not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are
incorrect,
#Post#: 126667--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: darreninthenet
Date: August 3, 2026, 5:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've had a response from Medway (no surprises they rejected it!)
For reference, here is the representations I put in (on 21/7):
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, 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 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.
(for those that have been following/replying/advising from the
start, I kept point (2) worded like that as it was our genuine
understanding of the situation, it was only since people replied
on here that it's been pointed out it was ambiguously worded,
which is what I will change in the appeal to going forward, also
as part the LA's response is them clarifying what the signs are
actually supposed to mean)
Here is the NOR:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/C6hfVYX_xl.jpeg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/eko3DjK_xl.jpeg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/boH6npB_xl.jpeg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/NTkLuSS_xl.jpeg
Here is my proposed appeal to the TPT:
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, 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.
Any advice or thoughts, or any issues with the NOR would be most
gratefully received.
#Post#: 126681--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 3, 2026, 6:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The rejection is junk. They say 'unable to accept as mitigating
circumstances' but the reps are whether the contravention
occurred.
And there's no such thing as a 'no entry zone'.
#Post#: 126686--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: darreninthenet
Date: August 3, 2026, 6:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> The rejection is junk. They say 'unable to accept as
mitigating circumstances' but the reps are whether the
contravention occurred.
>
> And there's no such thing as a 'no entry zone'.
>
--- End Quote ---
So should I add "failed to consider representations properly"
(blah blah not mitigation but did not occur blah blah)?
#Post#: 126688--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 3, 2026, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm having a senior moment, but shouldn't the PCN's grounds of
representation include 'procedural impropriety'?
The NOR is disgraceful IMO. I don't see how authorities can
discharge their duties by referring the owner to a third party's
general website! FFS, it's not the owner's job to navigate TPT's
website, IMO it's the authority's to specify details in the NOR.
#Post#: 126888--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: darreninthenet
Date: August 5, 2026, 5:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page