DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 126965--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 5, 2026, 3:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Looks good. Opt for a telephone or online hearing if possible.
#Post#: 127305--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: darreninthenet
Date: August 9, 2026, 3:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Bumping one last time in case anyone else has any other comments
or suggestions, otherwise will submit to TPT next week :-)
#Post#: 127307--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 9, 2026, 4:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You have received a NOR date 31 July.
Your options are to pay or register an appeal, in either case no
later than 31 Aug.
Registering an appeal is a simple, streamlined and quick
process. I suggest you get online and register, all the details
are in the NOR*, and rely upon grounds:
Contravention did not occur;
Procedural impropriety.
The body of your appeal at this stage, I suggest:
As regards the contravention, I rely upon my formal
representations and as regards procedural impropriety that the
decision notice fails to comply with regulatory requirements
regarding an owner's rights of appeal and that payment dates are
unclear. Both grounds would be developed upon receipt of the
council's evidence pack.
You do not rehearse your formal reps because these would be in
evidence anyway.
*- except for the appeals specifics which you would have to
consult a third-party website to discover AND which are
incorrect anyway as regards the law as it applies to councils!!
For example, the first thing you'd find would be:
You have 28 days to submit an appeal
after receiving an NoR letter
No you don't.
The tribunal does not apply the strict 28-day period. This is
its right.
But it has s*d all to do with a council's duty which is to
notify you that your STATUTORY right lapses after the end of the
period of 28 days beginning on the date of service of the NOR.
#Post#: 127315--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: darreninthenet
Date: August 9, 2026, 7:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you! Does "procedural impropriety" cover the issues of the
unclear signage?
#Post#: 127317--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 9, 2026, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: darreninthenet link ---
>
> Thank you! Does "procedural impropriety" cover the issues of
the unclear signage?
>
--- End Quote ---
No, it's a separate matter for the incorrect informationon their
documents.
#Post#: 127321--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 9, 2026, 9:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Contravention did not occur covers their order and signs.
#Post#: 127597--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: darreninthenet
Date: August 12, 2026, 5:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
TPT appeal submitted as per suggestion, will update when (if?)
the LA responds
#Post#: 128566--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: darreninthenet
Date: August 23, 2026, 8:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
LA has responded with an evidence pack, and I've opted for a
telephone hearing. This is their summary
--- Quote ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
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.
#Post#: 128576--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 23, 2026, 9:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Where's the traffic order pl.
Let's start with this.
#Post#: 128582--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: darreninthenet
Date: August 23, 2026, 10:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> Where's the traffic order pl.
>
> Let's start with this.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you, I've uploaded it here:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gg_noC4ssHlB97CX3boxQAOvfyrCbQzQ/view?usp=drive_link
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page