DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 129230--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: darreninthenet
Date: August 31, 2026, 9:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Bump for any comments on the TRO or my proposed
evidence/statement?
#Post#: 129231--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 31, 2026, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
On which provision in the Order and Schedule thereto are the
council relying, surely it's referred to in their Evidence
schedule or highlighted in the order itself?
The adjudicator is not going to get out an OS map and try and
work this out.
#Post#: 129232--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: darreninthenet
Date: August 31, 2026, 10:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> On which provision in the Order and Schedule thereto are the
council relying, surely it's referred to in their Evidence
schedule or highlighted in the order itself?
>
> The adjudicator is not going to get out an OS map and try and
work this out.
>
--- End Quote ---
They included this in their evidence summary:
Evidence 10
Evidence Type: Map showing location Published Date: August 21,
2026 15:23 Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Corporation St Map Screenshot 2026-08-21 152317.png
Description: Copy of map showing location Evidence 11
Evidence Type: TRO/Schedule (add references in description)
Published Date: August 21, 2026 15:30 Published By: Authority
Manager Attachment: High St Moving Traffic Contraventions - Made
TRO 713.pdf Description: Copy of TRP specifically page 4
schedule2 item 1.
Evidence 11
Evidence Type: TRO/Schedule (add references in description)
Published Date: August 21, 2026 15:30 Published By: Authority
Manager Attachment: High St Moving Traffic Contraventions - Made
TRO 713.pdf Description: Copy of TRP specifically page 4
schedule2 item 1.
#Post#: 129233--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 31, 2026, 10:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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...
#Post#: 129234--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: darreninthenet
Date: August 31, 2026, 11:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> 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...
>
--- End Quote ---
'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.
#Post#: 129236--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 31, 2026, 11:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks.
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
So if you're proceeding in a specified road you shall cause that
vehicle to enter another specified road.
;)
#Post#: 129254--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: darreninthenet
Date: September 1, 2026, 6:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> Thanks.
>
> 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
>
> So if you're proceeding in a specified road you shall cause
that vehicle to enter another specified road.
>
> ;)
>
--- End Quote ---
So just to check my understanding, the TRO doesn't actually
prohibit this activity? Would the TFT arbitrator accept that or
just consider it an "error" that can be ignored?
#Post#: 129256--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 1, 2026, 6:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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].
#Post#: 129268--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: darreninthenet
Date: September 1, 2026, 8:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> 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].
>
--- End Quote ---
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].
#Post#: 129325--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway - 51J - No Entry Restriction
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 1, 2026, 4:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
Too vague: it's a conclusion. The adjudicator isn't going to
compare the NOR with the legislation, that's your job: specify
exactly where the NOR is defective.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page