DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 95392--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles
DIR By: bigred247
Date: October 24, 2025, 5:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It was Mr Dodd :)
#Post#: 95395--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles
DIR By: bigred247
Date: October 24, 2025, 5:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sharing the adjudicator’s reasons below for everyone else’s
benefit.
--- Quote ---
>
> Adjudicator's Decision
>
> The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by
the parties, has allowed the appeal.
> The reasons for the adjudicator's decision are enclosed.
>
> The adjudicator directs London Borough of Redbridge to cancel
the Penalty Charge Notice.
> If any penalty or fees have already been paid, the Enforcement
Authority must now issue a refund
> without delay. Enquiries regarding payment of the refund
should be made to the Enforcement
> Authority.
>
> An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic
penalty appeals
> Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London
Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils
>
> Calls to London Tribunals will be recorded for training and
quality purposes
>
> Adjudicator's Reasons
> The Appellant's Authorised Representative, Mr xxxx xxxxxx,
attended the hearing of the appeal by
> video, via Teams. The Appellant did not attend. She is Mr
xxxxxx's wife, and she was the driver of
> the vehicle at the time. The Authority were not due to attend
or to be represented.
>
> It is the Authority's case that the Appellant's vehicle failed
to comply with a restriction on vehicles
> entering a pedestrian zone on Rutland Road on 20 May 2025.
They rely in evidence on CCTV footage
> and on photographs of the entrance and advance warning
signage. The wording/times on the
> entrance signage in the CCTV footage and in the Authority's
photographs is barely legible. I would
> have expected the Authority to have produced legible
photographs. However, it is common ground
> that the blue signs beneath the entrance signs indicated that
the restriction only operated during term
> time. The Authority maintain in their Case Summary that "The
'Term-time only' is commonly used and
> legally accepted phrase in traffic signage. While it does not
list specific dates, it is the responsibility of
> drivers to be aware of school term times, particularly in
areas near schools. This type of signage has
> been upheld as enforceable in multiple adjudications". They
have not cited or produced any
> Adjudicator decisions that support their position. They go on
to say: "Term-time dates are publicly
> available and consistent with local education authority
calendars. We also acknowledge the
> appellants statement that he was unaware of the restrictions.
However, lack of awareness is not a
> valid ground cancellation under the statutory framework".
>
> Mr xxxxxx takes issue with the fact that the signage indicated
the restriction only operated during
> term time. He maintains that such an indication is
"fundamentally unclear" on the basis that a motorist
> cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of school term times
applicable in respect of a restriction.
> Mr xxxxxx has cited another adjudicator's decision (Case
Number: 2240078999) in which it was
> held: "The use of the phrase 'during term times' is not
authorised for the simple reason that it requires
> motorists to know what the term times are... it is about a
lack of clarity as to when the restriction
> operates... If an advance warning sign is needed and it is not
clear, the Adjudicator is entitled to
> conclude the overall signage is inadequate."
>
> I agree with the case put by the Appellant. The blue signs
lack clarity and are inherently ambiguous. It
> is, in my view, unreasonable to expect a motorist to be aware
of school term times applicable in
> respect of a restriction, which may well vary depending on the
local authority in question and the type
> of school. Although the Authority say that "Term-Time Only"
signage is commonly used, that is not my
> experience, but what is common, is the use of fold-over signs,
such that the signs show as blank
> during school holidays. This leaves the motorist in no doubt
as to whether the restriction is active.
>
> The Authority have a duty to ensure that signage is clear and
unambiguous and conveys all the
> necessary information to the motorist. In this case the blue
sign created a lack of clarity and an
> ambiguity. Accordingly, the Authority failed in the said duty,
and so I take the view that the
> contravention cannot be established and I allow the appeal.
>
> George Dodd
> Adjudicator
> 23rd October 2025
> 2250346143
> AF20158451
>
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page