DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 83214--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53J - term time only sign
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 28, 2025, 4:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
..I can see that Anthony Chan's review decision has had effect(a
tad harsh IMO)!
OP, you were not driving therefore you could not have been
confused. However, having spoken to the driver, your wife, she
did say that..........
#Post#: 83226--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53J - term time only sign
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 28, 2025, 4:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
To put it mildly. Watch this space.
#Post#: 83294--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53J - term time only sign
DIR By: bigred247
Date: July 29, 2025, 7:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Does this capture all of the points?
--- Quote ---
>
> I am writing to formally challenge PCN AF2049861A, issued for
an alleged contravention under Code 53J — “Failing to comply
with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone”.
>
> My representation is based on the following grounds:
>
> 1) Defective and Ambiguous Signage – “Term Time Only”
> The restriction is signed with:
>
> "Mon–Fri 8.00–9.00am and 2.15–3.45pm – Term-time only"
>
> This wording is fundamentally unclear and unenforceable, for
the following reasons:
>
> - The term “Term-time only” is not defined on the sign.
> - Term dates vary across schools and boroughs. A motorist
cannot reasonably be expected to know the specific academic
calendar.
> - There is no reference to dates or time periods that could
enable lawful compliance at the point of approach.
> - The signage does not comply with the TSRGD 2022 and has no
visible DfT authorisation allowing this variation.
>
> In Rodney Quinn v LB Redbridge (Case 2240530827), the
adjudicator ruled:
>
> "...a motorist cannot be expected to know whether or not a
relevant date falls within school term times and I am not
therefore satisfied that this restriction was clearly conveyed
to the appellant."
>
> Similarly, in Malcolm Batki v LB Redbridge (Case 2250084692),
the adjudicator found the blue sign stating “School Streets
Restricted Access Term time only” was non-statutory and
undermined the clarity of the restriction.
>
> These cases reflect a growing recognition that signage relying
on undefined “term time” language fails the legal requirement of
clarity and enforceability.
>
> 2) Confusion Due to Date Near End of School Term
> The alleged contravention occurred on 17 July 2025. According
to Redbridge Council’s own website:
>
> [quote]Summer Term 2025: 22 April – 22 July 2025
> (
HTML https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/schools/term-dates/)
--- End Quote ---
This was within the final few school days of the academic year,
when many parents and schools have already broken for the summer
— adding to public confusion.
Drivers without school-age children or unfamiliar with
Redbridge’s exact term calendar may reasonably believe the term
had ended — particularly when no dates are specified on signage.
This ambiguity is exacerbated by Redbridge’s reported practice
of leaving restriction signs in place even outside of term time,
misleading motorists further.
3) Tribunal Precedents – Redbridge
In addition to the cases already cited, you will also be aware
of Costelloe v LB Merton (Case 2240078999), where similar
signage using “school term time” was deemed “substantially
non-compliant”, and the appeal was allowed.
There is now a clear pattern of adjudicators finding these types
of restrictions invalid due to poor signage and ambiguous
wording.
Conclusion
For all the reasons stated above — namely:
- Defective and unauthorised signage
- Unreasonable ambiguity around term-time enforcement
- Documented tribunal rulings cancelling Redbridge PCNs on
identical grounds
I respectfully request that PCN AF2049861A be cancelled.
[/quote]
Should I add point 3 to point 1?
#Post#: 83305--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53J - term time only sign
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 29, 2025, 9:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You missed the steer from Hippo/Andersen and made no mention of
the personal circumstances on the day, instead just making
template reps.
Needs careful wording to avoid untruths.
#Post#: 83313--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53J - term time only sign
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 29, 2025, 10:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I will have to give this my most serious consideration. From the
outset though, this is far too much. Back later. Basic point:
was the driver misled by the term time bit? If not, Herron case
will be thrown into the mix.
#Post#: 83315--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53J - term time only sign
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 29, 2025, 10:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Edit.
#Post#: 83423--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53J - term time only sign
DIR By: bigred247
Date: July 30, 2025, 5:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hey all, thank you very much for the feedback. I have made some
revisions. I hope this more accurately reflects the
circumstances and challenge.
--- Quote ---
>
> I wish to make formal representations against the issuance of
this PCN on the following grounds:
>
> 1. Mitigating Circumstances – Rerouting Due to Roadworks
> On the date of the alleged contravention (17 July 2025), my
wife was the driver of the vehicle. While travelling in the
area, she encountered roadworks and was rerouted by temporary
signage into an unfamiliar route. This diversion took her into
the restricted School Street zone unintentionally.
>
> Due to the diversion, she was unable to take her usual route
and had no advance warning of the restriction. The diversion
signage did not indicate that it would lead into a restricted
zone, and the School Street sign was only visible at the point
of entry — by which time it was too late to turn back safely. As
a result, the contravention was not wilful but caused by the
lack of appropriate advance warning.
>
> 2. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage – “Term Time Only”
> The signage at the restriction point includes the phrase
**“School Streets Restricted Access – Term time only”**. This
wording is ambiguous and unhelpful to motorists, especially when
term dates vary across schools and are not clearly displayed at
the location.
>
> Adjudicators have repeatedly found this wording problematic:
>
> * In **Rodney Quinn v Redbridge (2240530827)**, the
adjudicator ruled that a motorist cannot be expected to know
school term dates while driving, and allowed the appeal on the
grounds that the signage did not clearly convey the restriction.
> * In **Malcolm Batki v Redbridge (2250084692)**, it was
concluded that this term-time wording undermines the clarity of
the restriction and is contrary to guidance in the Traffic Signs
Manual.
>
> In our case, the alleged contravention occurred very close to
the end of term (Redbridge’s website confirms term ran until 22
July). Even if the signage had been seen, the vagueness of "term
time only" makes it impossible for a reasonable motorist to be
sure of the restriction’s validity on that date.
>
> Conclusion
> This PCN should be cancelled on the grounds of:
>
> * Mitigating circumstances due to emergency rerouting,
> * Ambiguous and misleading signage,
>
> The contravention was not intentional and arose due to a
combination of diversion and poor signage. I respectfully
request that the PCN be cancelled.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83444--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53J - term time only sign
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 30, 2025, 7:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: bigred247 link ---
>
> Hey all, thank you very much for the feedback. I have made
some revisions. I hope this more accurately reflects the
circumstances and challenge.
>
> [quote]
> I wish to make formal representations against the issuance of
this PCN on the following grounds:
>
> 1. Mitigating Circumstances – Rerouting Due to Roadworks
> On the date of the alleged contravention (17 July 2025), my
wife was the driver of the vehicle. While travelling in the
area, she encountered roadworks and was rerouted by temporary
signage into an unfamiliar route. This diversion took her into
the restricted School Street zone unintentionally.
>
> Due to the diversion, she was unable to take her usual route
and had no advance warning of the restriction. The diversion
signage did not indicate that it would lead into a restricted
zone, and the School Street sign was only visible at the point
of entry — by which time it was too late to turn back safely. As
a result, the contravention was not wilful but caused by the
lack of appropriate advance warning.
>
> 2. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage – “Term Time Only”
> The signage at the restriction point includes the phrase
**“School Streets Restricted Access – Term time only”**. This
wording is ambiguous and unhelpful to motorists, especially when
term dates vary across schools and are not clearly displayed at
the location.
>
> Adjudicators have repeatedly found this wording problematic:
>
> * In **Rodney Quinn v Redbridge (2240530827)**, the
adjudicator ruled that a motorist cannot be expected to know
school term dates while driving, and allowed the appeal on the
grounds that the signage did not clearly convey the restriction.
> * In **Malcolm Batki v Redbridge (2250084692)**, it was
concluded that this term-time wording undermines the clarity of
the restriction and is contrary to guidance in the Traffic Signs
Manual.
>
> In our case, the alleged contravention occurred very close to
the end of term (Redbridge’s website confirms term ran until 22
July). Even if the signage had been seen, the vagueness of "term
time only" makes it impossible for a reasonable motorist to be
sure of the restriction’s validity on that date.
>
> Conclusion
> This PCN should be cancelled on the grounds of:
>
> * Mitigating circumstances due to emergency rerouting,
> * Ambiguous and misleading signage,
>
> The contravention was not intentional and arose due to a
combination of diversion and poor signage. I respectfully
request that the PCN be cancelled.
>
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
I have redacted. You should finish with this: According to
Regulation 6 and Schedule 18 of TSRGD 2016, the said sign is not
authorised by law.
#Post#: 83627--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53J - term time only sign
DIR By: bigred247
Date: July 31, 2025, 12:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member], does this do the job?
--- Quote ---
>
> I wish to make formal representations against the issuance of
this PCN on the following grounds:
>
> 1. Mitigating Circumstances – Rerouting Due to Roadworks
> On the date of the alleged contravention (17 July 2025), my
wife was the driver of the vehicle. While travelling in the
area, she encountered roadworks and was rerouted by temporary
signage into an unfamiliar route. This diversion took her into
the restricted School Street zone unintentionally.
>
> Due to the diversion, she was unable to take her usual route
and had no advance warning of the restriction. The diversion
signage did not indicate that it would lead into a restricted
zone, and the School Street sign was only visible at the point
of entry — by which time it was too late to turn back safely. As
a result, the contravention was not wilful but caused by the
lack of appropriate advance warning.
>
> 2. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage – “Term Time Only”
> The signage at the restriction point includes the phrase
**“School Streets Restricted Access – Term time only”**. This
wording is ambiguous and unhelpful to motorists, especially when
term dates vary across schools and are not clearly displayed at
the location.
>
> Adjudicators have repeatedly found this wording problematic:
>
> * In **Rodney Quinn v Redbridge (2240530827)**, the
adjudicator ruled that a motorist cannot be expected to know
school term dates while driving, and allowed the appeal on the
grounds that the signage did not clearly convey the restriction.
> * In **Malcolm Batki v Redbridge (2250084692)**, it was
concluded that this term-time wording undermines the clarity of
the restriction and is contrary to guidance in the Traffic Signs
Manual.
>
> Redbridge’s website confirms term ran until 22 July. The
vagueness of "term time only" makes it impossible for a
reasonable motorist to be sure of the restriction’s validity on
that date.
>
> Conclusion
> This PCN should be cancelled on the grounds of:
>
> * Mitigating circumstances due to emergency rerouting,
> * Ambiguous and misleading signage,
>
> According to Regulation 6 and Schedule 18 of TSRGD 2016, the
said sign is not authorised by law. The contravention was not
intentional and arose due to a combination of diversion and poor
signage. I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83634--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53J - term time only sign
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 31, 2025, 2:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In would add she was confused by the blue plate. Use:
Extenuating circumstances rather than mitigating. I like it
though.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page