DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 111691--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: jimzzr
Date: March 1, 2026, 4:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
I have now received a response/evidence from medway to my appeal
to the traffic penalty tribunal.
I have some issues I would like some advice on.
1) Medway have submitted the text for another case in their
outline of their case. Can they correct this.
2) In relation to the cpz signage heading north on canterbury st
Medway have included an image of the sign on the LHS only
showing a compliant sign.
However, on investigation I have discovered that this image in
in fact a screen grab from google street view back in December
2020.
This is not the default street view image, more/most recent
images shown non compliant signage. The 2020 image also shows
different fencing.
Given that it's not possible to accidently screen grab past
street view images this is clearly an attempted deception.
Obviously I can add additional evidence to expose this. However,
is there a separate complaint route regarding medways attempt to
pervert the proceedings.
3) Regarding their direction of travel argument that have
included a set of compliant signs from some over entry point,
however a) there are more than 2 entry points. b)given that
according to Highway Code Rule 248, you must not park on a road
at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless
in a recognised parking space. I don't see how one can
reasonably draw some adverse conclusion from the direction I was
parked
Many Thanks
Jim
#Post#: 111692--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 1, 2026, 4:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Obviously I can add additional evidence to expose this.
However, is there a separate complaint route regarding medways
attempt to pervert the proceedings.
>
--- End Quote ---
Clearly, you need to refute their evidence at London Tribunals
and make sure the adjudicator is aware of an attempt to falsify
evidence.
As to a separate complaint regarding perverting the course of
justice, this is a criminal matter. Many years ago after parking
was decriminalised in 1991, there was a case in Manchester where
records were falsified and a council employee went to jail for
it. However, I cannot remember the details as it was in the 90s
#Post#: 111708--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: tincombe
Date: March 2, 2026, 4:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
When is your hearing?
Have you elected for a video hearing(as opposed to one on the
papers)?
Given that less than 28 days have elapsed since their NOR was
served, arranging a hearing and getting the council's evidence
must be something of a record!
IMO, you have procedural points arising from their NOR, namely:
Failure to inform you about the adjudicator's power to award
costs;
Failure to notify you correctly of your regulatory appeal rights
and the council's power to increase the penalty charge;
(the above are mandatory duties).
So your appeal grounds are now at least contravention did not
occur and procedural impropriety.
You'll need to post their evidence pl. Others might be able to
advise on formatting.
#Post#: 111723--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: March 2, 2026, 5:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> When is your hearing?
> Have you elected for a video hearing(as opposed to one on the
papers)?
> Given that less than 28 days have elapsed since their NOR was
served, arranging a hearing and getting the council's evidence
must be something of a record!
>
> . . .
>
> You'll need to post their evidence pl. Others might be able to
advise on formatting.
>
--- End Quote ---
NoR dated, posted and e-mailed 4th.Feb.
jimzzr, as advised, please give us the date of the hearing with
TPT. In the evidence pack there should be a 2-3 page summary of
why Medway think yr appeal should be denied. Please post this
(including the "text for another case", together with a copy of
yr appeal .
#Post#: 111734--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: jimzzr
Date: March 2, 2026, 6:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi John,
1) I do not yet have a hearing date
2) I have not yet selected hearing type but need to do so before
thursday, I guess I need to select in person.
3) I only have the text for the other persons case in the
evidence pack, see below (the name I've deleted is nothing like
mine)
Appellant Explanation and Authority Summary
Appellant Explanation
I rely on my representation to Medway Council.I would like to
add
that Medway council are mistaken in their belief that I hadn't
turned
around in the CPZ having only passed the entry under dispute
(photo attached). (I am almost certain that I mentioned my
change
in direction of travel in my informal reps)For completeness the
wording of my formal appeal to Medway council is below:"I am
appealing on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.
The
single yellow line on which I was parked had no time plate and
in
addition the signage at the entry to the CPZ is for all
practical
purposes absent.Specifically:The CPZ sign on the left hand side
of
Canterbury street cannot be seen at all driving into the zone –
it
has been rotated completely through 90 degrees and only its pole
is visible.The sign on the right hand side is also severely
rotated: it
can just be made out that there is a sign there, but is at such
an
acute angle that it is impossible to read it or identify it as a
CPZ
sign, if you see it at all, particularly when driving at night
as I was.I
have taken a picture to show this (enclosed).As the council has
failed to comply with its duty to maintain signs that convey the
restriction to the drivers, the PCN must be cancelled and I look
forward to early confirmation."
Authority Summary
This statement is submitted in response to Mr xxxxxxxxx appeals
against the Penalty Charge Notices issued for parking adjacent
to
double yellow lines.Mr Miah's argument that the vehicle was
parked on a single yellow line when parking is allowed all day
on a
Sunday, but the rear wheel was only slightly on the Double
Yellow
line. Is not supported by evidence provided by Medway Council,
which clearly shows that the vehicle has its rear axle parked
adjacent to the Double Yellow lines, which is enforceable at any
time.In summary, the contravention is clearly observed in the
photographic evidence Item 6, specifically photograph 5,
photographs taken at time of the contravention. The vehicles
rear
axle has clearly parked adjacent to the yellow lines which is in
contravention of the Highway code.Whilst Medway Council
appreciate that parking in the area may be demanding the
enforcement officer cannot discriminate when issuing a ticket.
If a
vehicle is seen to be parked adjacent to yellow lines and is not
exempt, it will receive a ticket. Yellow lines, whether double
or
single, are installed for safety or access reasons and therefore
must be kept clear.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.
4) There doesn't appear to anything submitted as to why my
appeal should be denied, only within the evidence i.e. the NoR
to the appear to NTO posted earlier in this thread. They are
essentially arguing I must have entered the zone from the
opposite end of canterbury street from what I did based on the
direction my car is parked and have included an image of these
signs. Plus the image from 2020 of the sign I did pass.
#Post#: 111735--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: March 2, 2026, 6:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jimzzr link ---
>
> Hi John,
>
> 1) I do not yet have a hearing date
>
> 2) I have not yet selected hearing type but need to do so
before thursday, I guess I need to select in person.
>
> I'm not familiar (compared with London Tribunals) with the TPT
procedure for registration. Can you advise on the steps you took
to register the appeal, and the response you've received from
TPT? Where does the need to do things before Thursday come from?
You do need to ensure it's a personal (video or telephone)
hearing.
>
> 3) I only have the text for the other persons case in the
evidence pack, see below (the name I've deleted is nothing like
mine)
> . . .
>
> Was there a covering letter with the Evidence Pack? Please
post here together with any list of contents.
> PLease also post a copy of the appeal you submitted to the
Tribunal wnen registering the appeal.
>
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 111746--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: jimzzr
Date: March 2, 2026, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The procedure was Medway send a code with the NoR.
I then registered the appeal stating case for appeal, which is
the same as the text above (it was added automatically to the
evidence pack).
I believe there was also a tick box for grounds i.e.
contravention did not occur.
At that time I uploaded one photo as evidence - the same as I
had used at earlier appeal stages.
Within 14 day Medway had to reply, which they, did with their
evidence. From that date (last thursday) I had seven days to
select the hearing type or it defaults to not in person.
I have now added some additional photos of signage to rebut
medways deception.
There's no covering letter with the evidence pack. It basically
the text I posted above plus an evidence list, as follows
Evidence 1
Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)
Published Date: February 10, 2026 15:08
Published By: Appellant
Attachment: Appoaching start of cpz_3.jpg
Description: Photo showing (lack of) entry signs passed on entry
to CPZ. Location of signs arrowed for clarity.
Evidence 2
Evidence Type: Case Status Report/System Audit/Progression
History
Published Date: February 26, 2026 10:57
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: MW00080-2602 INGRAM.pdf
Description: Copy of ticket history.
Evidence 3
Evidence Type: Photographs
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:02
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: MW00080-2602 INGRAM Photos.pdf
Description: Copy of photographs taken at time of
contravention.
Evidence 4
Evidence Type: Informal Challenge Rejection
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:03
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: MW00080-2602 INGRAM Informal rejection.pdf
Description: Copy of informal challenge rejection.
Evidence 5
Evidence Type: Notice of Rejection of Representation
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:05
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: MW00080-2602 INGRAM formal rejection.pdf
Description: Copy of notice of rejection of formal
representations.
Evidence 6
Evidence Type: Informal Challenge
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:08
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: 20251106-145732-Workflow attachment added-
30051.eml01291333.eml
Description: Copy of informal representations.
Evidence 7
Evidence Type: Formal Representation
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:10
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: 20260108-204633-Workflow attachment added-
30051.eml01296150.eml
Description: Copy of formal representations
Evidence 8
Evidence Type: Notice to Owner
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:16
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: INGRAM-26-02-2026-11-14-06.pdf
Description: Copy of Notice To Owner.
Evidence 9
Evidence Type: Map showing location
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:19
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Canterbury St Map Screenshot 2026-02-26
105910.png
Description: Copy of map showing location.
Evidence 10
Evidence Type: Photographs
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:20
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: CPZ Canterbury StScreenshot 2026-02-26
091014.png
Description: Copy of photograph showing CPZ signage on entry
to location.
Evidence 11
Evidence Type: Photographs
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:21
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Canterbury St CPZ sign Screenshot 2026-02-26
085701.png
Description: Copy of signage showing CPZ signage.
Evidence 12
Evidence Type: MW031 - The Medway Council (Gillingham and
Brompton) (Parking Places and Waiting, Loading and Stopping
Restrictions) Consolidation Order 2016
Published Date: February 26, 2026 11:23
Published By: Authority Manager
Description: Copy of TRO specifically page 125, item 2/44
schedule 2.
Evidence 13
Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)
Published Date: February 28, 2026 17:10
Published By: Appellant
Attachment: view from stafford st accross canterbury st 1.jpg
Description: Photo showing view of cpz signage from stafford st
looking towards canterbury st
Evidence 14
Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)
Published Date: February 28, 2026 17:13
Published By: Appellant
Attachment: view from stafford st accross canterbury st 2.jpg
Description: view of cpz signage from stafford st looking across
canterbury st
Evidence 15
Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)
Published Date: February 28, 2026 17:20
Published By: Appellant
Attachment: viewfrom cant st of cpz signs corner with staff
st.jpg
Description: photo showing view from canterbury st of signs at
junction with stafford st
Evidence 16
Evidence Type: Other (Add full description)
Published Date: February 28, 2026 17:25
Published By: Appellant
Attachment: view from canterbury st down stafford st 1.jpg
Description: wider view of entrance to stafford st from
canterbury
st added just to give context to zoomed in image of cpz signs on
right hand side
#Post#: 111750--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: jimzzr
Date: March 2, 2026, 7:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Council evidence images below
Map
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/GYZgcbK_xl.png
The cpz signs I didn't drive through, not exactly sure of their
location (probably north end of canterbury st looking south)
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/awj1YAl_xl.png
The cpz sign I did drive through junction canterbury and
stafford street. Image Medway have screen grabbed from google
streetview Dec 2020. See
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/xE1HdqZd4Njzvjkg8
notice fencing and red
taxi. Most/more recent streetview streams show non compliant
signage
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/9lLv1Oh_xl.png
#Post#: 111764--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: March 2, 2026, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Are you allowed to submit supplementary evidence to TPT? If so,
when does it have to be in by?
Does the Council's other evidence relaye to your case or
Mr.Miah's?
In your shoes, as the Council has not provided a rebuttal of
your case, I'd be inclined to produce my own summary document
for the Adjudicator along the lines of
[center]
SUMMARY RESPONSE TO MEDWAY'S EVIDENCE PACK [/center]
My Original Representations against this PCN
rehearse these
My response to the Council's Evidence
[justify]1) the Council's summary responds to the case of a
Mr.Miah, completely different to my own PCN and case.
The Council makes not attempt to rebut my appeal/
[/justify]
2) Your concerns about the Council's pictorial
evidence.
and post the draft here before submitting.
Just my twopennorth, but see what the experts here say.
#Post#: 111769--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: jimzzr
Date: March 2, 2026, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I can currently add evidence, but I've no idea of cut off date.
What the portal does allow is to give comments on each piece of
evidence, so i could add some similar wording there instead or
as well as.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page