DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 111882--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: jimzzr
Date: March 3, 2026, 7:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How does this sound.
SUMMARY RESPONSE TO MEDWAY'S EVIDENCE PACK
My Original Representations against this PCN
1) My car was parked on a single yellow line with no time plate
in a controlled zone and the signs I passed at the entrance to
the controlled zone were rotated to the point that for all
practical purposes they were absent (i.e. at right angles to the
direction of travel). I did not pass any other controlled zone
signs prior to parking
2) The council have therefore failed to sign the restriction
correctly or adequately, the restriction was therefore of no
effect and therefore a contravention could not have been
committed under these circumstances.
My response to the Council's Evidence
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/
2)The councils evidence ‘photo’
a3d26c93-f4af-4ceb-8657-149fa8f35100_CPZ Canterbury StScreenshot
2026-02-26 091014.png:
a)
prior to parking.
b)
that this image relates to the erroneous assumption by Medway,
that due to my parked direction I did not enter the controlled
zone where I did. However,
1) I have consistently stated that I turned around prior to
parking
2) As this was at night and not a marked bay, Highway Code rule
248 demands that I park the car in the direction of travel I
did.
c)
direction in which I parked is therefore baseless and should be
disregarded.
3) The councils evidence photo
c04b5ae6-f478-454e-828c-3b9ee3ec7dc7_Canterbury St CPZ sign
Screenshot 2026-02-26 085701.png
This image shows the sign I passed heading north on Canterbury
St at the junction with Stafford St. However, the ‘photo’ is a
screen grab from google street view taken in December 2020.
The most recent google street view images from October 24 (see
my evidence 17 Oct24vsDec20streetview images copy.jpg) show non
compliant signage consistent with my evidence photos (Evidence
2, 13 to 16) .Evidence 17 also gives the December 2020
streetview image, which from, vehicles, fencing and billboards
shows indisputably that it is the source of the councils photo.
The councils photo amounts to an attempt to mislead the TPT into
thinking there is compliant signage when there is not. Their
evidence photo must therefore be disregarded as it does not
reflect the current state of the signage.
#Post#: 111904--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: March 3, 2026, 10:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's the sort of thing I had in mind, giving the Adjudicator
an easily readable one page summary of yr argument.
--- Quote ---
> The Council makes not attempt to rebut my appeal
>
--- End Quote ---
Should be "no attempt".
--- Quote ---
>
> The council's photo [b]amounts to an attempt[/b] to mislead
the TPT into thinking there is compliant signage when there is
not. Their evidence photo must therefore be disregarded as it
does not reflect the current state of the signage.
--- End Quote ---
I'm not happy about amounts to . An adjudicator might take a
dislike to a direct accusation of the EA. Rather present the
facts and allow the adjudicator to draw his/her own conclusions.
How about
The council's photos amounts to could be interpreted as an
attempt to mislead the TPT into thinking there is compliant
signage when there is not. I believe thatTtheir evidence photo
must therefore be disregarded as it does not reflect the current
state of the signage.
Is ir one misleading photo or more than one?
Anyway, see what others here think and submit it as an attached
PDF, with good formatting.
#Post#: 111914--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: jimzzr
Date: March 3, 2026, 11:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There's only the one photo of the junction I drove through
(canterbury/stafford st) i.e. the other is a different location
- the two photos posted above in total, no other images.
To get an image of two compliant signs at the
canturbury/stafford st junction they would have to have gone
back even further in time and then there a huge billboard behind
the sign on the left making it more obviously different to mine.
I suspect they're hoping the adjudicator would see two compliant
signs and a close up and just assume the same location.
#Post#: 111922--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: March 3, 2026, 11:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I was only asking to clarify if it should be photo or photos in
the last para of your summary.
#Post#: 111923--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: jimzzr
Date: March 3, 2026, 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I now have a hearing date for the 24/03/2026
#Post#: 111941--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 3, 2026, 2:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You should win this.
On the insertion of the other case, adjudicators are often
forgiving of administrative mistakes. If you post their case
summary we can judge further.
#Post#: 111999--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: March 4, 2026, 3:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> You should win this.
> On the insertion of the other case, adjudicators are often
forgiving of administrative mistakes. If you post their case
summary we can judge further.
>
--- End Quote ---
@Stamfordman Their case summary is in Reply#44 above. Problem
is, the council are making case for the appeal of a Mr.Miah to
be refused!
#Post#: 114188--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: jimzzr
Date: March 24, 2026, 5:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
Just to update, appeal won.
Adjudicator accepted my account of route into zone. Medway
didn't turn up. Don't think she was terribly impressed with
their use of 5 year old street view images.
Thanks for your assistance with this.
Jim
#Post#: 114203--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 24, 2026, 7:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well done
Can you post the decision, suitably redacted, of course.
#Post#: 114209--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 24, 2026, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You could try asking for costs as they've behaved poorly in my
view.
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page