DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 114439--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: jimzzr
Date: March 26, 2026, 5:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/FwIHINw_xl.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Ajnyat7_xl.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/EGYXyJv_xl.jpg
#Post#: 118765--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: jimzzr
Date: May 15, 2026, 10:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
Costs Application won.
Adjudicator's Reasons:
1. This is an application by the appellant for the costs of his
appeal, which I heard on 24 March 2026 and allowed.
2. The Appellant subsequently applied for costs.
3. On 31 March 2026 the Authority was directed to file any
submissions on the Appellant's costs application within 14 days.
According to the Tribunal’s records the Authority has not
submitted any views in relation to the costs application.
4. An Adjudicator must not normally make an order awarding costs
and expenses but may, subject to representations from a party,
make such an order if he/she is of the opinion that the party
has acted frivolously or vexatiously, or that his/her conduct in
making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable.
Costs must be costs and expenses incurred in connection with the
proceedings-proceedings mean from the issue of the Notice of
Rejection.
5. The Appellant submits that the Authority intentionally
presented a Google Streetview image from December 2020 to try to
prove compliant signage, when more recent images show it to be
noncompliant. The Appellant submits that this was a deliberate
act as the person who selected the image had to select a sub
menu and then select the date in question from many both before
and after images. The Appellant submits that it is not credible
that this image was captured in error from Google Streetview.
The Appellant comments that “it is hard to conceptualise any
other motive for presenting this image than an attempt to
mislead proceedings”. The appellant comments that the Authority
did not clarify the date of the image or its source. The
Appellant submits that presentation of the December 2020 image
amounts to the presentation of false evidence, which is ‘wholly
unreasonable” behaviour.
6. The Appellant also submits that the Authority’s conclusions
in its Notice of Rejection were irrational. As the Authortiy
submitted a case summary for a different case in the appeal, the
Appellant submits that the Notice of Rejection should stand for
the case summary. The Appellant submits that the Authority’s
conclusion that he entered from a different direction due to the
position of his vehicle is perverse. The Appellant had explained
that he had turned around and parked with the direction of the
traffic as required.
7. The Authority has not provided any explanation for why it
used the December 2020 image.
8. I allowed the appeal because I found that the signage in
place was not adequately visible or clear to put the Appellant
on notice of the restriction. During the hearing, I found that
the Appellant had demonstrated that the Authority’s image of the
CPZ signage on Canterbury Street, at evidence tab 11, was not a
photograph, rather it was a cropped screenshot from Google
Street View dated December 2020, although the date of the image
did not appear on the Authority’s image.
9. The Authority failed to consider the Appellant’s route, set
out in his submissions, or photographic evidence as to the
conditions of the signage during the appeal process. The
Appellant has shown that the Authority intentionally selected
photographs from years before the alleged contravention, in
December 2020, to provide a misleading view of the signage in
place at the time of the alleged contraventions and to discredit
the Appellant’s photographic evidence. The Authority used the
images from December 2020, instead of other Google images
available from October 2022, May 2023 or October 2024, which
showed the sign to be rotated and not clearly visible to
motorists.
10. In the circumstances, I am persuaded that the Authority
acted wholly unreasonably in producing this image and presenting
it as a reflection of the signage in place either at the time of
the alleged contravention or at the time of the appeal hearing.
The Authority has not responded to the Appellant’s suggestion
that it was deliberate attempt to mislead.
11. I have considered the Appellant's request, and my finding is
that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to award the £72
costs sought, as set out under the heading “Costs claimed”
attached to his application.
#Post#: 118776--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 15, 2026, 11:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well done for teaching them a lesson. I doubt they'll learn
though.
#Post#: 118781--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: jimzzr
Date: May 15, 2026, 11:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Cheers,
While I'm here. How long do they have to pay up?
Presumably they'll post me a cheque?
Thanks
Jim
#Post#: 118792--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 15, 2026, 1:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> Well done for teaching them a lesson. I doubt they'll learn
though.
>
--- End Quote ---
Somebody should be in court for a PCOJ (Perverting the course of
justice).
#Post#: 123504--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: jimzzr
Date: July 1, 2026, 1:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well predictably Medway haven't paid up, so now need to draft a
letter before action.
I have a couple of questions
1) Can a Traffic Penalty Tribunal costs award be enforced
through the County Court?
2) Is Form N322A the correct mechanism?
I suspect the answer is yes to both, but struggling to find a
definitive answer.
Many Thanks
Jim
#Post#: 123512--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 1, 2026, 2:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well predictably Medway haven't paid up, so now need to draft a
letter before action.
No you don't. Proportionality pl.
IMO, just write to the Head of Service, refer to the
adjudicator's direction snd remind them of their responsibility
and how you prefer this to be discharged e.g. cheque etc.
#Post#: 123528--------------------------------------------------
Re: Medway Code 01 restricted street, canterbury st. Gillingham
cpz signage a shambles.
DIR By: jimzzr
Date: July 1, 2026, 4:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> Well predictably Medway haven't paid up, so now need to draft
a letter before action.
>
> No you don't. Proportionality pl.
>
> IMO, just write to the Head of Service, refer to the
adjudicator's direction snd remind them of their responsibility
and how you prefer this to be discharged e.g. cheque etc.
>
--- End Quote ---
Well they've already had one reminder to the parking department.
Plus I also sent an email to the head of the council, following
speaking to him personally at a local music festival. Obviously
I will mention this in the LBA.
*****************************************************
Page 7 of 7
DIR Previous Page