......and i found this on penaltychargenotice.co.uk. Adjudicators Desicions for Red Routes. SIGNS FACING THE WRONG WAY. Case no 2100224850 - Transport for London In this case the red route sign was parallel to the road rather than facing the oncoming traffic as required under chapter 3 of the traffic signs manual para 10.5. The motorist said that he didn't initially notice the double red lines and when he did he returned to his car and drove off. Had the sign been facing the oncoming cars then he may well not have stopped in the first place. The appeal was allowed. However in my case i have already conceded that i had parked in the bay but not knowing that the the times had changed so the contravention did actually occur. Can i now appeal on the basis that the signs do not face on coming traffic have a good chance at my appeal being upheld, given that the adjudicator will look at my informal representation, where i admitted to parking in the red route bay not knowing that timings had changed???

Hi Jamberson, Thank you for taking the time to read and reply to my post. Upon further investigation i have come across the following from the DFT Traffic Signs manual. Regulatory sign 2008 Chapter 10 10.5 All upright signs "should" face oncoming traffic as drivers need to be able to read them without stopping, otherwise they might be committing an offence. Signs need to be sufficiently frequent for drivers to be clear what restriction applies. At the start of the manual in chapter 1 definitions of the word ''should'' have been given as follows. 1.5 In this chapter the word “must” is used to indicate a legal requirement of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions that must be complied with. The word “shall” indicates an essential (or mandatory) requirement of compliance with this chapter, and “should” indicates a course of action that is strongly recommended and represents good practice. The word “may” generally indicates a permissible action, or an option which requires consideration depending on the circumstances.

I was parked in a red route loading /disabled bay outside 147-159 Stokenewington High St N16 (Hackney, London) at 14.34 and received a PCN from TFL code 46: stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway). I didn’t realise they had changed the parking restriction timings from 10am – 4pm to 7am to 1pm. There is a traffic order with Hackney council created in April 2013 about changing the signs but upon asking local shop owners, the signs were changed in March 2014. I have parked here when taking my mum to the bank for the past 10 yrs as my mum is a disabled blue badge holder. We were in India when the signs were changed in March 2014. We returned in April 2014. So had no way of knowing that the parking restriction times had changed. And no, I didn’t check the signs before I parked. I didn't know they were going to change. Also the red route bay parking time restrictions have not been changed on the opposite side of the road. They remain as 10am-4pm. In my informal representation to TFL, which I made online via their website I simply said I was parked legally with badge displayed and within the time frame (Thinking you could park there until 4pm. Didn’t realise the parking restriction timings had changed and hence this is why i got the ticket ). And that CCTV images were taken from back so it could not see badge displayed in windscreen. TFL rejected my representation. However upon further investigation the new signage does not face the oncoming traffic but is parallel to the road. It is impossible to read the sign as you approach the red route box. see pics Google images show the earlier signs with old parking time restriction (10am – 4pm) faced the oncoming traffic. Can I appeal on the basis that the sign does not face the correct way, even though this was not my initial representation. Further new sign further down the road also faces the oncoming traffic? Any help, thoughts and suggestions would be most appreciated. Thank you in advance Saavy