Missing prescribed hours left the alleged restriction unsupported by the order (2026)

Case 225042869A / 2025-12-12 / Adjudicator Edward Houghton

Water Lane

“and the position is that there is currently no restriction in force on that road.”

Edward Houghton

The PCN concerned Water Lane and was issued by the London Borough of Redbridge. The motorist identified a gap in the schedule to the relevant traffic management order: no prescribed hours were shown for that road.

Edward Houghton accepted that point. Although the omission appeared to result from a drafting or layout error, he found that the order as presented did not create a restriction in force on the road. The appeal was allowed on 12 December 2025.

The adjudicator considered the signs clear. The decisive issue was therefore not visibility or a confusing panel, but the absence of operative hours in the legal instrument. He did not need to resolve the other arguments. His finding described the position considered in that appeal, not the status of later orders or subsequent enforcement.

For a comparable Code 54 challenge, identify the exact article, schedule row and any incorporated map or definition of prescribed hours. Check amendments before relying on an apparent omission. Explain why the order fails to establish the restriction alleged at the recorded time; photographs of a clear sign do not answer a missing-order-provision argument.

Source and case reference

Use case reference 225042869A in the London Tribunals register to find the official decision. This commentary distinguishes the adjudicator's finding from a possible argument in a different case; previous tribunal decisions do not bind another adjudicator.