Abbey Rd - High Path Merton 52J Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle

Hi all looking for some advice and assistance please?

Previously used this road but not since the restriction came into place, I was on way to A&E at St Georges after being told to attend immediately by my Doctor.

Coming round the left hand bend in road you are faced with a 7 foot width restriction and you're making sure you are lined up to get through safely etc.

By the time you see the restriction sign if you notice it you're already committed etc

Not made any appeal yet, only viewed the evidence online etc

See copy of both sides of PCN notice as attached.



Google maps location dated before restriction in place.



Pics taken recently of area



Thanks in advance

The width restriction has been there since 2015 : -

so I think you'd struggle with that one.

We've seen this location before, but before the new restriction. There is an advance sign on the normal approach: -
Did you not notice this ?

However, instead of updating the main, 'geographic layout' sign, they've just added a blue, non-traffic sign, so there is a possible argument about adequate signage, (Regulation 18 of LATOR 2016)

Hi Incandescent,

I knew about the width restriction as had previously driven through there long before the new LTN restriction, I was more concerned in lining car up to make sure of not causing any damage etc, so that was main focus of my attention and I missed the signs.

The blue sign as you enter off Merantun Way states Abbey Rd & Pincott Rd closed which is assuming you know the names of the roads, the Abbey Rd sign is low down and situated on the right beside the width restriction, which you wouldn't really be looking at as driving through the width restriction.

The geographic layout sign on the left of the blue sign shows a dead end to the right of the width restriction which is Station Rd, that could easily be interpreted as being the closed road if you are unfamiliar with the local road names etc?

I can see from the forum there are at least 2 other live cases regarding the same stretch of road and alleged offences etc

As I said, we've seen this location before, last year I think, but tempus fugit does apply to my memory, sorry !!  So I can't remember whether cases got as far as London Tribunals. You could try searching using the location text on your PCN

I seen this earlier looks similar?

I will be back later with a full representation.



https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/merton-52j-failing-to-comply-with-a-prohibition-ltn-abbey-road-jw-high-path/msg121504/#msg121504

Hi Hippocrates,

not sure if you have managed to draft a full representation as yet?

As the 14 day appeal period will be up on the 19/08/26

many thanks again

Hi Hippocrates,

not sure if you have managed to draft a full representation as yet?

As the 14 day appeal period will be up on the 19/08/26

many thanks again

Signage: entrapment and does not show the sign

Does not particularise which vehicles.

Website: wrong grounds -  screenshot these first and keep as evidence.

They will reject with the usual claptrap.

Hi Hippocrates,

Provisional draft as follows, would appreciate you casting your eye over it and any comments, additions or deletions from yourself would be welcome etc

Dear Sirs,

1. The PCN does not particularise which vehicles therefore does not establish any grounds for the alleged contravention to have taken place.

2. Similarly, neither does the video support your allegation.

3. Upon entering High Path from Merantun Way the white road sign which is immediately in front of you only shows that there are 2 width restrictions and a dead end in place no mention of Authorised vehicles only, to the right of this sign you use non-regulatory signs namely, blue-backed information boards referencing road names, which are of no assistance to motorists unacquainted with street names or the whereabouts of those streets in the area.
There are regulatory signs available to give this type of advance notification.
The regulatory width restriction signs encourage the perception that vehicles, other than those prohibited by dimension, may proceed, there are not any no through road signs in place as you enter the width restriction area, furthermore the Abbey Road street name sign is hardly visible to the right low down and partially obscured by width restriction bollard whilst navigating the width restriction.

4. The PCN is missing mandatory information as provided at Para. 4 ( (v) of



(v) that if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable.


Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 ( (iii):

(iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

Therefore, it follows that the statement: "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable” adds to the lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the required information was included or not, it is also arguable that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still no clarity due to the missing information. So, it follows that it cannot possibly be interpreted disjunctively.

In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.