The London Borough of Lewisham
Failure to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (53j)
LOCATION - Trundley’s Road (where it meets Rolt Street) New Cross, London – restricted access street
Hi all
Thank you for looking at this. Below is the first draft response for informal challenge with separate attachments for Appendices. I have nothing to lose to challenge as I assume the £80 reduced will still apply if the Council reject. Seeking peoples kind input to strengthen the case and opinions on whether the case presented below is strong enough to take to appeal and risk the higher penalty charge? Thank you for your time and help.
Link to Council CCTV -
Link to Council PCN Letter -
Image IMG 0933 hosted on ImgBB
Link to Appendix 1 of the below response -
Image IMG 0934 hosted on ImgBB
Link to Appendix 2 of the below response -
Image IMG 0935 hosted on ImgBB
Link to far back view of the signage -
Image IMG 0937 hosted on ImgBB
(only being shared on ftla forum not being sent in response)
Link to close up view of the signage -
Image IMG 0938 hosted on ImgBB
(only being shared on ftla forum not being sent in response)
Proposed draft response:
The London Borough of Lewisham,
Laurence House,
1 Catford Road,
SE6 4RU
Dear Sir or Madam,
PCN number: ZY22918957
Vehicle registration number: MV14LZB
The PCN states that there is an alleged contravention from a failure to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (53j).
I received a PCN on 9th September 2026 but I believe the penalty was wrongly issued and there are mitigating circumstances to explain why I entered where I did and I would like to submit an informal challenge for the following reasons:
• There was insufficient signage. I couldn't determine what the relevant parking restrictions were because there was no clear signage to explain them. Please see below explanation and your still images and CCTV video proves such as small unclear signage, as proof of my informal challenge.
• There were mitigating circumstances. There are mitigating circumstances to explain why I entered where I did so I am requesting that the fine be waived.
There was insufficient signage:
1. Your images of the infringement do not show the signage and the written contents of such on your prints. It shows the signage is inadequate and small there is no clear warning signage to highlight the restrictions. The signage is placed high up and not at eye level. You can see from the CCTV footage that you turn a left-hand corner to enter where the signage is located. As a driver my view was hampered by parked cars on the left (as shown in the CCTV video a white car which was last parked) blocked the driver eye view of the approaching signage. As I pass the white parked car in the video I am looking straight ahead and make the left turn towards the signage. That last white car obstruction and the left turn distraction happens in a split second as the video demonstrates. A driver does not have prior warning and hampered viewing of the signage due to the turn road conditions. I also was distracted by the fact on the road surface there is a block paving brick circle as shown in the video. I hesitated on the approach looking downwards at this marking thinking this was a roundabout marking on the road, very confusing for the driver and caused split second confusion and further distraction. I also question if no vehicle entry zone at any time, why not block the entrance to the area or put clear red bold no entry signs so they are not easily missed. I point this out as if it is a no entry vehicle zone and it is a continuation of the road with no warning or physical barriers or high visibility warning signage then it is clear that it is for income generation only with no attempt made to make drivers clearly aware it is not just a continuation of a public road. I trust an adjudicator inspector would see this blatant lack of visual warning signage just like I did and before I present this to an adjudicator, I will lodge a Freedom of Information Request into the Council to request how many fines have been issued by this camera at this spot for evidence purposes to prove the point.
There were mitigating circumstances that are important to note on the date this occurred as follows:
1. To be clear I live in the North West of England, I have never drove in Central London, I have never visited this area or the particular roads in question around Trundleys Rd, London SE8 5JE. I knew the area would be busy that day / afternoon as elaborated in point 2 below so I did some homework on the surrounding streets to work out where I could park safely to unload and could see immediately outside 164-196 Trundleys Rd there was yellow line parking restrictions so from Google Maps noted the side street of Trundleys Rd that lead into Rolt Street. As you can see from APPENDIX TWO my research showed that this was a suitable area to off load and park and as the screenshot of Google Maps clearly shows at the time of my research there was no entry restriction signage restricting the area. I appreciate the map search is out of date but at the time of my research to reconnaissance the area this clearly shows that my knowledge was aided by the fact no restrictions applied so when I entered this area in real time I was already of the knowledge that I could enter that area without restrictions.
2. Ironworks House Student Accommodation, 164-196 Trundleys Rd. This is a brand new purpose build halls of residence with approximately 400 rooms. On 5th September 2026 this was the first day of student move in, when I arrived by car at around 3pm both sides of Trundleys Road cars were double parked unloading student belongings. I subsequently tried to park down turning left into Trundleys Rd heading to Rolt Rd and both sides of the road where parking permitted were full with cars parked or unloading. Please see APPENDIX ONE attachment to show the extent of the unloading car parking conditions. What is important to note here is this was a one off mass event that happened in the afternoon of 05/09/26 whereby the unloading activity caused ciaos on the immediate roads causing stationary traffic jams and the Council need to take this into account this was a mitigating unavoidable circumstance that caused the fact I was distracted and MOST IMPORTANTLY as APPENDIX ONE shows a RED X marker I initially thought this was a marking for a round about. The area was congested this area was free of cars as the CCTV shows but its clear from the footage far to tight for a vehicle to make a safe turning circle. I beg the question how are road users who are alert enough to spot the small signage able to make a U turn in the area marked with a red X? The council can assess this from the CCTV footage it is visually clear this area it was to tight a turn circle, there were black bollards to the right on the pavement (as can be viewed in your CCTV image) restricting the turn circle and to the left many pedestrians milling about which would be deemed unsafe to make a rear reverse turning circle. So the council make restrictions but do not make provision for road users to be able to turn back around safely with sufficient space to do so.
3. It is very clear from the CCTV video that cars were double parked on entry to the area where the CCTV commences. The one off event that afternoon confirms the streets were gridlocked and other than reversing back down Trudleys Rd which is against traffic law. The CCTV clearly evidences this, it shows the area was entered only to make a safe U turn this is clearly viewed at the end of the CCTV clip I commenced the U turn on video in an area free of pedestrians and parked cars where it was the only safe space to make the turn and then I exited. I am being penalised for solely choosing a safe area free of obstructions to simply to be able to turn my car round in the only place possible. I did not drive down the road or park on the road simply to make a U turn at the only place possible.