Free Traffic Legal Advice

I plan to appeal with the below draft letter based on the fact that this sign is placed at essentially at the start of the road. Theres no way to safely stop, go elsewhere without it being dangerous considering the road it leads to and comes from is a 40mph road - which often drivers are going much faster than.


I am writing to make a formal representation against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the ground that the contravention did not occur.

My challenge is based on the fact that the signage at this location (Royal Albert Way / Royal Albert Roundabout) is inadequate and fails to provide sufficient advance warning to motorists, as required under the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

1. Inadequate Advance Warning There is insufficient advance signage on the approach to the roundabout to warn drivers that this specific exit is restricted to "No Motor Vehicles." A driver approaching a busy roundabout must focus on traffic flow and lane discipline. Without clear, prominent advance warning before entering the roundabout, a driver has no way of knowing the exit is prohibited until they are already upon it.

2. Late Positioning of Signs / "Point of No Return" The prohibition signs (Code 52m) are located at the very entrance of the exit. By the time these signs become clearly visible to a driver, the vehicle is already committed to the turn. At that specific moment, attempting to avoid the restriction would require a driver to either: a) Stop abruptly in moving traffic on a roundabout, or b) Swerve dangerously across lanes to re-enter the roundabout circulation. Both options would present a significant danger to other road users. Therefore, I was "locked in" to the manoeuvre by the road layout and the late placement of the signage.

3. Request for Evidence If you do not cancel this PCN, I request that you provide:

    Evidence of the advance warning signage in place on the approach I took on the date in question.

    The relevant Traffic Management Order (TMO) authorizing this restriction.

    Maintenance logs proving the signs (if digital/variable) were fully illuminated and functioning correctly at the exact time of the alleged contravention.

Conclusion Given the lack of adequate advance warning and the safety risks involved in taking evasive action, I submit that this penalty is unfair and should be cancelled.

Regarding the Discount Period: Although I am submitting this shortly after the 14-day window, I ask that if you decide to reject this representation, you exercise your discretion to re-offer the discount period to allow me time to consider your response.

Yours faithfully,

Shameful that they have continued giving out PCNs despite this obvious flaw in the signage placements.

I have found a recent case for this exact location against NEWHAM council where they indeed ruled that it was inadequate. Case Reference 2240055133 - is this what you meant?

Its clearly a money printing scam/trap that they've got going on there. Conveniently putting that there, which is a 40 MPH limit every single time I've seen it other than this one time at night. Let me also add that there was absolutely no reason for vehicles to be blocked from accessing this road. It was clear, empty, no roadworks ocurred on the days before or after..

Here is the GSV, this white car is essentially my car. They have be on video driving into the exit with the right hand sign visible on the video.

GSV Contravention


Here is the route ROUTE

Ok I suppose it makes sense for the restrictions at those hours since I do often see people racing up and down those roads..

But yes - completely unavoidable from someone who is not familiar with this and driving this route.

Thanks for your input, I have submitted the appeal and await to see what they say. I suspect they will reject it thinking I'll just pay up

Quote from: bailfyr on February 01, 2026, 03:09:37 pm

Ok I suppose it makes sense for the restrictions at those hours since I do often see people racing up and down those roads..

But yes - completely unavoidable from someone who is not familiar with this and driving this route.

Thanks for your input, I have submitted the appeal and await to see what they say. I suspect they will reject it thinking I'll just pay up

The only place you will win this is at London Tribunals.

Nehwam are a quite disgusting council on this issue; they have done 'Sweet FA' since losing cases at LT. They continue to thumb their noses at the adjudicators because most PCN recipients just cough-up. There really needs to be a process whereby an adjudicator can state that on current signage PCNs are unenforceable, and if they continue, their enforcement powers are suspended. Will we ever see such a process ? Well , don't hold your breath !

Do you think I should just pay up if theres zero chance of getting this appealed? I've no idea what appealing at a tribunal looks like.

There is an excellent chance of getting this overturned, but you'll have to take them to London Tribunals as t the council will never give way, they love the money too much.

Two points, (1) totally inadequate signage of the restriction. (2) The current signage also does not reflect the traffic order. Whilst the traffic order places a restriction of access in the "small hours", there is nothing outside those hours to indicate a restriction exists.

Just think about the variable speed limit motorways. There are always signs at the start and end of the variable speed limit sections advising you of that. So even if nothing is displayed in the speed limits signs, (and this is a very common situation), you know when entering that a lower limit than the 70mph limit may appear in front of you.

Here there is nothing at all.

Fantastic. Then I'll await them to deny this appeal and come back for any advice onto the next appeal. They cant keep getting away with it.

There are a couple of cases on the London Tribunals statutory register that can be quoted to support your case.

So as we expected - they did deny the appeal. Interestingly they noted some points about signage which I found interesting so I recorded the same journey one evening to see if I found any signs - and I did. There is a sign just prior to the roundabout on the entry road that I take into it saying that there are traffic enforcement cameras. Now - was that there when I received this PCN? I couldnt tell you. I've driven this route many times and perhaps I may have not noticed this new sign.

Eitherway - my opinion is that you still have to be in the right lane to take this exit. Once you notice the sign and see it in view as you approach it - it is almost too late to avoid and involves crossing across other lanes of traffic. The point that taking evading action is dangerous still stands.

They have offered a reduced £80 PCN if paid within 14 days, as per usual. What is your opinion on this? In their rejection letter, they do make note of the signage that they have, I assume, now installed as a result of the appeals. Do I have a leg to stand on on the point that to even see this enforcement sign - you have to be almost committed to the entry onto the road?

See below for their letter + the sign in question that I may or may not have been there when I drove by

Rejection Letter
Traffic enforcement warning