You do have the absolute right in law to take them to London Tribunals and argue the signage gives totally inadequate advance warning, but you'd have to do some legwork and take your own photos as latest GSV is 2021, so not up-to-date. The full penalty is payable if you lose, nil if you win, but there are no additional costs at all.
A sign like this needs an adjudicator to run his eye over what they've done, but there are no guarantees at all, I'm afraid.
Some good news: -
There have been several wins here at London Tribunals:
Case Number
2230497838
2230530922
But also losses
2230505492
HOwever, I think these are the key cases
2230492197
Mr. Ali prepared and presented his appeal in a very thorough and helpful way. I had regard to everything he said about the incident in question and his knowledge of the location. I also had regard to the photographs provided by both parties and to the CCTV footage of the alleged contravention.
I start by voicing my concern that the 'no motor vehicles' sign in this case, which only displays during the hours when the prohibition is effective, and is at other times a speed limit sign, may well not be substantially compliant with the relevant regulations. That is because it likely does not adequately convey to road users the terms of the prohibition on motor vehicles, which is not effective at all times (as the sign indicates) but only from 10pm to 3am. It likely fails, therefore, to inform road users of the terms of the traffic management order to which it relates. This issue may fall for consideration in another case.
The prohibition on motor vehicles in this case is in a most unlikely location; on a dual carriageway. The signage in question is placed at the exit from a roundabout. Unless already familiar with the location it is highly unlikely that any motorist would be looking out for 'no motor vehicles' signs at the entrance to a road which is, by its very nature, designed primarily for the passage of those very vehicles.
Mr. Ali told me, and I accept, that the entrance to the dual carriageway was his first exit from the roundabout. He therefore exited the road he was on and turned left. The photographs provided by both parties corroborate Mr. Ali's case and evidence that the nearside sign was obscured by foliage. The footage corroborates his evidence that he only saw the sign on the offside of the carriageway once he had driven onto the dual carriageway. The signage is not, I find, sufficiently visible to provide an adequate opportunity to avoid the prohibition.
Consistent with the decision of the learned adjudicator Mr. Teper in case 2230497838, I do not find the signage at this location to have been adequate. The advance warning signage is, in fact, no such thing and merely warns of camera enforcement and not of a prohibition.
The contravention is not proved.
Note the comment that the sign does not reflect the Traffic Management Order, but not showing times of the restriction. Even if you didn't pass the sign, but wanted to go that way, there is nothing to tell you when you might return again and drive into Royal Albert Way. I think this may be the key defect, and then there is the inadequate advance warning.
2230539610
The Appellant missed the signs on both occasions. I am not surprised. It seems to me the signage at his location is unsatisfactory and inadequate.
As the Appellant points out, the signs do not show the hours of operation specified in the Traffic Management Order. The signs as they stand indicate a restriction in operation at all times; and as this is not supported by the Traffic Management Order the signs are not erected in conformance with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.
Even if they were, external illumination is required during the hours of darkness.
Even if the signs were illuminated in my view advance warning is required. The yellow advance warning signage relied on by the Council gives no warning of the forthcoming restriction, merely of forthcoming camera enforcement.
The signage at this location is clearly in need of urgent review. As I am not satisfied that the signage was either clear or correct the Appeal in each of these cases must be allowed.
and this one
So I would go for it.
