My advice to all readers is not to drive in a manner which the road planners don't intend and then you will get less unwanted PCns in the post.
I would play dumb with the council and write in saying that they have not stated a sufficiently alleged contravention on the PCN but left you to guess which one applies especially as their cctv is from a side road and doesn't show a sign.
Don't expect them to cancel, to win you will have to risk the full penalty value at the tribunal and if you do challenge the council they do not have to offer the discount again. I think an adjudicator will find you did a u-turn because you did the very thing which the sign is clearly intended to prevent.
Only the vague PCN may save you.
in tribunal case 2130412623 the adjudicator found the following but it isn't a precedent, another adjudicator may decide that the type of banned turn is obvious from the layout:
The Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') in this case describes the alleged traffic contravention as Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn. However, the PCN fails to particularise what turn is prohibited, left or right. Also, whilst the Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') includes superimposed pictures, it is impossible to see in the copy filed any actual traffic sign(s) that the appellant is alleged to have failed to comply with and there is no copy of the sign(s) themselves superimposed on the PCN.
In the circumstances, I find that the PCN is invalid and unenforceable as it fails to comply with the requirements of section 4(
(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 ('LLA & TFL Act 2003'), which states that the PCN "must (a) state (i) the grounds on which the council...believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle".
In these circumstances, I must allow this appeal.Don't quote this case to the council, just play dumb as above.
