Author Topic: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road  (Read 49 times)

0 Members and 62 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hello,

My case is somewhat like this one:

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/tfl-52g-rotherhithe-tunnel-2t-weight-limit-branch-road/

I was driving a (electric citroen berlingo).


My TFL PCN images: https://imgpile.com/p/0VXpCmv



I was not expecting the vehicle to be overweight (driving alone, no cargo) and entering the tunnel requires care and navigational attention so I was overwhelmed by the signage upon entering.

    • I remember seeing multiple signs about the 2m height/width restrictions, but nothing that clearly indicated a weight limit. Having now reviewed Google Maps, I can see there is a sign, but it’s a small “2t” inside a lorry icon, which is not really clear or obvious for drivers (especially coming from the big roundabout south of the tunnel during rush hour).

    • The van passed through the 2m barriers without issue, reinforcing the impression that my vehicle was fully compliant.



I’m hoping there’s some case I can make? Financially this comes at a very bad time.

Thank you for any support!
Matt
« Last Edit: Today at 11:44:50 am by perpicon »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Tribunal appeals are mostly lost here but I noted this recent case allowed on PCN wording and signage.
But the adjudicator is probably the most friendly.

------------

Case reference   2250351052
Appellant   xxxxx
Authority   Transport for London
VRM   FN67YHG
   
PCN Details
PCN   GX25743657
Contravention date   22 May 2025
Contravention time   11:30:49
Contravention location   ROTHERHITHE TUNNEL APPROACH / BRANCH ROAD
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   28 Oct 2025
Adjudicator   Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons   Mr xxxx has attended the hearing today by video link.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of "failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle goods vehicles exceeding maximum gross weight indicated".
TFL's evidence is that the vehicle exceeded the maximum gross laden weight of 2 tonnes and that the prohibition is on vehicles in excess of that weight. This is not, however, clear from the PCN. There is nothing to indicate or explain the applicable weight restriction.
A PCN is required to state the grounds on which the enforcement authority believes that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms which allow the recipient of the PCN to properly understand the alleged contravention. The PCN needs to explain, whether by wording or images, exactly what the prohibition is.
I therefore find that the PCN was invalid.
I am also not satisfied that the signage was adequate to alert Mr Saini to the weight restrictions. Mr xxxxx says that he had no idea of the weight restrictions in place and that the signage was not clear.
This is one of six PCNs issued to this vehicle for the same alleged contravention over an eight-day period. The no entry sign shows a lorry with 2t in the centre. Mr Saini’s Vauxhall Vivaro van is a light goods vehicle.
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 states at 'Item 13 diagram 622.1A in the sign table in Schedule 3, Part 2' that the sign plate at the location means the following: "Goods vehicles exceeding max gross weight indicated prohibited". It is the only sign permitted in the 2016 Regulations and there is no signage for a light goods vehicle.
The sign in place is the only sign available for use by TfL and it is, therefore, legally compliant. Legal compliance does not, however, prevent signage from being misleading or confusing in particular circumstances.
In my judgement, there is a very real danger that a motorist will see the sign as relating to lorries and not to light goods vehicles because they will not see further than the image of the lorry. One panel sign in place carries width and height restrictions with two lorry images. The problem is that, historically, there have not been weight restrictions for smaller vehicles, and the available signage does not address the need for an image which clearly conveys the type of vehicle being restricted.
I allow the appeal for these reasons.
Like Like x 1 View List

It is the "plated" weight that decides if the vehicle complies or not, not if it's empty, or else everybody would claim the vehicle was empty !
I agree the signage can be confusing, esp the weight limit, that no doubt complies with the standard, but the biggest problem for me having looked on GSV is all the signs are crammed together so the important weight limit tends to disappear in the clutter.

This is a more usual result from a case yesterday but the adjudicator accepted the signage is clear and the PCN wording was not drawn to his attention.

-------------------

Case reference   2250541794
Declarant   xxxxxx
Authority   Transport for London
VRM   AY06JSU
   
PCN Details
PCN   GX25296264
Contravention date   09 May 2025
Contravention time   14:54:00
Contravention location   Rotherhithe Tunnel Approach / Branch Road
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
   
Referral date   16 Oct 2025
   
Decision Date   22 Jan 2026
Adjudicator   Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision   Appeal refused
Direction   Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons   The Order of the County Court revoked the Order for Recovery and cancelled the Charge Certificate but it did not cancel the original Penalty Charge Notice, as clearly stated on the face of the Order.
A contravention can occur if a vehicle is driven so as to fail to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at the entry to Rotherhithe Tunnel, as shown in the closed-circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Enforcement Authority’s case is that the vehicle passed the sign which clearly indicates that goods vehicles with a maximum gross weight exceeding two tonnes are prohibited.
The sign is that prescribed by Diagram 622.1A at Item 13 in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, being a permitted variant thereof, as indicating ‘goods vehicles exceeding the maximum gross weight indicated prohibited’. The sign is also illustrated in the current edition of the Official Highway Code.
Under Section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 “goods vehicle” means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods, or a trailer so constructed or adapted.
Gross maximum weight is what is shown on the vehicle registration document as ‘revenue weight’, ‘gross vehicle weight’ (GVW) or ‘maximum permissible mass’. The ‘mass in service’ figure shown in the vehicle registration document is legally defined by European Directive 95/48/EC as the mass of a motor vehicle in a ready to drive condition with the fuel tank 90% full, a driver on board weighing 68 kg and luggage of 7 kg. This latter figure is not the gross maximum weight. The Enforcement Authority submit that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority return shows this vehicle to have a revenue weight of 2770 kg, which is 2.77 tonnes.
This also shows that the vehicle type approval is classified by the Vehicle Certification Agency as ‘N1’, being a vehicle used for the carriage of goods and having a GVW not exceeding 3500 kg.
The Appellant has not submitted any new grounds, but in his original representations to the Enforcement Authority explained as the normal driver, he had no idea of the weight and had never before received a Penalty Charge Notice regarding weight.
I accept that this may have been a genuine mistake but it does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully at all times whilst driving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they do so only as permitted. This includes making sure that they comply with all restrictions and prohibitions indicated by the signs.
The penalty charge is £160. The amount of the penalty charge is set by the Transport, Environment and Planning Committee of London Councils and approved by the Mayor of London with the authority of the Secretary of State. Under Section 4(8)(a)(iv) and 4(10) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 the enforcement authority must accept the reduced penalty of £80 if paid within 14 days of the date of the Penalty Charge Notice. This is different from some other types of Penalty Charge Notice, where the relevant date is service. Once this period has expired and, for whatever reason including appealing to the Adjudicator and/or making representations to the authority, the charge remains unpaid then the full penalty becomes due.
Section 4(18) of the 2003 Act provides that in determining, for the purposes of any provision of the Act, whether a penalty charge has been paid before the end of a particular period, it shall be taken to be paid when it is received by the authority concerned.
As set out above, the Charge Certificate increasing the penalty charge amount to £220 has been cancelled.
The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence actually produced by the parties and applying relevant law. The Court of Appeal has affirmed that the Adjudicator has no power to consider mitigating circumstances of any description, including reducing the amount of the full penalty charge.
Applications for time to pay the Penalty Charge Notice must be addressed to the Enforcement Authority direct.
Considering all the evidence before me carefully I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur, and the Penalty Charge Notice was properly issued.
Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.