Which side? Post the PCN.
This restriction is recent (2024) and we've not seen any cases. But there was one allowed at the tribunal yesterday for the north side.
--------
Case reference 2250426763
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
VRM DV72BHF
PCN Details
PCN KE81885113
Contravention date 15 May 2025
Contravention time 11:05:00
Contravention location Albert Bridge (north side)
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date -
Decision Date 15 Jan 2026
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
I heard the Appellant in person by video link on two occasions.
The Appellant’s case is that from the direction in which he was approaching the bridge the weight restriction was not clearly indicate. He illustrates the drivers view on approaching the bridge with photographs. These show the presence of a single weight restriction sign set well back towards the bridge. It seems to me this would not come clearly into view before the entrance to the bridge is reached. Advance warning is clearly required, and this is implicitly acknowledged buy the Council by the provision of a blue advance warning sign positioned on the left shortly before the traffic lights at the junction.
The Appellant submits that this sign is overloaded and not sufficiently visible as it contains advance warning of both the weight limit and width restriction
I adjourned the case for the following reason:-
“The Adjudicator has heard the Appellant in person. He raises the issue of the difficulty for the motorist in absorbing the effect of the two symbols on the blue advance warning sign.
The sign is apparently a variation of Diagram 818. 4 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. Whilst the permitted variants of the sign clearly allow a width limit symbol (amongst others) to be substituted for the weight limit symbol, there appears to be no provision for more than one symbol on the sign.
The hearing is adjourned to give the Council the opportunity to draw the Adjudicator’s attention to any provision to the contrary he may have overlooked, or to provide evidence of authorisation from the DfT. If the sign transpires to be non-compliant the Council would presumably wish to reconsider its position.
The Council’s response is as follows:-
“In regards to the Adjudicators adjournment question. The Blue signage located on Oakley Street is an advanced warning sign. The signage just prior to the bridge, as seen on the footage is the restriction sign. This sign meets the TSRGD requirements.”
The Council therefor appears to accept that the warning sign is non-compliant, but its position is that this is does not matter providing the actual sign on the bridge is correct . I do not entirely agree.
The signage taken as a whole has to be sufficient to inform the motorist of the restriction relied on. Certainly the sign indicating the actual restriction has to be compliant (as in this case it is) ; but it is not the case that a compliant sign is necessarily a clear sign or on its own sufficient to give the necessary information. In a case where warning signage is necessary one obviously has to consider the clarity of that signage and whether it is sufficient to give the necessary information lacking by virtue of the positioning of the main sign. I would accept that the mere fact that a warning sign is not TSRGD compliant does not automatically deprive it of any effect; I regularly see many examples of non-statutory as warning signs. However the fact that a sign is non – statutory does not assist a Council ,and deprives it of any argument on the basis that motorists are expected to be on the alert for and to comply with traffic signs prescribed by law. In the present case the fact that the TSRGD permits only one symbol to appear suggests to me that to permit more than one would lead to signage overload , and an unclear sign. Having considered the matter I agree with the Appellant that the inclusion of two symbols renders the weight restriction much easier to miss particularly when driving in traffic approaching a busy junction, with traffic lights and yellow box markings claiming the motorist’s attention.
On the particular facts I am unable to be satisfied that the signage was adequate to inform the Appellant of the restriction relied on and he Appeal is allowed
