Free Traffic Legal Advice

Could I also use the fact that that the period in which the notice must be paid is wrongly stated as "period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice"?

No, it is actually correct. The Act under which this PCN was served gives the period for payment as from date of service, but period for submitting reps is from date of service, which is barmy, (but that is Parliament for you !). Councils, and indeed adjudicators have struggled with this ever since the Act came in.

We've seen this location before, but I can't remember how it turned out. However, it is clear from looking at GSV that the entry to Croome Hill was closed in 2020 : -

But then it is miraculously open again in 2022 !

and this seems to have continued for the next two years, and is shown in the last GSV view of 2024 as open: -

Note that the planter boxes are always there. I suspect this closure caused a huge row in 2020, and it is only fairly recently that the restriction has been reimposed.
So in the absence of an up-to-date GSV view we need to see what is there now.  You say there is no escape road, but there are two side streets before the restriction and the street is fairly wide, so I don't think that is a winning argument, frankly.  What can win is adequacy of signage. You say there is no advance warning sign so that is something to emphasise. However we really do need to see what's there, so if you are prepared to do some legwork with a camera, (your mobile phone camera is sufficient), please provide some up-to-date photos.

And are you the registered keeper of the vehicle and addressee on the PCN?

I've uploaded the video here: https://imgpile.com/p/z6dvTt8

I did go back earlier to check the signs; the restriction is in place, it's essentially from some time in the morning until 7pm, so unfortunately I crossed 8 min early. I'll be driving past the area again tomorrow, so let me know if specific information is required, in which case I'll take a photo of the signs.

There is no escape road prior to crossing the signs, and as you can see from the video it's certainly not a wide road. I also had a car right behind me, so it would have been dangerous to all of a sudden come to a stop.

To confirm I'm indeed the registered keeper and the PCN is addressed to me.

What do the signs say. Couple of cases.

Greenwich fails to provide evidence a lot of recent cases.

----------

Case reference   225027355A
Appellant   xxxxxx
Authority   Royal Borough of Greenwich
VRM   RO69ROU
PCN Details
PCN   GR23262227
Contravention date   13 Mar 2025
Contravention time   08:17:00
Contravention location   Crooms Hill / Nevada Street
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date   -
Decision Date   28 Aug 2025
Adjudicator   Edward Houghton
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons   
I heard the Appellant by audio link.

Her case is essentially that the signage was not clear, particularly in the absence of any advance warning. It seems to me in view of the limited evidence provided by the Council that she might well have an arguable case on that point. However it is unnecessary to consider that aspect further since the sign relied on by the Council does not comply with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General directions 2016 in that “Except authorised vehicles” is not a permitted variant of the wording allowed on the associated plate for this particular sign. As the prohibition relied on was not correctly signed the Appeal must be allowed.

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


Case reference   2250221986
Appellant   xxxxxxx
Authority   Royal Borough of Greenwich
VRM   SG16PJM
PCN Details
PCN   GR22955090
Contravention date   23 Jan 2025
Contravention time   09:08:00
Contravention location   Crooms Hill / Nevada Street
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date   -
Decision Date   28 Jul 2025
Adjudicator   Alastair Mcfarlane
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons   
The Appellant was due to attend a virtual hearing before me today, but has not done so. No explanation has been received by the tribunal for his absence and in the circumstances I consider it just and appropriate to determine his appeal on the information before me in the absence of the Appellant.

The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle failed to comply with the restriction on motor vehicles in Crooms Hill on 23 January 2025. A penalty charge notice was issued at 0908.

The Authority rely upon its CCTV footage. I have viewed this and it shows the Appellant's vehicle driving towards the camera and passing two restriction signs that are facing towards the camera. There is no image of what the reverse of the signs state – that will be facing the motorist. There are no location images before me and accordingly, on the information provided I cannot be satisfied that the contravention occurred and the appeal must be allowed.

Do not join The Mugged Club. Greenwich are not contesting any appeals mostly at the moment at the Tribunal.

To be honest, I think appeal on basis that warning sign is not clear is weak in law on two bases. 1) IMO the advanced sign IS clear 2) Not sure that an advanced sign is strictly necessary for enforcement anyway.

However... if OP is feeling lucky. It may well be worthwhile continuing the appeal process for the following reasons 1) Greenwich has a habit of not defending appeals at tribunal so OP might win on default.  2) For the charge to stick, Greenwich would have to establish that you passed a restriction sign. The video alone does not show the restriction you breached, as camera is facing the opposite direction. (The actual restriction is included in photos in OP's above post).

So for tactical reasons, OP might be best placed to keep cards close to chest and appeal on the basis of no advanced warning. So that the council, concentrate in establishing that advance warning existed. And hope they neglect to include details of restriction itself in evidence pack, if they defend at all.           

So double or quits, gambling on Council incompetency.

Well done