3. Haringey London PCN - Contravention 52g 7.5t HGV Restriction - Brownlow Road
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Haringey London PCN - Contravention 52g 7.5t HGV Restriction - Brownlow Road  (Read 86 times)

0 Members and 19 Guests are viewing this topic.

Haringey London PCN - Contravention 52g 7.5t HGV Restriction - Brownlow Road
« on: »
I am wondering whether to take a punt with this. The vehicle crossed these offset cross roads from Durnsford Road (B106) crossing the A109 onto Brownlow Road (B106). But the Brownlow Road section prohibits HGVs of max gross weight 7.5t and over. There is only one sign that I can find at the start of Brownlow Road and there is no advance signage on Durnsford Road (B106).

Now, I know there is no advance signage specifically mandated in statute.

However, LATOR 1996 regulation 18 requires authorities to place signage in positions to provide adequate information as to the effect of the order for persons using the road. There is no advance signage, and from the traffic lights on Durnsford Road, the one weight restriction sign on Brownlow Road is not visble from the left lane (as shown in screenshots on Google Drive link) which is the lane that goes down that road.

For a 44t articulated HGV it is necessary to be warned before the traffic lights so the driver can change lanes to be in the correct lane to avoid the restriction at the traffic light. Once in the crossroads and vehicles are turning, it becomes unsafe to start changing lanes for an artic. And if the sign is only seen once on entering Brownlow Road, then it is too late at that point to avoid it.

The location:
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps. · maps.app.goo.gl


While the TSM is guidance, if signage fails to adhere to it, it can be deemed inadequate and to have failed the statutory duty under regulation 18. It is a subjective test.

PCN and GSV screenshots:
Haringey Council - Google Drive
Google Drive · drive.google.com

Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Haringey London PCN - Contravention 52g 7.5t HGV Restriction - Brownlow Road
« Reply #1 on: »
We  have seen a recent case similar case to yours in Preston, where the restriction was not announced in advance, making it too late to turn an HGV.
The case was won. but due to the stupid admin at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, I can't access the case to show you. Essentially, a weight restriction like this needs advance notice because the nature of HGVs is that they cannot easily change direction on sight of a weight limit sign where it is only seen on immediate approach.
Logged
Re: Haringey London PCN - Contravention 52g 7.5t HGV Restriction - Brownlow Road
« Reply #2 on: »
That could have been me also
- https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lancashire-county-council-pcn-34j-being-in-a-bus-lane-no-alternative-route/msg101795/#msg101795

Adjudicator's reasons:
"
1.    Mr [Redacted], on behalf of [Redacted] Ltd, appeals a Penalty Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued for driving in the Corporation Street bus gate in Lancaster on 29/10/2025 at 17:37.

2.    The vehicle in question is a 16m long, 44 tonne articulated lorry. The driver had been diverted from the M6 where traffic was at a standstill.

3.    I have read Mr [Redacted] detailed submissions and the Council’s response. The Council have not responded to the Traffic Regulation Order exemption point raised by Mr [Redacted] and have not said that the vehicle would have passed other advance warning signage over and above the sign referred to by Mr [Redacted].

4.    I am satisfied that:

a.    The vehicle was lawfully using Corporation Street prior to its entry into the bus gate. There are no weight or height restrictions on that section of highway.

b.    The vehicle’s use of Corporation was unusual and unexpected. The driver could not have been expected to have pre-planned this route into Corporation Street.

c.     The only bus gate advance warning sign the vehicle passed before entering the bus gate was a sign approximately 20m before the entry point advising vehicles to take a sharp left turn to avoid the bus gate into Marsh Lane.

d.    Marsh Lane is narrow and there is a central island just before its entrance. The lorry would not have been able to access Marsh Lane without mounting the central island and possibly damaging adjacent buildings.

e.    There was no alternative for the lorry other than to continue into the bus gate. If it had not done so I agree that an accident was likely to have occurred.

5.    In light of the above findings, Article 8(a) of the Traffic Regulation Order applies, namely;

 "8. Exemptions
Nothing in Article 6 of this Order shall render it unlawful to cause or permit any Vehicle to travel along any part of the lengths of road referred to therein for so long as may be necessary to enable:

a) the Vehicle to avoid an accident;"


6.    Therefore, I allow the appeal."

I did request clarification from the adjudicator on whether they considered the signage sufficient given their findings, and if the appeal would have been allowed without the TRO exemption. I can't remember what they said exactly but it was essentially that the ruling was based on the exemption alone and they don't offer advice lol

Logged
Re: Haringey London PCN - Contravention 52g 7.5t HGV Restriction - Brownlow Road
« Reply #3 on: »
Quote from: TheParkingmeister on April 16, 2026, 09:39:50 pm
That could have been me also
- https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lancashire-county-council-pcn-34j-being-in-a-bus-lane-no-alternative-route/msg101795/#msg101795

Adjudicator's reasons:
"
1.    Mr [Redacted], on behalf of [Redacted] Ltd, appeals a Penalty Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued for driving in the Corporation Street bus gate in Lancaster on 29/10/2025 at 17:37.

2.    The vehicle in question is a 16m long, 44 tonne articulated lorry. The driver had been diverted from the M6 where traffic was at a standstill.

3.    I have read Mr [Redacted] detailed submissions and the Council’s response. The Council have not responded to the Traffic Regulation Order exemption point raised by Mr [Redacted] and have not said that the vehicle would have passed other advance warning signage over and above the sign referred to by Mr [Redacted].

4.    I am satisfied that:

a.    The vehicle was lawfully using Corporation Street prior to its entry into the bus gate. There are no weight or height restrictions on that section of highway.

b.    The vehicle’s use of Corporation was unusual and unexpected. The driver could not have been expected to have pre-planned this route into Corporation Street.

c.    The only bus gate advance warning sign the vehicle passed before entering the bus gate was a sign approximately 20m before the entry point advising vehicles to take a sharp left turn to avoid the bus gate into Marsh Lane.

d.    Marsh Lane is narrow and there is a central island just before its entrance. The lorry would not have been able to access Marsh Lane without mounting the central island and possibly damaging adjacent buildings.

e.    There was no alternative for the lorry other than to continue into the bus gate. If it had not done so I agree that an accident was likely to have occurred.

5.    In light of the above findings, Article 8(a) of the Traffic Regulation Order applies, namely;

 "8. Exemptions
Nothing in Article 6 of this Order shall render it unlawful to cause or permit any Vehicle to travel along any part of the lengths of road referred to therein for so long as may be necessary to enable:

a) the Vehicle to avoid an accident;"


6.    Therefore, I allow the appeal."

I did request clarification from the adjudicator on whether they considered the signage sufficient given their findings, and if the appeal would have been allowed without the TRO exemption. I can't remember what they said exactly but it was essentially that the ruling was based on the exemption alone and they don't offer advice lol
I think your case was the one I had in mind, I just got the town wrong !!
Logged
Re: Haringey London PCN - Contravention 52g 7.5t HGV Restriction - Brownlow Road
« Reply #4 on: »
That is the right town, it was Preston, governed by Preston City Council and Lancashire County Council.
Logged
Re: Haringey London PCN - Contravention 52g 7.5t HGV Restriction - Brownlow Road
« Reply #5 on: »
The PCN

The PCN wrongly states which action triggers the period in which the council may serve a charge certificate: “If the Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £195.00 maybe payable. We may then send you a Charge Certificate.” The law states at Schedule 1 5:

1)

Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.

(2)The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning—

(a)where no representations are made under paragraph 1 above, with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;

In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.

Case:  224038612A

I find that the PCN in this case is not valid. The PCN must explain that, if no representations are made and, if payment of the penalty charge has not been made, before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN, then an increased charge may be payable.

The PCN in this case states that the increased charge may be payable and a Charge Certificate served if the PCN has not been paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice. It is, therefore, not clear to the motorist that there will be no liability to an increased charge and a Charge Certificate if representations against the PCN are made within the 28 day period. In my judgement, that is a material defect as it may impact on the motorist's decision as to whether to challenge the PCN.

And: 
Eleanor Macwhinnie v London Borough of Hounslow (2250221909, 21 July 2025).pdf
Google Docs · drive.google.com


I acted in both.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2026, 10:42:10 pm by Hippocrates »
Logged
@Incandescent!

I AM ABLE TO TAKE ON MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. I HATE RETIREMENT.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. Haringey London PCN - Contravention 52g 7.5t HGV Restriction - Brownlow Road