Free Traffic Legal Advice

If your wife is using satnav, tell her not to use it any longer, or the PCN stream will continue.

Please repost Page 1 of the PCN with your name and address blanked-out. Leave everything else visible.

The approach was a left turn into the restriction. There is an advance warning sign here : -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/dZBwjv2nxQ7z57gD6
And there needs to be because the restriction signs are end-on to a left-turn approach. Problem is as one approaches the turn driving virtually in GSV, it reverts to 2016 views so the restriction signs cannot be seen closer up from the approach direction, but can be from the other direction and they show that the signs would not be visible to a motorist intending to turn left. They are also mounted absurdly high, and this now seem to be commonplace so one has to wonder why when all the other signs are at a reasonable height. A motorists most urgent attention when making a turn is to make sure it is safe, and to look out for hazaards like pedestrians and cyclists, so his attention should not be skywards.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Tce6aUAF8fpsqaQi9

Their video shows your car turning into the restricted street with no hesitation whatsoever. Did you wife see the signs, and if she did, did she understand what they meant ? With a clear advance sign, and two prominent signs in good condition, appealing this will be difficult. Of course the council will reject anything you say so if you want to fight this you must be prepared to forego the discount and take them to London Tribunals.
You could argue the advance sign may have been obscured by a high-sided vehicle, and the actual restriction signs are place too high up and also are side on to a motorist approaching to turn left.

See the first link in my profile and copy and paste it. Check the wording fits your ticket.

Apologies, I have tried to find the relevant link but Can't seem to find it. Could you please provide me the link? Thank you so much in advance.

Thank you. My initial challenge was rejected.

Page 1  https://ibb.co/XfpfpBQx
Page 2  https://ibb.co/JRRnT3ks

I am planning to take this to tribunal and send a response later today. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Grounds for Appeal
I am appealing against the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the London Borough of Redbridge on the following grounds:

1. Inadequate and Obscured Signage

The advance warning sign may have been obscured by a high-sided vehicle at the time of approach, making it impossible for the driver to see and comply with the restriction.
The actual restriction signs are positioned too high and are side-on to a motorist approaching to turn left. This positioning does not provide adequate visibility or clarity for drivers, contrary to the principles of fair notice under traffic regulations.


2. Technical Non-Compliance with Statutory Requirements
The PCN fails to comply with mandatory requirements under Section 4((v) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, which states:

“(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28-day period, an increased charge may be payable.”

This must be read in conjunction with Section 4((iii):

“(iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.”


Issues with the PCN Wording


The PCN states:
“If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable.”


This wording is defective because:

It omits the mandatory information required by Section 4((v).
It conflates two separate periods (payment and representation) using the word “or”, which creates ambiguity. Many would interpret “or” as conjunctive, meaning both conditions must be met, which is misleading.
Even if interpreted disjunctively, the statement lacks clarity and fails to specify the correct statutory period for payment, rendering the PCN non-compliant.




3. Lack of Clarity
The omission and conflation of statutory periods create confusion for motorists regarding their rights and obligations. This lack of clarity is a procedural impropriety and undermines the validity of the PCN.

Conclusion
Given the above:

The signage was inadequate and potentially obscured.
The PCN fails to meet statutory requirements under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
The wording is misleading and prejudicial.

I respectfully request that the adjudicator allows this appeal and cancels the PCN.