Free Traffic Legal Advice

unbeleiveable ! i have not been through here for some time as i use my vehicle as little as possible, traffic in the area was very bad, much worse than i ever noticed and assumed there were some road works and temporary light, this was not the case once i received this PCN, it seems Merton have jumped on the LTN waggon, this LTN has been put in place and is not at all obvious, where you turn the corner from high path into abbey road you are greeted with a width restriction that has been there for many years, you have to take it wide and your eyes are then focussed on aligning yourself to get through the barrier, i have not had time to go back and look, i would say they have just put a couple of signs in place of the round width restriction warnings.

This picture i have placed arrows showing my direction of travel entering High Path, i have highlighed the sign there which shows that there are width rectrictions in that direction, there is also a yellow road works sign stating that Pincott road and Abbey road are closed, the date of this GE map is May 2025, i beleive this is when they installed this new money trap.



Here you can see where they have place one of the new signs from thier video evidence, the sign on the other i have no idea who is supposed to see that. this sign is obscured by the tree as you approach this width restriction, by the time you come around the corner you have no way of seeing the sign unless you take your eyes off the road and negating the width rextriction.



This one shows my approch into Abbey road, if you look on GE earth you will see that no signs are visible on approach, here the GE date is 2022 so doesnt show the signs erected yet. I have put a cross where the sign seems to be now.

Not sure how leniant Merton will be with this as it is a very new scheme and is still under consultaion, not that they waited for the results of consulatation before putting into place. The surrounding area is now gridlocked

Abbey Road and Pincott Road experimental closures
The Abbey Road area is a known popular rat run and over the years residents and ward Councillors have raised concerns.

In September 2023, the ongoing concerns were formally raised via a petition from residents requesting that action is taken to address rat-running. This petition was received at full council and an undertaking was given that the Council would consider a scheme to address rat running.

We have developed a scheme that involves road closures at the junctions of Pincott Road/High Path and Abbey Road/Station Road. These closures will be non-physical and will be enforced by Automatic Number Plate Recognition Cameras (ANPR).

The proposed closures require statutory consultation, and, in this instance, the scheme is being introduced under an Experimental Traffic Order which will be in place for a maximum of 18 months prior to making a final decision on the future of the scheme.

We have now extended the consultation period to allow more time to both understand the impact of the scheme and allow residents to comment on changes, including the new signage. You now have until 3 October to have your say.

Once the consultation has closed, the scheme will remain in place until a final decision on whether to make it permanent has been made.

Here is a link to the Merton Council traffic order.

https://www.merton.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-04/TMO%202025-12%20PRABBEYRDETO%20%281%29.pdf

And a link to the general Merton council chaos they are making.

https://www.merton.gov.uk/streets-parking-transport/traffic-management/low-traffic-neighbourhoods#toc-abbey-road-and-pincott-road-experimental-closures

Please post all sides of the PCN (only redact yr name & address - leave all else in) and the video.

For convenience:

Have those advance width restriction signs in your first photo been changed to show the new restriction. This shows that the previous signage could be considered adequate, but if they're left unchanged, then is shows council have not placed adequate signage under Regulation 18 of the  The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18

At this moment i cannot get to the area, they could well have been, possibly the other poster who has also been stung with this may get to see before i do, the GE maps show that sign dated March 2025, when you get past it it goes back to 2022. What would be a good way to appeal this is what i would like to know, im not holding my breath on them being leniant if i grovel.

Have those advance width restriction signs in your first photo been changed to show the new restriction. This shows that the previous signage could be considered adequate, but if they're left unchanged, then is shows council have not placed adequate signage under Regulation 18 of the  The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18

What say you sir ?

Neither the main ‘no motor vehicles’ signs nor the blue background information signs in your video comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). That’s assuming LB Merton haven’t obtained special authorisation for them in the last 7 days or so. The legend “Except authorised vehicles” is not a permitted variant. TSRGD Schedule 3, Part 2, Item 12 refers.

This should squash the PCN if you get the right adjudicator at appeal stage, but LB Merton will almost certainly reject representations on this point. Hope this helps.

Going to go in with this...

I write to formally challenge the above PCN.

The PCN alleges “failure to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.” However, I submit that the restriction has not been lawfully conveyed to motorists for the following reasons:

Non-compliant signage

The “No Motor Vehicles” signs at the location do not comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD).

TSRGD Schedule 3, Part 2, Item 12 specifies permitted variants, and the wording “Except authorised vehicles” is not among them. Unless Merton Council has obtained special authorisation from the Department for Transport (which I doubt given the recent installation), the signage is unlawful and cannot give rise to a penalty charge.

In addition, the accompanying blue information signs in place also appear non-compliant with TSRGD.

Inadequate and unclear visibility

As a driver approaching the location, one must negotiate the long-standing width restriction. The newly added prohibition signs are not visible until a driver is committed to passing through the width restriction. At that moment, the driver’s full attention is on safely manoeuvring through the narrow gap, not scanning for new signage.

The continuing presence of the physical width restriction reinforces the impression that motor vehicles are still permitted, as was the case historically. This creates a misleading and confusing situation for motorists.

Good faith and genuine mistake

I have not driven through this area for some time, and on this occasion traffic congestion in surrounding roads led me inadvertently to the restriction.

I understand and respect the Council’s aims in reducing traffic under the Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme, and I will not use this road again now that I am aware of the change.

Given the above, I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled. If the Council wishes to continue enforcement, it must first demonstrate either that the signs are TSRGD-compliant or that specific DfT authorisation has been obtained.

In any event, I believe cancellation is appropriate here due to the inadequate signage, the misleading road layout, and the genuine nature of this first contravention.

Yours faithfully,

This is pretty much all they will allow me to say, guess ill have to get the big guns out when they refuse the appeal.

I wish to explain the circumstances of this alleged contravention. I have not driven through this area for some time and, due to heavy congestion on surrounding roads, I inadvertently entered the new Low Traffic Neighbourhood restriction. I had previously used this road as a cut-through. The long-standing width restriction remains in place and the new “No Motor Vehicles” signs are not obvious when approaching around the corner. At that point, a driver’s attention is on safely navigating the width restriction rather than looking for additional signage. This gives the impression that access is still permitted. I understand and support the Council’s aims in reducing traffic, but in this case I believe the signage is inadequate. Now that I am aware of the change, I will avoid the road in future. This was a genuine mistake, and I respectfully request that the Council exercise its discretion to cancel the PCN.