Merton – Abbey Road / High Path LTN – Appeal AllowedJust to update this thread: my appeal was
allowed at the London Tribunals video hearing.
My main argument was that the restriction was
not adequately conveyed from the actual driver's point of view.
Evidence / arguments I relied on- I had taken a photograph from the driver's actual approach showing how the restriction and signage appeared when approaching the width restriction.
- The council supplied several photographs, but they were not clearly dated. Some appeared to be considerably older.
- I pointed out that one of the council's photographs showed the signpost still grey, whereas my photograph showed that the same post had subsequently been painted bright yellow. This became relevant when the adjudicator was trying to establish which photographs best represented the conditions around the date of the contravention.
- I argued that the council's photographs were largely static/site-inspection views, whereas my photograph showed what an approaching driver actually sees.
- The CCTV itself showed another vehicle entering the restriction within a very short period. I argued that this was consistent with the restriction not being sufficiently obvious to approaching motorists.
Ratcliff case – same locationI also referred to the successful Reverend Peter Ratcliff appeal concerning the same Abbey Road / High Path restriction and similar signage/visibility issues.
The adjudicator pointed out that he was not bound by another adjudicator's decision.
I said I fully accepted that and was relying on the Ratcliff decision only as
context, because it concerned the same location, broadly the same period and substantially the same signage issue.
My basic argument throughout was NOT:
"There was no sign."It was:
"The restriction was not adequately conveyed to a motorist approaching the location at the material time."IMPORTANT – know your evidence pack before the hearingOne thing that caused me difficulty was identifying the exhibits.
The tribunal/council bundle referred to evidence as Exhibits A/B/C etc, but those labels were not obvious on the actual photographs.
My appeal had been submitted around six months before the hearing, so I could not remember which exhibit letter corresponded to each photograph.
The adjudicator repeatedly asked me which exhibit I was referring to.
I eventually shared my screen and physically showed him the photograph I meant.
So before attending a hearing, write down the exact page/exhibit number of every photograph you intend to rely upon.This could save you a lot of difficulty during the hearing.
Another potentially useful case – Barani v CroydonThere is also another London Tribunals decision which may help people receiving Code 52 PCNs:
Nima Barani v London Borough of Croydon
Case number: 2250259286
Decision: 5 November 2025This appeal was allowed on a separate point.
The PCN said only that the vehicle had failed to comply with:
"a prohibition on certain types of vehicle"The adjudicator found that this wording did not properly tell the motorist the
exact nature of the prohibition.
The adjudicator also found that the image on the PCN was not sufficiently clear to cure that defect.
The PCN was therefore found to be invalid and the appeal was allowed.
So if your PCN simply says
"failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle" without properly identifying what the actual prohibition is,
Barani v Croydon 2250259286 may be worth raising as a separate argument.
Obviously tribunal decisions are not binding precedents and every case turns on its own facts, but they can still be useful when the facts or legal issue are similar.
Result: APPEAL ALLOWED.Hope this helps anyone else who receives a PCN at the Abbey Road / High Path restriction.