I have been driving through this road for the last 5 years without any problems but recently I received 3 PCNs regarding the same offence in one week: for failing to comply to motor vehicle prohibition.
However I think it's unfair as it's not clear at all when these restrictions are applied. I checked London Tribunal past cases which showed many had appealed and won, and I also saw this post which I took inspiration from:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-newham-london-52m-prohibition-royal-albert-way-e16/ Here is the PCN (there are two others that are the exact same, just a day's apart):
I then appealed back to the council with the below but got rejected for all 3. I'm now wondering if I should take it to London Tribunal or just accept the decision. Accepting it will cost me £195, taking it to Tribunal and losing would cost me £390...What do you guys think?
I am writing to formally appeal this PCN on the grounds that the alleged contraventions did not occur due to inadequate and non-compliant warning signage of the restriction, poor visibility and poor placement of the motor restriction signage around the exit. I have been fined three times at this location within a week, and I believe all three PCNs should be cancelled for the reasons outlined below.
On the night I was penalised, I was driving through the Gallions Roundabout. As I approached the roundabout, I saw a diagrammatic sign which showed an enforcement camera which I interpreted as a speed enforcement camera rather than a vehicle restriction. The diagram is of a roundabout that is large and has multiple exits, and so it fails to clearly indicate that a certain exit is prohibited. It also does not specify the name of the exit which adds further confusion. Hence when I saw this sign, I did not think it was warning me of a vehicle restriction but rather of speed enforcement.
After this sign, I saw a small separate sign stating, “Royal Albert Way closed when signs are displayed.” I did not think this sign was linked to the enforcement camera diagram as they are two separate signs that were spaced out, which created further ambiguity. It also did not specify the times when the road is closed (e.g., after midnight), which is particularly problematic for drivers like me who have used this exit multiple times over the last 5 years without encountering the motor prohibition signal and are unaware of when it applies. It also did not specify what sign will be displayed.
As I drove around the roundabout, I was focused on navigating safely, especially as the roundabout is not very well lit which makes the visibility poor. It should also be noted that this roundabout is large and has multiple exits, and with cars behind me I was more concerned with safely maneuvering the dimly lit roundabout and therefore did not see the motor restriction sign at the exit.
I later returned to the location during daylight to review the signages at the location and found it to be inadequate and misleading:
- I believe the council has failed to meet its obligations under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 and general principles of fairness. While TSRGD does not explicitly require advance warning signs, it does require that any signage used must clearly convey the restriction to drivers. The advance warning signs (e.g., "Traffic camera enforcement") are vague and do not specify the nature of the restriction (e.g., "No motor vehicles"), making it very easy to assume the cameras are enforcing speed limits or other regulations. At the same time, it also does not specify restriction times, which would help a driver realise the enforcement camera is related to a restriction. The disjointed signage also adds further to the ambiguity.
- A more effective solution would be to have one traffic sign, clearly specifying that the enforcement camera applies to the Royal Albert Way exit and that this exit is closed during specific times. This would prepare drivers appropriately before they enter the roundabout. I have attached an example of a traffic sign, found in Newham, that demonstrates this which should be adopted.
- Additionally, the placement of the actual motor restriction signage further exacerbates the problem. There is one last traffic light before the specific exit where I was penalised. As shown in the picture, even if a driver was to stop at the traffic light, the motor restriction sign is too far away to be seen clearly. This picture was taken in daylight, but visibility is significantly worse at night given the roundabout is dimly lit.
- Furthermore, the restriction sign is placed on a bend as drivers exit the roundabout, making it difficult to see and react in time. By the time drivers notice the sign, they are already committed to the turn and cannot safely take evasive action. The restricted road is also a dual carriageway, leaving drivers with no safe way to avoid the restriction once they have exited the roundabout.
In light of the above, I believe the inadequate and misleading warning signage, combined with the poor placement of the restriction sign and the poor visibility around the exit, means that the alleged contraventions did not occur as stated. I respectfully request that all three PCNs be cancelled, and that better signage to be installed at this location to help other drivers.
The pictures I sent to support my appeal:
1) The warning sign at the roundabout
2) The view from the last traffic light before the exit
3) The approach to the exit
4) The type of sign I think they should use to make it more clear
I plan to use the same points at London Tribunal but keen to get your thoughts if it's worth the expensive risk.
