Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi,

I've received a PCN for Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (motor vehicles). My case is very similar to: https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/waltham-forest-code-52m-(driving-through-modal-filter)-tavistock-avenue-blackhor/. Here is the location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZnEisoZzaN5yfEbE7

Here is the full CPN:






I've done a bit of research and I'm thinking that my best chance could be to argue that the Motor vehicle prohibited signs are not compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 as they're not illuminated, hence no contravention (I know that might sound strange given it wasn't night time but I'll explain why below). The reality is that I was looking for parking and simply didn't see the signs, as the cul-de-sac sign at the junction is very easy to miss and doesn't suggest no vehicle access and camera surveillance!

Here is what the junction looks like as you drive from south to north on Blackhorse Lane as I was:





No internal or external lighting:



I would also argue that this signage is inadequate, but if I'm right in interpreting TSRGD 2016 as requiring the Motor vehicles prohibited signs (diagram 619 [S3-2-12] in the Traffic Signs Manual [TSM] Chapter 3) to be illuminated, not just reflectorised, I think that would be my best legal argument. The reason I think the sign needs to be internally or externally illuminated, not just reflectorised, is because Schedule 3 of the TSRGD (p. 70) says that Provision 4 of Part 4 applies to it:



And Provision 4 of Part 4 says:



The signs in question appear to be in a 30-mph area and within 50 metres of a lamp post. The fact that it was day time is irrelevant to the argument that the signage is not compliant with TSRGD 2016, which LBWF acknowledge is ground for cancellation of a CPN in their Cancellation Procedure document:



In terms of the rubbish signage at the junction itself, it's interesting to note that the council's original design drawings (and Traffic Order) took a much more commons sense approach, by placing the Motor vehicles prohibited signs right at the beginning of the road, which they then modified:




What do you think? Have you seen anything like this win before? I have some experience with going to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators at the London Tribunals, I won a couple of (identical) cases in 2018 (with adjudicator Anthony Chan, who allowed the appeals on a technicality regarding the wording of the TMO in question at the time). Any advice would be very much appreciated. I'll make representation to LBWF before the 28th; unfortunately, I imagine they're likely to reject (whatever my arguments are), and then I'll need to decide if I want to try to take it to the tribunal or not.

Hi, thanks for your response.

In terms of speed limit, given there appear to be no 20-mph signs, it's fair to assume the limit is 30 mph. I don't think my argument is intuitively all that strong either, especially as it was broad daylight as you put it, but if I'm correct in my TSRGD 2016 understanding that the Motor vehicles prohibited signs (diagram 619 [S3-2-12]) need to be internally or externally illuminated, then I think the adjudicator would have to allow the appeal, because inconsistently illuminated signs at the same location create confusion. Motorists need to be able to see key regulatory signs consistently throughout the day, so a lack of illumination during the night impacts the day as well. Which is why Clifton Avenue, the road before Tavistock Avenue, looks like this:



There the council recognised that the No Entry sign needed to be internally or externally illuminated, not just reflectorised. I think my argument may be undermined by the following section of the TSRGD 2016:



Sub-paragraph (4) and (5) seem to state that signs that must be illuminated at certain times may simply be reflectorised "during those times when it is not required to be illuminated". However, I still think there is a fairness and consistency argument as the same driver could theoretically be charged for the same manoeuvre during the day but not during the night, if the signs are deemed legal during the day but not during the night. I think the signs have to be TSRGD compliant throughout the day.

Lastly, like I said in my first post, I passed the signs because I simply did not see them. I was looking for parking and nothing at the junction suggested no motor vehicle access or the possibility of enforcement cameras. I think I saw the cul-de-sac sign as I turned in but imagined I might have to turn around at the end of the road but could find parking on the way there. And yes, I know what the signs mean, I just didn't see them at the time. Thanks.

I'll definitely make representation with WF along these lines, unless anyone else suggests something else. I haven't decided if I'll appeal the NoR if I get one yet. I'm hoping to get advice about my interpretation of the TSRGD requirements for the specific signs in question. I'll wait to see if anyone else comments, hopefully I'll get more of a sense of whether it's worth appealing a NoR or not. It sounds like you think it may not be worth it, and given how much experience you have in these matters, I'm currently not sure if it's worth me putting £65 on the line. I'll wait and see. It'll presumably be a few weeks until I have to decide whether to appeal (to the tribunals) or not, depending how long it takes WF to reject, if that's what happens. Hopefully I'll get a few more responses.

Hi @cp8759,

Apologies for tagging you personally, I just wanted to reach out and ask if you thought I was likely to get any more responses on my post, or if I needed to do anything else to encourage responses. I've not used FTLA before so I'm not sure what to expect. I was hoping to get more advice about whether a London Tribunals appeal would be worth a shot or not. I had a couple of responses from Incandescent early on, but nothing since (perhaps that's normal...). I have to decide whether to pay or appeal by early next week. Any advice would be much appreciated, regarding the PCN or how to encourage more responses.

Many thanks.

Thank you for your response. The TMO documents are available here I believe: https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/roads-and-pavements/road-traffic-schemes-and-consultations

I've attached some of them to this post.



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thank you again for your advice. I'm still not sure why the signs in question are compliant with TSRGD, but it seems clear that you're also not convinved of my argument that such signs need to be illuminated internally or externally during certain hours, not just reflectorised, making the signs in question non-compliant. In terms of not seeing the signs, I would put it down to the power of selective attention, as I was looking for a parking space at the time (I'm sure you'll remember the selective attention test from many years ago: ).

I didn't find anything useful in the TMO documents myself, but I'd be very interested to know if you do. Otherwise, I'll have to decide if 50/50 seem like good enough odds.

Thank you.

@cp8759 Thank you for your advice. From what I could see in photos, the signs were where the TMO said they should be, so I decided to pay the £65. I had a look at the ETA stats for Waltham Forest for last year and they didn't contest only 15% of appeals, and 58% of WF appeals were rejected by the ETA, so I didn't fancy those odds in the end given you and Incandescent thought there wasn't much of a case to argue.

All the best.

For future reference, here's The Waltham Forest (Prescribed Routes) (Winns Avenue/Pennant Terrace region) (No. 1) Traffic Order 2025.