Free Traffic Legal Advice

I doubt whether Barnet have done anything at all in reaction to the adjudication re inadequate signage. Most people just pay-up straightaway when the PCN drops through the door, (>95%), so they are happy to lose one or two appeals a year. They may, however, have put up an advance sign since the last GSV view of September 2022, so you really need to check this, if you can.

Another aspect is that with no advance sign, and the junction being a mini-roundabout, your attention as a motorist must be looking for vehicles coming from the right, and not looking around for signs,  as they have right-of-way on the roundabout. So this is not like a T-junction, where any vehicles coming from the right would have to give way to you.

So I would say the London Tribunals case is still valid.

As you received two PCNs in the same postal delivery, you can submit reps on the second, that you were unaware you had contravened the signs until the PCNs arrived. You therefore ask that PCN 2 be cancelled as it would be a disproportionate penalty.

Yes, it is clear that obscured signage still applies, and also to the new advance sign. In addition, there is the new argument I postulated that being a mini-roundabout, your actions as a motorist must differ to a T-junction, so you would be looking for traffic from the right, and therefore obviously at a much lower level to the sign.

Thanks. How can I find the tribunal case I need to reference in my representations?

You can search the LT Statutory Register using the street name, or, (probably best) PM Hippocrates who is familiar with it.

Here are my representations:

Barnet Council

Subject: Appeal Against Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) AG48660755

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally appeal Penalty Charge Notice number AG48660755 issued by Barnet Council. The grounds for my appeal are insufficient and obscured signage at the entrance to the pedestrian zone where the alleged contravention occurred.

At the time I turned right into this pedestrian zone, the necessary signage informing motorists of restrictions was inadequate and significantly compromised. Specifically, the early warning sign and right-hand sign at the junction itself were obscured by foliage, severely limiting their visibility. Additionally, the sign plate on the left-hand side was positioned at a disadvantaged angle, making it difficult to observe clearly. I have attached photographic evidence to substantiate these claims.

Moreover, the positioning of this signage is particularly problematic given the layout of the junction. The entry to this pedestrian zone occurs immediately at a mini-roundabout. This junction layout inherently requires a motorist’s primary focus to be on vehicles approaching from the right, as they have priority. Unlike a T-junction, at this mini-roundabout, the motorist's attention is understandably directed towards navigating safely, leaving them at a disadvantage to notice inadequately positioned or obscured signage.

Furthermore, I draw your attention to precedents established by the London Tribunals, which have already upheld appeals under identical circumstances at this very location. These decisions, available on record, are referenced as follows:

2240410290

2240408084

2240410279

Given the above circumstances and established precedents, I respectfully request the cancellation of this Penalty Charge Notice.

Thank you for considering my appeal. I look forward to your confirmation of cancellation.

Yours faithfully,

Response from Barnet (they've rejected my representations):





My proposed appeal text for London Tribunals:

Grounds for appeal: The contravention alleged by the authority on the penalty charge notice did not occur

To: The London Tribunals
Re: Appeal Against PCN AG48660755 – Barnet Council

Dear Adjudicator,

I am writing to formally appeal Penalty Charge Notice number AG48660755, issued by Barnet Council, on the grounds of inadequate signage and procedural impropriety in the handling of my formal representation.

Grounds for Appeal
The alleged contravention occurred at the entrance to a pedestrian zone. However, the signage at this location is inadequate, obscured, and poorly positioned, making it difficult for motorists to observe and comply with the restriction.

At the time of the alleged contravention:

The early warning sign and the right-hand side sign at the junction were significantly obscured by foliage, reducing their visibility.

The left-hand sign was angled away from the line of approach, making it very difficult to notice or read in time.

The junction is a mini-roundabout, where drivers must prioritise vehicles from the right. This inherently shifts the driver’s focus away from signage that is already compromised, in contrast to a typical T-junction where more attention can be given to signs.

I provided photographic evidence with my original representation clearly showing these issues.

Procedural Impropriety
In its Notice of Rejection, Barnet Council failed to properly consider the evidence I submitted. The response did not address:

The photographic evidence demonstrating the obscured and misaligned signs.

The relevant adjudicator precedents, namely:

Case 2240410290

Case 2240408084

Case 2240410279

Each of these cases concerns this exact location and highlights similar issues of inadequate signage. The adjudicators in all three appeals found in favour of the appellants, and notably, Barnet Council has not challenged any of these rulings, thereby setting a clear precedent.

The Council’s failure to engage with either the photographic evidence or the cited precedents constitutes a failure to give proper consideration, amounting to a procedural impropriety under the relevant regulations.

Request
In light of the above—the obscured and inadequate signage, the specific layout of the junction, the clear precedents, and the Council's failure to engage meaningfully with the evidence—I respectfully request that the adjudicator allows this appeal and cancels the penalty charge.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Yours faithfully,
etc

Thoughts - worth continuing or should I just pay the reduced fee?

NOR issued under the wrong act: TMA 2004. Raises questions re consideration.