Free Traffic Legal Advice

PCN issued by London Borough of Redbridge for using a restricted route at Clements Road. I approached Winston Way and turned left into Handforth road and then right onto Clements road. The restriction sign was located after a bend in the road which gave me little room to react and was too late when I noticed and could not safely avoid.

The carriageway legend appears before or alongside the turning movement, which makes it appear that entering Clements Road itself leads directly into the restriction. This creates ambiguity about where the restriction begins. This is the same defect identified in case 2240478986 (Santosh Kumari v Redbridge), where the adjudicator found that the legend placement misleadingly suggested that bearing into the road entered the restricted route and ruled the contravention not proved. From my photos, the layout appears unchanged.

I tried searching on the London Tribunals using PCN Location Clements Road and found several cases, some of which were allowed and others rejected.  Please share your views if this is worth contesting?

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-council-clements-road-contravention-of-33j/msg59650/?topicseen#msg59650

PCN:



Google Maps:


Video:

Thanks, that’s helpful and fair. I agree this location often turns on adjudicator judgment rather than a clear-cut defect.

On the footage, I accept it may look like I’m “charging past” the signs, but that’s precisely the issue I’m raising. After the left into Handforth Road and the right turn into Clements Road, the restriction appears after the bend, leaving no safe opportunity to stop or divert once it becomes clear. My case isn’t that I ignored the signs, but that the layout gives insufficient reaction time at the decision point.

In 2240478986 (Santosh Kumari) the adjudicator accepted that, despite advance signage, the carriageway legend misleadingly suggested that entering the road itself led into the restriction, creating ambiguity as to where it actually began. That same layout issue appears unchanged in my photos.

I appreciate views on whether, in light of Santosh Kumari (2240478986) and similar cases with positive and negative outcomes, this still crosses the threshold from mitigation into a viable signage-adequacy argument?