Look at my #3. No really useful advice can be given until we see the signage and if there are any advance warning signs on your approach.
There may also be a "technical" appeal argument, so wait and see if anything is suggested, but don't miss the payment/appeal deadline.
Thank you for your reply. I received the PCN addressed to me on the 20/03.
I have drafted a email response. Could anyone please check it and add or delete anything that is required.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. In the alternative, I rely on compelling mitigating circumstances and procedural impropriety.
1. The restriction was not adequately conveyed (Regulation 18 breach)
Under Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, the authority is under a duty to ensure that traffic signs adequately convey the effect of any restriction.
At this location, the signage fails this requirement for the following reasons:
• There is no adequate advance warning of the restriction prior to the point of commitment.
• The restriction signage is positioned at an angle such that it is not clearly visible to approaching motorists until it is too late to safely comply.
• The signage is small, visually cluttered, and not sufficiently prominent relative to surrounding signage.
It is well established in tribunal decisions that a restriction is unenforceable where a motorist is not given sufficient opportunity to see, understand, and comply with the restriction before committing to the manoeuvre.
2. Inadequate visibility at night
The alleged contravention occurred at approximately 22:25 hours. At this time:
• Lighting conditions were poor
• The signage was not sufficiently illuminated or reflective
• The restriction was not reasonably visible to a driver exercising due care
A restriction that is not clearly visible in night-time conditions cannot be said to be adequately conveyed.
3. Failure to provide advance warning
The restriction is part of a recently introduced Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme in the Wormholt area.
There is no adequate advance signage alerting drivers prior to entering Sawley Road that motor vehicles are prohibited ahead. As a result, the restriction only becomes apparent after the driver has already committed to the route.
Tribunal decisions consistently confirm that:
A driver cannot be expected to comply with a restriction that is only visible after the point of commitment.
4. Signage orientation and positioning
Evidence from this location shows that:
• Restriction signs are positioned at an angle (effectively side-on) to approaching traffic
• In some cases, signage faces traffic from the opposite direction
A sign that is not facing oncoming traffic does not satisfy the legal requirement to adequately convey a restriction.
5. Legitimate expectation & recent scheme
I have used this route on previous occasions without any restriction being apparent. The introduction of this scheme appears to be recent.
Where a new restriction is introduced, the authority is expected to ensure:
• Clear and prominent signage
• Adequate warning to regular users
This has not been achieved.
6. Supporting case principles
I rely on established tribunal principles that:
• A PCN must be cancelled where signage is unclear, inadequately positioned, or not visible in prevailing conditions
• Restrictions must be communicated clearly before the decision point
• Enforcement cannot rely on signage that requires unsafe or last-second manoeuvres
These principles have been repeatedly upheld in London Tribunal decisions, including cases involving the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.
7. Request for evidence
Should the authority not cancel the PCN, I require the following:
• The Traffic Management Order for this restriction
• Full signage layout plans
• Evidence of signage positioning and orientation on the date in question
• Maintenance and illumination records
• The full CCTV footage
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, the restriction was not adequately conveyed and the alleged contravention did not occur.
I therefore request that the PCN be cancelled.
If the authority is not minded to cancel, I will have no hesitation in pursuing this matter to adjudication.
Yours faithfully,
