The ltd. grounds is not that strong an argument.
Ok. here is the revised appeal. Would be great to get some guidance on what should be the sequence of the points - from most important to least ?
FORMAL APPEAL
I am appealing the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the statutory ground that the contravention alleged by the Authority did not occur. The PCN is invalid for the reasons outlined below.
⸻
1. INADEQUATE SIGNAGE – CONTRAVENTION CANNOT OCCUR
The signage for the pedestrian zone restriction is positioned at an excessive height and is not visible to drivers in the normal course of driving.
Supporting Video Evidence
I have submitted video footage recorded from the driver’s perspective while driving along the same route. The footage clearly demonstrates:
• The signs are mounted well above the driver’s natural line of sight.
• While navigating urban streets, a driver must focus on the road ahead, pedestrians, other vehicles, and junctions — not crane their neck upwards to search for signage.
• To read these signs, a driver would need to perform an unusual and unsafe manoeuvre, looking skywards, which is contrary to the principles of safe driving.
The Department for Transport’s Traffic Signs Manual emphasises that traffic signs must be placed at drivers’ eye level where possible and in positions where they are easily visible without distraction. These signs fail that standard.
As the driver could not reasonably be expected to see or read these restrictions while driving safely, the alleged contravention cannot be said to have occurred.
⸻
2. LACK OF PROPER CONSULTATION AND NOTICE
The pedestrian zone restrictions appear to have been recently implemented without adequate consultation or sufficient public notice to residents and local businesses.
I have used this route daily for over 10 years to access essential services and was unaware of any material changes to restrictions. The absence of proper notice meant I was unable to adjust my route in advance, making compliance impossible.
⸻
3. UNREASONABLE AND UNCLEAR “TERM-TIME ONLY” RESTRICTIONS
The restriction operates on a “term-time only” basis. This is:
• Unclear to the general public, who cannot be expected to know school term dates.
• Ambiguous given that different schools may have different calendars.
• Unfair to residents and regular users of the route, who are left guessing when restrictions apply.
Such uncertainty makes enforcement inappropriate and undermines the legitimacy of the restriction.
⸻
4. ESSENTIAL LOCAL ACCESS
On the date in question, I was accessing essential local services, including:
• The Post Office on Sydney Road
• Local businesses, including the barber shop on Perrymans Farm Road
These restrictions effectively block access to essential destinations during normal daytime hours, which is unreasonable given the area’s mixed residential and commercial use.
⸻
5. DISPROPORTIONATE ENFORCEMENT
I received two identical PCNs within 40 minutes. This is indicative of overzealous enforcement rather than a genuine attempt to manage traffic or improve pedestrian safety.
This suggests the primary motivation may be revenue generation, which is not a lawful purpose for traffic restrictions under the relevant legislation.
⸻
6. COLLATERAL CHALLENGE: DEFECTIVE PCN
Under Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, a PCN must state:
“…that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28-day period, an increased charge may be payable.”
The PCN issued to me fails to comply with this statutory requirement and instead states:
“If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice, an increased charge of £240 may be payable.”
This is defective because:
• It conflates two distinct statutory periods using the word “or”, creating ambiguity.
• It wrongly refers to “date of service” rather than the required “date of notice”.
• It fails to clearly and correctly convey when an increased charge applies.
This amounts to procedural impropriety and renders the PCN unenforceable.
⸻
REQUESTED OUTCOME
I respectfully request that this Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled in full on the basis that:
1. The alleged contravention did not occur due to inadequate and unsafe signage.
2. The PCN itself is defective and non-compliant with statutory requirements.
3. The circumstances demonstrate no deliberate contravention but rather a failure of proper signage, consultation, and notice.
⸻
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
• Video footage showing the driver’s perspective and poor signage visibility
• Photographic evidence of high-mounted, obscured signs
• Map and receipts showing essential local service destinations
• Extracts from the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
