Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear forum.

I recently received a PCN for 53c failure to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone.

This took place on Crawford Road SE5, which I entered via a left turn from Valmar road during the restricted school hours.

I quickly appealed said PCN with the following:

Reason: Inadequate or unlawful signage
I entered the pedestrian zone unintentionally as there was no indication or warning that I was approaching a
restricted zone.
As you can see in the footage I approached Crawford road from Valmar road.
On Valmar road approach to Crawford road there is no advance warning of the pedestrian zone.
There are no signs facing Valmar road to indicate a left turn should not be made onto Crawford road.

I have now had my appeal rejected with what I believe to be a nonsense response, here is an excerpt:

I have noted your comments footage you approached Crawford road from Valmar road. On Valmar road approach to
Crawford road there is no advance warning of the pedestrian zone. There are no signs facing Valmar road to indicate a left
turn should not be made onto Crawford road. I can advise that the restriction signs, which are displayed on both sides of the
carriageway, there are advance warning signs visible to motorists entering Crawford Road from Warner Road

It appears their response to my challenge of the fact there is no advance warnings of the restriction, or signs facing Valmar road, is that there are signs and advance warnings on a totally a different approach? It is as if my appeal was not actually read and just automatically rejected by a robot. 

Despite there being what I believe to be inadequate signage, I do not see how I can appeal this further.

Welcome to FTLA.

For meaningful advice please to have a read of

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/.

and post up here copies (not transcripts) of

all sides of the PCN,
your reps,
any council photos/video,
and
their response.


Only redact yr name & address from documents - leave all else in.

Well, it now all depends on whether you want to take them to London Tribunals or not. If you do, obviously the full £160 is payable if you lose, but no more than that, there are no additional costs. And of course if you win, you pay nothing.
It seems to be a key point is that the council have erected warning signs on Warner Road , but not Valmar Road. So the council have accepted the need for advance warning of the restriction, but have for some peculiar reason, not put warning signs on Valmar Road.

Essentially, Southwark have sent the usual Fob-Off letter, with the cunning re-offer of the discount, knowing that with this offered, most people then cough-up.

Well first you have to win the adjudication ! Only then can you apply for costs, and "Wholly unreasonable" is a very high bar to get over.

An update on this, despite rejecting my appeal the council have by sheer coincidence now put up an advance warning sign on Valmar Road where I approached from. The date on the back of it reads 27/1/26, the same day I received a London Tribunals hearing date.

Clearly someone has acknowledged the signing is inadequate from my appeal but rejected it anyway.

I am in disbelief that they can act in this way.

Nobody anywhere is more mendacious than council parking and traffic departments. No doubt you'll add this addition of the advance sign after your PCN and their rejection into your reps.
By erecting that sign, they have recognised their previous signage was not adequate, and 'adequacy' is a requirement in Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18