Free Traffic Legal Advice

These are hard to challenge. There are advance signs on the main roads and you know the unladen weight.

That said there may be issues with TFL PCNs - someone else will know if they include tunnel PCNs.

Well, as far as I am aware, the signs must comply with this : -
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/contents/made
I've had a look through this, and cannot find the weight limit sign you mention, maybe I have missed something

In addition to the above, councils and TfL are obliged to follow this too : -
The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents
in particular, Regulation 18 in Part III Making an Order

A weight restriction sign would normally be a white background with a red circle and a truck symbol inside it in black with the weight restriction in white numbers.

I am strongly tempted to think that the sign you mention is not at all adequate to convey the restriction, but I'm not an expert, so hopefully, somebody will be along to expand on what I have said.

Thanks both. I agree the 2t sign is not at all adequate to convey the restriction - it's small and surrounded by too many other signs. The Luton Van is simply misleading.

I’ll take a proper look at the signage references you've pointed out and will also check the Tribunal Register for similar cases.

In the meantime, does anyone happen to know if tunnels are subject to any additional requirements for signage or restrictions? I'm particularly curious about:

Whether overhead signs are required for tunnels or dual-lane approaches?

Also just wondering — in cases where signs were technically compliant but poorly placed, obscured by traffic, or not duplicated across lanes, has anyone come across a PCN being overturned at adjudication on those grounds?

Totally agree that the key test here is adequacy,

More images to consider:
https://imgur.com/a/ZuiBX7d

Looking again at the approach signage, I’d argue the 2t weight limit fails the adequacy test for several reasons:

- It’s small, non-standalone, and buried among over 12 regulatory signs on a cluttered board. There’s no visual emphasis (compared to the bold 2.0m restrictions that dominate the layout)

- There’s no duplication of the 2t sign for drivers in the left-hand lane. In real traffic, it’s obscured by taller vehicles or queueing traffic.

- Driver attention is already maxed out. Between the overhead gantry, height panels, boom barriers, speed limit signs, average speed camera warnings, and diverging lanes, it becomes impossible to spot and interpret the weight restriction in time to take action.

- The actual tunnel entrance is well beyond the initial signage and barrier. The “restrictions ahead” board appears at the narrowing. But once you’ve passed the barrier system, you’re fully committed, with no physical or legal way to turn around.
The 2.0m height restriction is repeated on the archway above the tunnel. But there’s no repetition of the 2t weight limit at the tunnel entrance — where the actual restriction would logically apply.

Can I reasonably argue that the sign clutter board is advisory only, and not a valid placement of a mandatory regulatory sign, as required under TSRGD Direction 8 and LATOR Regulation 18?

More images to consider:
https://imgur.com/a/ZuiBX7d

- Driver attention is already maxed out. Between the overhead gantry, height panels, boom barriers, speed limit signs, average speed camera warnings, and diverging lanes, it becomes impossible to spot and interpret the weight restriction in time to take action.

- The actual tunnel entrance is well beyond the initial signage and barrier. The “restrictions ahead” board appears at the narrowing. But once you’ve passed the barrier system, you’re fully committed, with no physical or legal way to turn around.

 Should the restriction be seen at the last moment there is an escape route for restricted vehicles clearly signed

https://tinyurl.com/4vz74s79

Thanks all. You're right that adjudicators seem to have largely waved these cases through — but perhaps that’s exactly why it’s worth testing. The signage at Rotherhithe isn’t just busy — it’s absurdly cluttered, inconsistent in purpose (structural vs environmental), and arguably misleading by design.

Regulation 18 might give authorities a wide margin of discretion — but surely that discretion isn’t limitless. “Adequate” has to mean more than just technically present, especially when a driver is confronted with 12+ symbols in live traffic, and the key restriction is clearly :

- Too small

- Visually ambiguous (a 2t inside a stylised Luton van icon?)

- Not repeated at the point of enforcement

Even if other appeals haven’t succeeded, maybe it’s time this one landed on the desk of an adjudicator willing to look at the real-world effect of what’s effectively become a legalised trap. If nothing else, it might shake the system loose from its automated assumptions.

Out of interest — if I appeal within the 14-day window, what exactly do I stand to lose?

Send a PM to cp5789 he will have a tactic if one is available.

For myself I would want to know what evidence they have that the van is over the limit.