Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: BertieBath on May 25, 2025, 06:53:43 pm
-
Why impose a vehicle weight of 2 tonnes for commercial vehicles as there are many cars that have a GVW in excess of 2 tonnes and are larger than small vans.
That was my thought too.
Some EVs are even too heavy to be driven on an ordinary licence.
-
Good evening — just sharing some good news!
TfL issued a Charge Certificate and increased the penalty earlier than legally permitted. I appealed, and the Enforcement Authority has informed the Tribunal it will not contest my appeal against the PCN.
Huge thanks to everyone who offered advice, and especially to @cp8759 (Ivan Murray-Smith) for helping me demonstrate that this PCN was simply wrong. Much appreciated!
-
Have you requested the DVD because this is TfL's primary evidence and would carry most weight with adjudicators. The facts of your case, not hypothetical possibilities and aged GSV.
I haven't! I must admit I do not even know where to start :) I will have a look as to how request this. Can you clarify: by DVD you mean the footage (online) or the actual disc? And does that need to be requested to a specific department?
-
This is going off topic but it appears the goods vehicle weight limit relates to fire hazard.
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-0176-2021
Thank you for the link. Every day's a learning day.
So, although the weight limit is not an arbitrary figure, most small van drivers have no idea of their vehicle's GVW .
-
...but not by TfL!
Have you requested the DVD because this is TfL's primary evidence and would carry most weight with adjudicators. The facts of your case, not hypothetical possibilities and aged GSV.
-
I appreciate the chances are slim and adjudicators have always sided with TFL on this. 'Adequacy' is open to interpretation and TFL have no obligation to improve the current signage.
I will first focus on the wording of PCN itself: I managed to be in touch with the great cp8759 and there are at least two avenues which are looking promising to get the PCN cancelled!
-
I draw attention to the fact that the signage is not merely cluttered — it is compromised by design. Having checked again on maps the 2t restriction sign is visually obstructed by the infrastructure installed to enforce it (the advisory sign - which is not visible from the roundabout with live traffic). The central sign is covered by gantry poles, vehicle height warning equipment, and other road furniture. Drivers in both approach lanes face an obscured or peripheral view of this critical restriction. Unlike the 2.0m height limit, which is duplicated clearly on both sides and above, the 2t restriction is not repeated or given equal prominence. If a restriction is not fully visible and legible from all approach positions, it cannot be said to be adequately conveyed under Regulation 18 of the LATOR 1996.
But are you going to take them to London Tribunals on this ?
-
I draw attention to the fact that the signage is not merely cluttered — it is compromised by design. Having checked again on maps the 2t restriction sign is visually obstructed by the infrastructure installed to enforce it (the advisory sign - which is not visible from the roundabout with live traffic). The central sign is covered by gantry poles, vehicle height warning equipment, and other road furniture. Drivers in both approach lanes face an obscured or peripheral view of this critical restriction. Unlike the 2.0m height limit, which is duplicated clearly on both sides and above, the 2t restriction is not repeated or given equal prominence. If a restriction is not fully visible and legible from all approach positions, it cannot be said to be adequately conveyed under Regulation 18 of the LATOR 1996.
-
OP, see page 17:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/656ef4271104cf0013fa74ef/know-your-traffic-signs-dft.pdf
'Know Your Traffic Signs' complements the Highway Code.
A driver is presumed to know, and therefore would be treated in law as knowing i.e. not knowing is not a defence.
There's no 'out' on this point, I'm afraid.
-
This is going off topic but it appears the goods vehicle weight limit relates to fire hazard.
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-0176-2021
-
Why impose a vehicle weight of 2 tonnes for commercial vehicles as there are many cars that have a GVW in excess of 2 tonnes and are larger than small vans. It can't be for environmental reasons as 2t GVW is the weight limit at which car speed limits apply to commercial vehicles.
Environmental weight restrictions for vehicles of less than 7.5 tonnes are usually applied for structural reasons on roads that have weak structures such as bridges so, is there an environmental application to London's tunnels?.
-
That misunderstanding is actually part of the problem: the signage doesn’t specify “GVW”.
Also worth pointing out: older TfL signage for the Rotherhithe Tunnel did clearly state “GVW” — see this official TfL press image:
🔗 https://tfl-newsroom.prgloo.com/resources/various-restrictions-in-place-at-rotherhithe-tunnel-pn120
So TfL previously used signage that clarified the restriction as applying to Gross Vehicle Weight. The current version omits this completely — a regression in clarity and compliance, which surely raises questions about whether it meets the legal standard of “adequate information” under LATOR Regulation 18.
On another note, the PCN description reads (sic):
“Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle goods vehicles exceeding max gross weight indicated”
This sentence is grammatically and syntactically defective — there’s no punctuation or clause break between “certain types of vehicle” and “goods vehicles exceeding max gross weight”.
Moreover, it refers to “max gross weight indicated”, yet the current sign doesn’t actually indicate GVW.
Could both the unclear PCN wording and the omission of “GVW” from the sign contribute to a challenge based on procedural impropriety and/or signage inadequacy?
-
Hi all,
I’ve received a TfL PCN for allegedly breaching the 2-tonne unladen weight restriction in the Rotherhithe Tunnel, while driving a 2008 VW Crafter (SWB) during rush hour.
Key Points:
• My vehicle’s unladen weight is approx. 2,030 kg — just over the limit, but I was genuinely unaware at the time. I was driving alone, with no passengers or cargo...
You weren't just over the weight limit, you were well over it, weren't you?
The 2 tonne limit refers to Gross Vehicle Weight or "permissible maximum weight" and not to unladen weight.
If you challenge the ticket on signage grounds it might be best not to claim you were just over the limit.
-
Thanks @H C Andersen — that’s helpful context. Yet the signage itself does not state that the 2t refers to Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW). It simply shows a goods vehicle icon with “2t”, which could reasonably be interpreted by a driver as Unladen weight. Considering my van had the partition wall removed, I reasonably assumed it's approximately 2t.
@Pastmybest: where do I find cp5789?
-
https://vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/VehicleFound?locale=en
Its MGW is an objective reality determined by its recorded classification which can be ascertained from its VRM, not a moment in time assessment
-
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.
-
Out of interest — if I appeal within the 14-day window, what exactly do I stand to lose?
TfL will reject your representations, be in no doubt about that, and will re-offer the discount. However, if you decide to stand your ground and take them to London Tribunals, it would be with the full PCN penalty in play, so an additional £80 to the £80 discount amount basically.
If you do go all the way, your text here is a good start: -
"“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"
-
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?
-
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
Indeed there is, but the sign in advance of it only refers to overheight vehicles. So again, I would say while there are indeed a lot of signs, one could question the adequacy of signs for overweight vehicles.
However, it does look indeed like London Tribunal adjudicators have made their minds up and that's the end of it. Of course the OP has the right in law to take his case there, but the appeal text will need to be carefully written. I would suggest the escape lane be signed for vehicles overheight or overweight, which it isn't now. Of course TfL love the money the weight limit gives them from PCNs so have no incentive to make changes.
-
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
-
You can argue what you like, but given the lack of successful appeals on this point(take it as read that your* formal reps would be rejected) you would be taking a risk.
The LATOR signage obligation as regards an authority is 'adequacy' ('...the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;')
Unladen weight is irrelevant, where did you get the idea from that a vehicle's actual weight was the test?
'Goods vehicles exceeding the maximum gross weight indicated prohibited'
From what I can see, the sign has the same shape (to represent a generic goods vehicle) as in the regs(item 13).
If you have time, here's the Traffic Signs Manual -https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
I don't know what argument is made for the restriction, but it's interesting to note the distinction in the TSM between 'structural' weight limit signs and the one here which is 'environmental'. If they argue that the restriction's purpose is structural than it's the wrong sign IMO (see Schedule 9), a vehicle symbol is not prescribed, neither is '2t'.
May be others know the standard rejection response in these situations.
-
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?
-
Sorry, I was wrong, the sign I was thinking of is a different one, which I'm sure I had seen of a blue background rectangle with the truck and weight symbol on it. Oh dear, I must be more alert as the signage does seem to be all compliant !
However, is having an enormous sign array on a board like that, "adequate", the requirement in LATOR Regulation 18 ? Clearly London Tribunal adjudicators think it is. But of course they're not running round London in fairly small vans !
-
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?
-
You can check the tribunal register but if the signage were deficient we'd know about it.
Typical adjudications say:
The sign is that prescribed by Diagram 622.1A at Item 13 in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, being a permitted variant thereof, as indicating ‘goods vehicles exceeding the maximum gross weight indicated prohibited’. The sign is also illustrated in the current edition of the Official Highway Code.
---------
On the appellant's case, the symbol on signage showed a Luton van. This vehicle was much smaller. Had it been shown on signage he would not have entered the tunnel.
I was satisfied, on the decided cases, that the authority's signage was clear and correct. Notwithstanding the symbol of the vehicle shown on it, the 2 tonne maximum weight restriction was I found clearly stated.
-
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 for the reply. I understand these can be tough to challenge, but I wonder if we could focus on whether the mandatory restriction signs are indeed compliant in terms of placement and visibility.
Given there are two lanes entering the tunnel, can anyone advise:
(1) Are weight/width/height restriction signs legally required to appear on both sides of the carriageway?
(2) What are the minimum size/dimensions for a 2t unladen weight restriction sign under TSRGD or DfT guidance?
And does embedding the “2t” inside a lorry icon meet the required clarity and prominence for mandatory restrictions (as it is surrounded by other restrictions)?
Grateful for any further insight on this.
-
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.
-
Hi all,
I’ve received a TfL PCN for allegedly breaching the 2-tonne unladen weight restriction in the Rotherhithe Tunnel, while driving a 2008 VW Crafter (SWB) during rush hour.
Key Points:
• My vehicle’s unladen weight is approx. 2,030 kg — just over the limit, but I was genuinely unaware at the time. I was driving alone, with no passengers or cargo.
• I remember seeing multiple signs about the 2m height/width restrictions, but nothing that clearly indicated a weight limit. Having now reviewed Google Maps, I can see there is a sign, but it’s a small “2t” inside a lorry icon, which is not really clear or obvious for drivers (especially coming from the big roundabout south of the tunnel during rush hour).
• The van passed through the 2m barriers without issue, reinforcing the impression that my vehicle was fully compliant.
I know this topic has come up before, but every case is different and I’d be hugely grateful for advice on:
• Whether the signage meets regulatory standards, especially in terms of visibility and clarity.
• Any technical or legal grounds I might raise in my representation to TfL (e.g. signage inadequacy, traffic order issues, procedural flaws).
Evidence:
• PCN: https://imgur.com/a/USHI5Ax
• Tunnel signage: https://imgur.com/a/9eeAIWs
Thanks so much in advance!
Bertie