Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: FH123 on December 11, 2025, 08:10:30 am
-
Yeah, fine. All stuff to put into your appeal at London Tribunals, but the important thing is, is the signage compliant with the regulations ? Adjudicators can only decide on law, and cannot take mitigation into account.
So, if you're going to stand your ground and take them to London Tribunals, please post a draft text here for review updated to reflect requirements of regulations plus the commonsense stuff you have outlined. Break the appeal into chuncks with suitable headings to make it easy for rushed adjudicators to read easily,
-
Yes I understand. Is there a reasonable chance of winning at a tribunal? Are they impartial? Do they listen to sound, logical arguments?
BTW I work in human factors information design. As an expert in that field I can say a multi line text instruction at a junction will never, ever pass an objective adequacy test. i.e. out of 100 human motorists with clean licenses, how many would notice, read, comprehend and make the correct decision whilst driving down that road for the first time under the same conditions. No doubt some would, but I would not expect this to be the norm.
That is why I quoted the human factors study above. It says signs should be visual and 2-3 lines maximum of text at 30 mph. Otherwise not only are they unreadable, but become a hazard for any motorist trying to comply.
-
Obviously when we see both signs shown like this whilst calmly sipping a cup of tea in front of our computer screen, it all seems very clear and above board.
Well, no, even though it may seem so. Signage giving instructions and warnings to motorists must first of all be "traffic signs" as defined in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. That is a basic requirement. Then what is erected must pass the "adequacy" test. This is a requirement in Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
So two tests must be passed. In your case the advance warning sign is not a traffic sign. If it had been a geographical representation of the junction ahead with the left turn marked as No Entry it would be part of the signage indicating the restriction. For the signs themselves, they may comply with the TSRGD 2016, but if there is only one of them, it may fail the 'adequacy' test. However, 'adequate' is subjective. Your 'inadequate' is the councils 'adequate' so the only place to test this is at London Tribunals where the adjudicator will decide one way or the other.
Here are the two sets of regulations:-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made
and
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents
So if you are prepared to stand your ground and take them to London Tribunals based on the above, you could win, but of course it is not guaranteed, and you must risk the full PCN penalty. If you win you pay nothing, if you lose, you pay the PCN penalty, but there are no other costs.
-
Obviously when we see both signs shown like this whilst calmly sipping a cup of tea in front of our computer screen, it all seems very clear and above board.
-
We'll...I did not see any of the signs ;D
But yes, we want to assess them fully for what they are.
Best I can do is send image of the map provided by Ealing council in their rejection notice. This is the only evidence I have that the warning sign exists. Note the final entry sign is a bit different on their map to the one it situ (it's 9 lines whereas the actual one has 10 lines and 2 additional words).
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/oF5TTb3_xl.JPG)
-
Really we need to see the approach to the sign and how the sign appears and the actual sign itself.
You have valid points on amount of text to read and absorb, but I expect this is a 20mph zone, so that lessens the point as you're going slowly enough to read the sign. The sign is the usual "Flying Motorbike" sign that has been around for donkey's years, but now in widespread use in London. You also mention an advance sign, so can we see that.
Sorry about all this, but unless we can see what you saw, its very difficult to advise on an appeal text. I get the impression you are new to London, because these timed closed streets have been around now for several years.
-
Unfortunately the signs don't appear to be there on GSV. This suggests it's a fairly recent restriction.
Let's work with what we do have.
The text on the sign says:
PEDESTRIAN
and CYCLE
ZONE
[red circle sign with car and motorbike inside it]
Mon-Fri
8.15-9.15am
2.30-3.45pm
[Additional lower sign]
Except
[Something something]
and permit
holders
So 10 lines of text, including 2 sets of times, one set of day related restrictions.
I'm not contesting the sign makes perfect sense if you can actually read it and take it in. There was apparently a warning sign earlier on the road. Blue background and 10 lines of white text. So I must have driven past 4 of these signs (2 sets) and missed them all. I have no other 'missed sign' related contraventions to my name in over 20 years of driving. I can read. It's not difficult to get me to comply with a road sign.
You can also see the van encroaching out of the junction and my car going around it. I don't know what that van was doing like that, but they were turning into my road. It's the only time in my life I have ever driven on this road. Gloomy, rainy morning. Great test scenario for whether these signs are usable and effective really in my opinion.
-
GSV link ? Or is GSV not sufficiently up-to-date to show the restriction ?
-
Here you go:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/H4fLsLS_xl.png)
-
So on this thread you go through a lot of text on the signs and their unreadability by a driver in a moving car, yet looking through, I see no photos of these signs nor any GSV link to the locations. How can we advise on something we can't see ?
-
I'm also reading that 10 lines of text is considered 3-4 seconds of reading time and that conditions such as days or times restrictions apply increases the processing time as you would need to read, process and then check the time. Thus such a sign would fail the 'safely reading at a glance test'.
Placing these directly on the corner of a junction where you will have cars turning in or coming out and demanding your attention is also not good practice, especially if the path or size of the vehicles can easily block direct line of sight to the sign.
-
Ealing council has now responded to my appeal. 53 working days after I sent my representation by email.
They have rejected both appeals: 2 tickets for the same violation 13 mins apart.
The grounds for rejection are:
- They believe the signs are compliant 2016 Traffic Signs Regulations. They have not addressed that there was a massive van blocking the sign and encroaching into my lane where I had to go into the opposite lane to get around it, right at the point where I should have been passing the sign behind the van. This is clearly shown in their video, but they did not even acknowledge it in their response.
- They sympathise with my situation, but have to enforce all contraventions in a far and consistent manner and cancellation would set a precedent to other motorists. i.e. No matter what I say happened in the appeal, they will ignore it anyway so they can continue to fine everybody. To me this undermines the principle of 'appeals that are considered based on their specific circumstance.'
- The above includes the double penalty on the same stretch of road for the same thing. Cancelling one would set a precedent. It should indeed set a precedent. They should not be double fining anyone for the same thing within a reasonable window. This opens up the possibility of putting up 100 signs every 1 km and unlimited fines.
The sign in question has 10 lines of information. Chat GPT tells me all road signs should be easily readable within 2 seconds. I don't know how I would read that sign safely whilst keeping my eyes on the road or within 2 seconds.
Chat GPT also found this research on road signs:
Human Factors Research (Important Point)
Studies used in traffic engineering show:
Drivers process symbols faster than words
Each additional line increases processing time
Multi-clause instructions significantly reduce comprehension at speed
Older drivers require longer reading times
So while 2–3 short lines may be fine, paragraph-style text is not considered appropriate for drivers in motion.
The penalties are £160 each so £320 in total for driving down a normal public road, very safely and responsible (apart from missing the wordy signs of course). This reduces by 50% if I pay in the next week or so. Obviously I feel I haven't done anything deliberate, wrong, dangerous or irresponsible. I've just been inadvertently caught out, and the double penalty feels especially harsh.
I need some advice at this point: Is this worth taking further or should I just pay? Is there any chance I would win if I appeal to London Tribunals? Even if I overturn one of the penalties I have to pay the full £160 on the other one, so it would just be a more time consuming way to get to the same end result.
-
I challenged the 2 PCNs on the grounds that the signs were obstructed or not readable from a vehicle and also that I am penalised for the same contravention twice within 10 mins. It said 30 working days to get a response. It's now been over 40 working days. Is there a limit by when these cases timeout?
There is no limit under the LLA & TfL Act 2003 on the time the enforcing authority has to respond to representations, but there is a common law duty on them to act fairly and expeditiously. Adjudicators at London Tribunals regard responses over 3 calendar months as unfair and potential grounds for cancellation.
-
11th December via email @Homer
-
I challenged the 2 PCNs on the grounds that the signs were obstructed or not readable from a vehicle and also that I am penalised for the same contravention twice within 10 mins. It said 30 working days to get a response. It's now been over 40 working days. Is there a limit by when these cases timeout?
When did you submit the appeals?
-
@Hippocrates I clicked your profile but not sure which link you are referring to.
-
I challenged the 2 PCNs on the grounds that the signs were obstructed or not readable from a vehicle and also that I am penalised for the same contravention twice within 10 mins. It said 30 working days to get a response. It's now been over 40 working days. Is there a limit by when these cases timeout?
-
I have also had the exact same PCNS for the same locations, like you I also not know the area and don't understand legal jargon.
I am not sure how to appeal the claim.
Please start your own thread.
-
I have also had the exact same PCNS for the same locations, like you I also not know the area and don't understand legal jargon.
I am not sure how to appeal the claim.
-
See the 1st link in my profile.
-
I received 2 PCNs for the same contravention within 13 mins of each other on the same day, travelling through an area I have never driven through. Total amount is £320 for driving down a regular road on a Monday morning (the only time I could make the journey due to working full time).
Both PCNs state the name of the road and are for entering a restricted pedestrian zone. Neither states an exact location, just the name of a long road. Both have a tiny, dark thumbnail showing my car travelling along a normal road for cars.
PCN 1 (Greenford):
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/vB7GEye_xl.png)
PCN 2 (Southall):
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/pnwdDby_xl.png)
I have never even heard of the 'restriction on entering a pedestrian zone' contravention before this and am still not 100% clear on what it is or how to identify it in future.
I understand certain roads near schools become 'pedestrian zones' at certain times, but the roads remain open and look exactly like a road. There may be a sign somewhere with small text, but no actual road traffic sign in a red circle to show you cannot enter.
I cannot find the signs on the 2 roads in Google maps. I have tried to view the evidence online on the official Ealing council PCN portal, but I get an error and clicking on the link they emailed me only opens a blank webpage. So I cannot see where it was, what I did or what kind of sign was there.
I had no idea there was a school in that area, or that there were restrictions or what days or times they would apply.
I think the sign may be in the corner of the dark thumbnails on the PCN, but I can't read it (too small), and it strikes me that would not be readable from a moving vehicle in traffic, especially if turning left into the road. It was also a dark morning, raining and I had my windscreen wipers on. In one photo there is a van on my inside between my car and the sign, so not sure I would have even seen it.
Do I have any case for appealing and not paying?
This feels like pure robbery.