Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: bailfyr on January 25, 2026, 12:23:24 am
-
Get some photos of the signage if you can, to support your case that these only refer to cameras, there is no information whatsoever that warns of the closure hours. So the signage does not match what the Traffic Order says.
Here is Adjudicator Jack Walsh allowing an appeal at this location: -
2240567372
It should not come as any surprise to this enforcement authority that I am allowing both these appeals in relation to alleged contraventions of the prohibition on motor vehicles on Royal Albert Way. In these appeals the evidence of signage is somewhat different to that which used to be submitted to this tribunal by the EA (see for example Waigo v. LB Newham – case 2240055133, decided on 3 May 2024 and 2240418033 Kristen Lum-Borg v. LB Newham, decided on 7 December 2024 but with the alleged contravention on 4 August 2024). However, it remains wholly inadequate to prove what the EA needs to prove for Mr. Khan’s appeals to be successfully resisted, namely that the signage was adequate on the occasions in question.
Although not spelled out in his notices of appeal (as it probably should have been) the basis for Mr. Khan’s appeal was predictable; inadequate signage. In a very clear and moderately expressed statement opening his appeal, Mr. Khan argued that the two ‘no motor vehicles’ signs upon the exit from the roundabout were insufficiently visible to the motorist whilst it remained possible to change course and avoid contravening the prohibition by staying on the roundabout. He also addressed the evidence of what the EA describes as advanced warning signage.
I have had regard to the EA’s evidence of signage, including the ‘new’ ‘advanced warning’ signage that did not feature in appeals in relation to this alleged contravention until recently. There is, however, a fundamental problem with this evidence. The photographs are not time and date stamped but are marked October 2024 and January 2025, depending on the photograph. There is no evidence was to when the ‘new’ signage was installed. The alleged contraventions in this case were in August and September 2024, pre-dating the photographs. Given that the signage had not been updated in the appeal 2240418033 Kristen Lum-Borg v. LB Newham, where the alleged contravention was a little earlier in August 2024, I am unable safely to infer that the ’new’ signage as shown in the photographs was probably in situ on the occasions in question in this case. That means I proceed on the basis that the signage was as in Kristen Lum-Borg v. LB Newham. In that case, for the reasons I gave in some detail in the decision, I found that the signage was wholly inadequate, essentially for the reasons given by Mr. Khan in these appeals. In particular, I found that the variable message electronic signs failed to provide motorists with adequate information about the prohibition because the signs failed to specify the prescribed times. I further found that there was no advanced warning signage at the entrances to the roundabout.
For the same reasons, I do not find on the balance of probabilities that the signage was adequate in relation to these two appeals.
I also address the alternative scenario that the ‘new’ signs were present. These small, text-based advanced warning signs are, in my view, wholly inadequate to inform road users of a prohibition on motor vehicles upon the exit from the roundabout. They are placed, and not very prominently, some distance from the roundabout on the approach roads. They also fail to state the prescribed hours of the prohibition.
As I mentioned in previous appeals, the advanced warning signs warning of camera enforcement are irrelevant.
These appeals are allowed.
and here is Adjudicator Edward Houghton (key sentence in bold and underlined)
2250163019
The Appellant’s case is that the yellow warning sign was insufficiently visible.
Although I note the Council’ comprehensive site photographs I remain of the view that this is a case where advance warning of the upcoming restriction is required for clarity, particularly as this is a restriction only in operation at certain times of day. Certainly the illuminated signs are not invisible, but they are encountered by motorists driving round a roundabout and by the time they come into full view the motorist may well be committed to the exit. The Council has put in place yellow signs, an implicit acknowledgement that advance warning is at least desirable. However as I have stated on previous occasions these signs give no warning as to what the restriction actually is. I can see no good reason why the Council should not use the prescribed signage available to it in Schedule 12 Part 7 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (route sign with the No Motor Vehicles symbol) which is widely used by Councils in London and elsewhere, and which if properly sited would give the necessary information and remedy the defect.
As I am unable to be satisfied on the facts that the prohibition relied on was sufficiently clearly indicated the Appeal is allowed.
Thanks for that. Plenty of details to support my appeal there. I will try to go out tomorrow morning and get the photos of the signage. Good to see that they acknowledge that it's impossible to take avoiding action once you are committed. I will let you know of any decisions
-
Get some photos of the signage if you can, to support your case that these only refer to cameras, there is no information whatsoever that warns of the closure hours. So the signage does not match what the Traffic Order says.
Here is Adjudicator Jack Walsh allowing an appeal at this location: -
2240567372
It should not come as any surprise to this enforcement authority that I am allowing both these appeals in relation to alleged contraventions of the prohibition on motor vehicles on Royal Albert Way. In these appeals the evidence of signage is somewhat different to that which used to be submitted to this tribunal by the EA (see for example Waigo v. LB Newham – case 2240055133, decided on 3 May 2024 and 2240418033 Kristen Lum-Borg v. LB Newham, decided on 7 December 2024 but with the alleged contravention on 4 August 2024). However, it remains wholly inadequate to prove what the EA needs to prove for Mr. Khan’s appeals to be successfully resisted, namely that the signage was adequate on the occasions in question.
Although not spelled out in his notices of appeal (as it probably should have been) the basis for Mr. Khan’s appeal was predictable; inadequate signage. In a very clear and moderately expressed statement opening his appeal, Mr. Khan argued that the two ‘no motor vehicles’ signs upon the exit from the roundabout were insufficiently visible to the motorist whilst it remained possible to change course and avoid contravening the prohibition by staying on the roundabout. He also addressed the evidence of what the EA describes as advanced warning signage.
I have had regard to the EA’s evidence of signage, including the ‘new’ ‘advanced warning’ signage that did not feature in appeals in relation to this alleged contravention until recently. There is, however, a fundamental problem with this evidence. The photographs are not time and date stamped but are marked October 2024 and January 2025, depending on the photograph. There is no evidence was to when the ‘new’ signage was installed. The alleged contraventions in this case were in August and September 2024, pre-dating the photographs. Given that the signage had not been updated in the appeal 2240418033 Kristen Lum-Borg v. LB Newham, where the alleged contravention was a little earlier in August 2024, I am unable safely to infer that the ’new’ signage as shown in the photographs was probably in situ on the occasions in question in this case. That means I proceed on the basis that the signage was as in Kristen Lum-Borg v. LB Newham. In that case, for the reasons I gave in some detail in the decision, I found that the signage was wholly inadequate, essentially for the reasons given by Mr. Khan in these appeals. In particular, I found that the variable message electronic signs failed to provide motorists with adequate information about the prohibition because the signs failed to specify the prescribed times. I further found that there was no advanced warning signage at the entrances to the roundabout.
For the same reasons, I do not find on the balance of probabilities that the signage was adequate in relation to these two appeals.
I also address the alternative scenario that the ‘new’ signs were present. These small, text-based advanced warning signs are, in my view, wholly inadequate to inform road users of a prohibition on motor vehicles upon the exit from the roundabout. They are placed, and not very prominently, some distance from the roundabout on the approach roads. They also fail to state the prescribed hours of the prohibition.
As I mentioned in previous appeals, the advanced warning signs warning of camera enforcement are irrelevant.
These appeals are allowed.
and here is Adjudicator Edward Houghton (key sentence in bold and underlined)
2250163019
The Appellant’s case is that the yellow warning sign was insufficiently visible.
Although I note the Council’ comprehensive site photographs I remain of the view that this is a case where advance warning of the upcoming restriction is required for clarity, particularly as this is a restriction only in operation at certain times of day. Certainly the illuminated signs are not invisible, but they are encountered by motorists driving round a roundabout and by the time they come into full view the motorist may well be committed to the exit. The Council has put in place yellow signs, an implicit acknowledgement that advance warning is at least desirable. However as I have stated on previous occasions these signs give no warning as to what the restriction actually is. I can see no good reason why the Council should not use the prescribed signage available to it in Schedule 12 Part 7 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (route sign with the No Motor Vehicles symbol) which is widely used by Councils in London and elsewhere, and which if properly sited would give the necessary information and remedy the defect.
As I am unable to be satisfied on the facts that the prohibition relied on was sufficiently clearly indicated the Appeal is allowed.
-
The usual tosh from this deeply useless council ! Yes, there are warning signs about camera enforcement, but nothing whatsoever to tell you that the road is closed between 2200 and 0300 !! So the signs in place do not convey the full meaning of the Traffic Order. I would take them to London Tribunals on this one. Yes, I know you have to risk the full PCN penalty, but there are previously successful appeals that you can cite, despite what they say.
However, it's up to you, it's your money not mine.
OK. I think I should probably try and appeal it further then. What does an appeal to the tribunal look like? Will I have to go and take photos of the sign and explain that there are no times etc? How do you think I should approach it? Never been this far down the PCN fighting rabbit hole.
-
The usual tosh from this deeply useless council ! Yes, there are warning signs about camera enforcement, but nothing whatsoever to tell you that the road is closed between 2200 and 0300 !! So the signs in place do not convey the full meaning of the Traffic Order. I would take them to London Tribunals on this one. Yes, I know you have to risk the full PCN penalty, but there are previously successful appeals that you can cite, despite what they say.
However, it's up to you, it's your money not mine.
-
There are a couple of cases on the London Tribunals statutory register that can be quoted to support your case.
So as we expected - they did deny the appeal. Interestingly they noted some points about signage which I found interesting so I recorded the same journey one evening to see if I found any signs - and I did. There is a sign just prior to the roundabout on the entry road that I take into it saying that there are traffic enforcement cameras. Now - was that there when I received this PCN? I couldnt tell you. I've driven this route many times and perhaps I may have not noticed this new sign.
Eitherway - my opinion is that you still have to be in the right lane to take this exit. Once you notice the sign and see it in view as you approach it - it is almost too late to avoid and involves crossing across other lanes of traffic. The point that taking evading action is dangerous still stands.
They have offered a reduced £80 PCN if paid within 14 days, as per usual. What is your opinion on this? In their rejection letter, they do make note of the signage that they have, I assume, now installed as a result of the appeals. Do I have a leg to stand on on the point that to even see this enforcement sign - you have to be almost committed to the entry onto the road?
See below for their letter + the sign in question that I may or may not have been there when I drove by :)
Rejection Letter (https://ibb.co/4RRXrGYZ)
Traffic enforcement warning (https://ibb.co/QFM7QYB0)
-
There are a couple of cases on the London Tribunals statutory register that can be quoted to support your case.
-
There is an excellent chance of getting this overturned, but you'll have to take them to London Tribunals as t the council will never give way, they love the money too much.
Two points, (1) totally inadequate signage of the restriction. (2) The current signage also does not reflect the traffic order. Whilst the traffic order places a restriction of access in the "small hours", there is nothing outside those hours to indicate a restriction exists.
Just think about the variable speed limit motorways. There are always signs at the start and end of the variable speed limit sections advising you of that. So even if nothing is displayed in the speed limits signs, (and this is a very common situation), you know when entering that a lower limit than the 70mph limit may appear in front of you.
Here there is nothing at all.
Fantastic. Then I'll await them to deny this appeal and come back for any advice onto the next appeal. They cant keep getting away with it.
-
There is an excellent chance of getting this overturned, but you'll have to take them to London Tribunals as t the council will never give way, they love the money too much.
Two points, (1) totally inadequate signage of the restriction. (2) The current signage also does not reflect the traffic order. Whilst the traffic order places a restriction of access in the "small hours", there is nothing outside those hours to indicate a restriction exists.
Just think about the variable speed limit motorways. There are always signs at the start and end of the variable speed limit sections advising you of that. So even if nothing is displayed in the speed limits signs, (and this is a very common situation), you know when entering that a lower limit than the 70mph limit may appear in front of you.
Here there is nothing at all.
-
Ok I suppose it makes sense for the restrictions at those hours since I do often see people racing up and down those roads..
But yes - completely unavoidable from someone who is not familiar with this and driving this route.
Thanks for your input, I have submitted the appeal and await to see what they say. I suspect they will reject it thinking I'll just pay up
The only place you will win this is at London Tribunals.
Nehwam are a quite disgusting council on this issue; they have done 'Sweet FA' since losing cases at LT. They continue to thumb their noses at the adjudicators because most PCN recipients just cough-up. There really needs to be a process whereby an adjudicator can state that on current signage PCNs are unenforceable, and if they continue, their enforcement powers are suspended. Will we ever see such a process ? Well , don't hold your breath !
Do you think I should just pay up if theres zero chance of getting this appealed? I've no idea what appealing at a tribunal looks like.
-
Ok I suppose it makes sense for the restrictions at those hours since I do often see people racing up and down those roads..
But yes - completely unavoidable from someone who is not familiar with this and driving this route.
Thanks for your input, I have submitted the appeal and await to see what they say. I suspect they will reject it thinking I'll just pay up
The only place you will win this is at London Tribunals.
Nehwam are a quite disgusting council on this issue; they have done 'Sweet FA' since losing cases at LT. They continue to thumb their noses at the adjudicators because most PCN recipients just cough-up. There really needs to be a process whereby an adjudicator can state that on current signage PCNs are unenforceable, and if they continue, their enforcement powers are suspended. Will we ever see such a process ? Well , don't hold your breath !
-
Ok I suppose it makes sense for the restrictions at those hours since I do often see people racing up and down those roads..
But yes - completely unavoidable from someone who is not familiar with this and driving this route.
Thanks for your input, I have submitted the appeal and await to see what they say. I suspect they will reject it thinking I'll just pay up
-
The restriction was put in to stop car cruising and anti-social driving that was occurring in the night hours. Hence it only applies certain hours, but there are no signs in the day that tell you the road is restricted, hence the adjudicator pointing out the signs do not convey the conditions in the Traffic Order.
Nothing here at Connaught Roundabout of a restriction ahead:-
https://maps.app.goo.gl/K3jzLVajmyr97WLw7
(note that GSV view is Oct 2024, so may be out-of-date)
Nothing on the main sign here approaching the roundabout where the alleged contravention occurred
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TVadVf4ZqSUaX5CJ9
but look at that almost hidden, none-traffic sign that is buried in foliage that may give a warning, but I can't read the text !!
Then there is this sign, again a non-traffic sign, warning you of camera enforcement on Royal Albert Way. Any motorist would assume this to be speed cameras.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/vrMn3P9UGtjBKhd9A
Then, during the day, you see this as you exit the roundabout: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/YMW5gCduRcQoqvEa7
YOu see 40 mph and a sign saying "enforcement camera now in operation". Well anybody would assume there are speed cameras along the next section.
Basically, the signage here is complete pants, and the people responsible for this flawed scheme should be in jail, nothing less !
What is needed is a complete rehash of the signs so that they comply with the traffic order, and advise outside the restricted period that the road is closed at certain times. However, this is Newham one of the more venal and rapacious London councils.
-
Its clearly a money printing scam/trap that they've got going on there. Conveniently putting that there, which is a 40 MPH limit every single time I've seen it other than this one time at night. Let me also add that there was absolutely no reason for vehicles to be blocked from accessing this road. It was clear, empty, no roadworks ocurred on the days before or after..
Here is the GSV, this white car is essentially my car. They have be on video driving into the exit with the right hand sign visible on the video.
GSV Contravention (https://ibb.co/BH0N6xVS)
Here is the route ROUTE (https://ibb.co/CsvvzS4J)
-
Shameful that they have continued giving out PCNs despite this obvious flaw in the signage placements.
I have found a recent case for this exact location against NEWHAM council where they indeed ruled that it was inadequate. Case Reference 2240055133 - is this what you meant?
Yes, that's one of them but there are others. This particular clause is the key one: -
In that case, I expressed my concern that the signage might well not be substantially compliant with the prescribed requirements for such signs in the 2016 Regulations. I repeat that concern, which is not assuaged by the material from the EA in this case, containing advertising material from the manufacturer of the sign. That material does not explain, by detailed reference to the 2016 Regulations, how a sign which is only visible for part of the day can be said to provide to motorists at all times adequate information as to the terms of the underlying traffic management order (TMO).
that and the point about no advance warning. Not only that, there is nothing on the main direction signs either that a motorist would be using for directions.
You'd think that Newham would by now have upgraded the advance signs following they losing at London Tribunals, but councils can just ignore all judgments knowing that >95% of people just cough-up on receipt of the PCN. As a council, they disgust me, but that doesn't force them to do anything of course. This is the dark heart of decriminalised enforcement; there is no legal process to force councils to make changes.
Can you please post a GSV view of where the alleged contravention occurred and what your route was that took you there.
-
Shameful that they have continued giving out PCNs despite this obvious flaw in the signage placements.
I have found a recent case for this exact location against NEWHAM council where they indeed ruled that it was inadequate. Case Reference 2240055133 - is this what you meant?
-
This is a very well known and notorious location, do don't send your reps straightaway, because there are serious issues around the signage here. There have been many wins at London Tribunals on this one, so you need to quote the definitive LT judgement(s). Essentially the signage is inadequate at conveying the restriction. Please wait for others to comment. If I can pull out the adjudications here, I will.
-
I plan to appeal with the below draft letter based on the fact that this sign is placed at essentially at the start of the road. Theres no way to safely stop, go elsewhere without it being dangerous considering the road it leads to and comes from is a 40mph road - which often drivers are going much faster than.
I am writing to make a formal representation against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the ground that the contravention did not occur.
My challenge is based on the fact that the signage at this location (Royal Albert Way / Royal Albert Roundabout) is inadequate and fails to provide sufficient advance warning to motorists, as required under the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
1. Inadequate Advance Warning There is insufficient advance signage on the approach to the roundabout to warn drivers that this specific exit is restricted to "No Motor Vehicles." A driver approaching a busy roundabout must focus on traffic flow and lane discipline. Without clear, prominent advance warning before entering the roundabout, a driver has no way of knowing the exit is prohibited until they are already upon it.
2. Late Positioning of Signs / "Point of No Return" The prohibition signs (Code 52m) are located at the very entrance of the exit. By the time these signs become clearly visible to a driver, the vehicle is already committed to the turn. At that specific moment, attempting to avoid the restriction would require a driver to either: a) Stop abruptly in moving traffic on a roundabout, or b) Swerve dangerously across lanes to re-enter the roundabout circulation. Both options would present a significant danger to other road users. Therefore, I was "locked in" to the manoeuvre by the road layout and the late placement of the signage.
3. Request for Evidence If you do not cancel this PCN, I request that you provide:
Evidence of the advance warning signage in place on the approach I took on the date in question.
The relevant Traffic Management Order (TMO) authorizing this restriction.
Maintenance logs proving the signs (if digital/variable) were fully illuminated and functioning correctly at the exact time of the alleged contravention.
Conclusion Given the lack of adequate advance warning and the safety risks involved in taking evasive action, I submit that this penalty is unfair and should be cancelled.
Regarding the Discount Period: Although I am submitting this shortly after the 14-day window, I ask that if you decide to reject this representation, you exercise your discretion to re-offer the discount period to allow me time to consider your response.
Yours faithfully,
-
Rotten bit of luck lately, after being slapped with 2 PCNs from P4 Parking for parking in my own bay I have now received a PCN from Newham Council for 'Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (motor vehicles). I take the road in question back home almost every week, once or twice. I never actually noticed but when I watched the video - I realised one of the speed signs at the start of this stretch of road off the roundabout is an electronic display. After going down here maybe 100s of times - I probably never looked at it and didn't notice it changed.
To make things worse, I received this letter yesterday for some reason - meaning it has now gone over the 14 day period I had to pay the reduced amount.
Is there anything I can do?
PCN IMAGE (https://ibb.co/wnbb7cC)
CAR + SIGN (https://ibb.co/Tx36r0r3)
I only have a picture of the front - I can include the 'evidence' they have of me which is just a close up of my car + a video driving down a road.
Thanks