Free Traffic Legal Advice

It's an invoice but we would not recommend ignoring it as it can still have serious consequences, ultimately the keeper of the vehicle could get a CCJ which would seriously screw up their credit rating for 7 years.

You can lodge an appeal but you need good grounds for that to be successful. In this case there may be a number.

Was there a ticket on the windscreen or was this the first you've been notified of the PCN?

The immediate issue I can see with this is there is no period of parking stipulated, they needed to observe the vehicle for at least 5 minutes for a contract to have been formed, the driver could have legitimately left the vehicle to read the signs before realising they should not be parking there and driving off within the mandatory consideration period.

Second avenue may be signage but as there's a sign above the vehicle in the picture on the PCN we'd need to see an image of it to be able to advise if that is an avenue for appeal. Could also do with seeing the reverse of the PCN  letter.

The downside here is CPM are IPC members and the (not) Independent Appeals Service is the second stage appeal. Neither are likely to grant an appeal however well founded.

No, there wasnt a PCN issued to the actual vehicle, i will get a picture of the signage in a day or two. The reverse of the PCN is there now, it was inserted as an image.

Sounds like from what you say, it matters not if i make an appeal, they will just say no and then i have no recourse  ?

So here it is... the NOR, its a joke. i would rather the pay the money to someone that could overturn it than give them my hard earned cash.

NOR HERE

This is pretty much all they will allow me to say, guess ill have to get the big guns out when they refuse the appeal.

I wish to explain the circumstances of this alleged contravention. I have not driven through this area for some time and, due to heavy congestion on surrounding roads, I inadvertently entered the new Low Traffic Neighbourhood restriction. I had previously used this road as a cut-through. The long-standing width restriction remains in place and the new “No Motor Vehicles” signs are not obvious when approaching around the corner. At that point, a driver’s attention is on safely navigating the width restriction rather than looking for additional signage. This gives the impression that access is still permitted. I understand and support the Council’s aims in reducing traffic, but in this case I believe the signage is inadequate. Now that I am aware of the change, I will avoid the road in future. This was a genuine mistake, and I respectfully request that the Council exercise its discretion to cancel the PCN.

Going to go in with this...

I write to formally challenge the above PCN.

The PCN alleges “failure to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.” However, I submit that the restriction has not been lawfully conveyed to motorists for the following reasons:

Non-compliant signage

The “No Motor Vehicles” signs at the location do not comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD).

TSRGD Schedule 3, Part 2, Item 12 specifies permitted variants, and the wording “Except authorised vehicles” is not among them. Unless Merton Council has obtained special authorisation from the Department for Transport (which I doubt given the recent installation), the signage is unlawful and cannot give rise to a penalty charge.

In addition, the accompanying blue information signs in place also appear non-compliant with TSRGD.

Inadequate and unclear visibility

As a driver approaching the location, one must negotiate the long-standing width restriction. The newly added prohibition signs are not visible until a driver is committed to passing through the width restriction. At that moment, the driver’s full attention is on safely manoeuvring through the narrow gap, not scanning for new signage.

The continuing presence of the physical width restriction reinforces the impression that motor vehicles are still permitted, as was the case historically. This creates a misleading and confusing situation for motorists.

Good faith and genuine mistake

I have not driven through this area for some time, and on this occasion traffic congestion in surrounding roads led me inadvertently to the restriction.

I understand and respect the Council’s aims in reducing traffic under the Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme, and I will not use this road again now that I am aware of the change.

Given the above, I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled. If the Council wishes to continue enforcement, it must first demonstrate either that the signs are TSRGD-compliant or that specific DfT authorisation has been obtained.

In any event, I believe cancellation is appropriate here due to the inadequate signage, the misleading road layout, and the genuine nature of this first contravention.

Yours faithfully,

Any advice on this before i put in a rep ? i can only hope for some procedural incompetence at this stage ? i have four days left in which to do so.

looking into it a bit more deeply, they have put a sign next to the original width restriction warning signs stating 'no through road' that doesnt really indicate clearly that they have put a trap in place at that point, the no through road could be at the furtherest end of the road past the old width restriction where they are trapping drivers.?

Got time to visit today, film footage of myself driving into trap. The original width restriction signs have not been changed, there is a new blue plated sign stating Abbey rd and Pincott road are no through roads, Pincott rd was always a no through road as it was no entry from this side, is there any grounds here  ? otherwise its a hope they be leniant.

https://cloud.chipchopmod.uk/s/ASfdWDMJBb2PT9H

https://cloud.chipchopmod.uk/s/qtYJ5qxfntQJx9Q

https://cloud.chipchopmod.uk/s/4fX47yMtACmPEaC

Have those advance width restriction signs in your first photo been changed to show the new restriction. This shows that the previous signage could be considered adequate, but if they're left unchanged, then is shows council have not placed adequate signage under Regulation 18 of the  The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18

At this moment i cannot get to the area, they could well have been, possibly the other poster who has also been stung with this may get to see before i do, the GE maps show that sign dated March 2025, when you get past it it goes back to 2022. What would be a good way to appeal this is what i would like to know, im not holding my breath on them being leniant if i grovel.

Please post all sides of the PCN (only redact yr name & address - leave all else in) and the video.

Just added above, cant download the video but its viewable with PCN and Reg