Free Traffic Legal Advice

I just want to say a huge thank you to all that helped me with this.   My appeal was successful (despite the adjudicator previously refusing on a similar case)!

Adjudicator's Reasons
The appellant attended the telephone hearing of this appeal today. The council did not attend the
hearing (it not being expected to do so).
The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this vehicle at Royal Albert Way failed to
comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.
Royal Albert Way leads off a roundabout as shown in the council's evidence produced at 'H'. Signage
is illuminated when the prohibition is in force.
The appellant argued that signage was posted on a bend as the motorist exits the roundabout he
being committed to the turn before he was able to note the prohibition that applied.
CCTV camera advance warning signage was posted by the council but no signage giving advance
warning of the prohibition itself.
The council did not in this case produce any images showing the motorist's approach to the turn (it
having done so in a previous appeal I considered arising from this prohibition).
On the council's online footage of the incident it was not clear to me that signage was illuminated.
I could not be satisfied against this background as to the clarity and sufficiency of the council's
signage and I found for that reason that the contravention had not been proved.

The good news is that Horizon have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (if it's within the land covered by airport byelaws, then they could not comply), and are therefore unable to hold you liable as the registered keeper. You could therefore appeal along the lines of the below:

Dear Sirs,

I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the registered keeper, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act"). You have chosen not to issue a Notice to Keeper in accordance with The Act, and it is now too late for you to do so.

There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.

Yours,

If appealing online, be careful there are no drop down/tick boxes that cause you to identify who was driving, and keep a close eye on your spam folder for their response. If they do not respond within 35 days, chase them.

Thank you, I've completed the appeal (selected I am the keeper) and will await a response.

You need to submit a "Represention" to the Council against the postal PCN. Get this done before close of business this Thursday to be within the 14 day discount window. If or rather when they reject they will re-offer the discount rate of £65.

If they reject then you will have the option to appeal to the independednt adjudicqator, but you'll be in for the full penalty of £130. You cannot appeal until the Council issues a Notice of Rejection.

This below issues seem to win. These might have been suprseded on the ground, so really you'd be best off revisiting the scene of your crime in daylight and taking your own photos. Or perhaps one of the forum members can get some photos.

There is no hours of operation plate below the flying motorcycle sign. (Your video shows something lighting up as you passed.)
The sign is on a bend as you exit the roundabout. You are committed to the turn exiting the roundabout before you can read and assimilate the sign.
There are two lanes exiting the roundabout onto Royal Docks Road but there is only one sign on the nearside pavement.
Supposedly there are advance warning signs on the approaches to the roundabout however they relate to camera enforcement and not the "no motor vehicles".
The warning signs don't specify which exit might be closed to traffic.
All the signs might be legal however taken as a whole they are inadequate to convey the part-time restriction.
The restriction signs don't agree with the traffic order.
The signage arrangements are very unusual and the Council have a duty to ensure that the signs properly convey the restrictions

I fully expect that Newham will reject your representation no matter what you say. So really it depends on the Adjudicator on the day. The good news is that some of the more experienced and longstanding Adjudicators seem to uphold the inadequate signage arguments.

Thank you.  I've included many of these points in the appeal, will update the status here.

We've seen this location before. The signs have two displays, one for 40 mph during the day, and one for "Flying Motorbike" during the restricted night hours, this is to prevent "cruising" and other car-related unsocial behaviour.

As far as I recall, one appeal at London Tribunals won on the basis that the sign did not convey the full TRO, in tht there is no information on the sign as to when the restriction applies, so it is impossible to find this out.

There may be an avance warning sign, but the last time I looked in GSV, it wasm't sufficiently up-to-date, so you may have to do some legwork with a camera.

Thanks for the info, I wonder if it is the same appeal as the one discussed here on reddit recently:

https://www.reddit.com/r/wherewasthistaken/comments/17lrc7t/uk_where_is_this_place/

Is there a way to find the appeal grounds or even the original appeal letter?

Also when you mention the advance warning sign and doing some legwork with a camera, do you mean going back to the location to take pictures?  Unfortunately this isn't an option as I live 4 hours away!