Free Traffic Legal Advice

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: -

Quote

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)

Quote

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.

There are a couple of cases on the London Tribunals statutory register that can be quoted to support your case.

If you show us a draft of an appeal like that (written as the keeper, not the driver) we can advise. Something along those lines would be a good starting point.