Show Posts
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Lambeth 52M Upper Ground Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor veh
« on: April 22, 2026, 01:18:09 pm »
I had my tribunal yesterday. I attended over video call and presented my case stating that the signage was inadequate. The appeal was allowed on this basis. Please find the full summary below - I hope this is helpful for anyone else who gets caught out by this restriction.
Introduction
1. This appeal concerns a Penalty Charge Notice issued for failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle on Upper Ground. The appeal was determined following a personal hearing on Micorsoft Teams, the Appellant attended.
Appellant’s Case
2. The Appellant submits that the restriction is not adequately signed. It is said that the junction layout is confusing, that there was no sufficient warning when turning from the National Theatre access road, and that the prohibition signs are small, poorly positioned and easily obscured.
3. The Appellant further relies on an alleged discrepancy between the discount period stated on the PCN and that shown on the Authority’s online portal.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
4. The Enforcement Authority relies on CCTV footage and photographs showing the vehicle passing the no motor vehicles signs. It relies on the relevant Traffic Management Order (“the TMO”), which prohibits motor vehicles from proceeding beyond the junction. Article 8 of the TMO prohibits motor vehicles from entering or proceeding beyond the restriction.
5. The Enforcement Authority submits that the signage is compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and is clearly visible.
Findings and Conclusion
6. I am satisfied from the CCTV evidence that the Appellant’s vehicle passed the prohibition signs. The issue in this case is whether the restriction was adequately conveyed to a motorist executing the manoeuvre shown on the evidence.
7. I accept the Appellant’s evidence that, having approached from the west and encountered the restriction ahead, the driver turned into the National Theatre access road in order to turn around and return.
8. The CCTV shows that, upon re-emerging from that access road, the vehicle immediately re-enters Upper Ground at or very close to the point of restriction. I am not satisfied that there is any adequate advance warning to a motorist in that position that the return route is also subject to a prohibition.
9. While the prohibition signs are present at the restriction point, signage must be considered in its totality. This includes whether a motorist is given sufficient opportunity, in advance of committing to a manoeuvre, to appreciate and comply with the restriction.
10. I have considered the decisions referred to by the Appellant. However, each appeal turns on its own facts. My decision is based on the evidence in this case. In the particular circumstances of this case, I am not satisfied that a reasonably diligent motorist, having turned around as described, would be given adequate notice of the prohibition before entering it.
11. I have considered the Enforcement Authority’s evidence but it does not satisfy me that the restriction is sufficiently clearly signed for this specific manoeuvre.
Decision
12. The appeal is allowed.
Introduction
1. This appeal concerns a Penalty Charge Notice issued for failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle on Upper Ground. The appeal was determined following a personal hearing on Micorsoft Teams, the Appellant attended.
Appellant’s Case
2. The Appellant submits that the restriction is not adequately signed. It is said that the junction layout is confusing, that there was no sufficient warning when turning from the National Theatre access road, and that the prohibition signs are small, poorly positioned and easily obscured.
3. The Appellant further relies on an alleged discrepancy between the discount period stated on the PCN and that shown on the Authority’s online portal.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
4. The Enforcement Authority relies on CCTV footage and photographs showing the vehicle passing the no motor vehicles signs. It relies on the relevant Traffic Management Order (“the TMO”), which prohibits motor vehicles from proceeding beyond the junction. Article 8 of the TMO prohibits motor vehicles from entering or proceeding beyond the restriction.
5. The Enforcement Authority submits that the signage is compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and is clearly visible.
Findings and Conclusion
6. I am satisfied from the CCTV evidence that the Appellant’s vehicle passed the prohibition signs. The issue in this case is whether the restriction was adequately conveyed to a motorist executing the manoeuvre shown on the evidence.
7. I accept the Appellant’s evidence that, having approached from the west and encountered the restriction ahead, the driver turned into the National Theatre access road in order to turn around and return.
8. The CCTV shows that, upon re-emerging from that access road, the vehicle immediately re-enters Upper Ground at or very close to the point of restriction. I am not satisfied that there is any adequate advance warning to a motorist in that position that the return route is also subject to a prohibition.
9. While the prohibition signs are present at the restriction point, signage must be considered in its totality. This includes whether a motorist is given sufficient opportunity, in advance of committing to a manoeuvre, to appreciate and comply with the restriction.
10. I have considered the decisions referred to by the Appellant. However, each appeal turns on its own facts. My decision is based on the evidence in this case. In the particular circumstances of this case, I am not satisfied that a reasonably diligent motorist, having turned around as described, would be given adequate notice of the prohibition before entering it.
11. I have considered the Enforcement Authority’s evidence but it does not satisfy me that the restriction is sufficiently clearly signed for this specific manoeuvre.
Decision
12. The appeal is allowed.
