Free Traffic Legal Advice

We've seen this location before and also with the now-gone Pepipoo foru, It seems it was a controversial closure, because the road is shown closed on GSV in 2020, then the planter pots remain, but the signs are removed and still shown this way in GSV 2024, so the restriction was reimposed sometime after, but on a timed basis. GSV has no views later than 2024 so the current signs cannot be viewed. If you go this way often, you might care to take and post photos of them.

This particular PCN should never have been served, but such is the venality and rapacity of London councils, things like this are fairly common nowadays. I don't think there is any mileage in the signage being inadequate, as it is in plain sight as you approached it head-on. However, being based on a 25 seconds transgression, I think you have a good case for a de minimis appeal. First you have to submit representations to the council based on this, and then when inevitably rejected, (they want your money, all of it), you should register an appeal at London Tribunals on the same basis.

You will note that the council don't say the video has been observed by an operator. This PCN has been produced completely automatically and the money is rolling, no doubt, because >95% of people just cough-up when they get a PCN.

You really must stand your ground on this or join the Mugged Club !

Thanks for the earlier advice. As expected, Greenwich have now rejected my representations.
Their rejection does not appear to meaningfully address the de minimis argument. My representations were based primarily on the alleged contravention occurring at 18:59:35, with the restriction ending at 19:00 (approx. 25 seconds only within the restricted period).

---

In the Notice of Rejection they simply state that because the vehicle was observed at 18:59, the PCN was correctly issued, and that it is the driver’s responsibility to be aware of the restriction times. They also refer to signage compliance and my mitigating circumstances, but do not appear to engage with the argument that enforcement in these circumstances is trivial/disproportionate. This seems to sidestep the substance of the appeal.

---

I am now minded to appeal to London Tribunals on the basis that:

- the contravention was de minimis (c.25 seconds only);
- the vehicle’s presence had no meaningful impact on the purpose of the restriction;
- the council failed to properly consider my representations by not addressing proportionality/de minimis.

---

Does this seem like the correct tribunal approach, and is there anything else in the Notice of Rejection worth raising?
I have attached the rejection notice and an image of the signage.

---

Hi all, 

I’ve received a PCN for allegedly failing to comply with a prohibition on motor vehicles at Crooms Hill / Nevada Street (northbound). 

---

Key details: Contravention time: 18:59:35 Restriction ends: 19:00 So this is effectively seconds before the restriction ends From reviewing other cases on here, I understand timing alone is unlikely to be decisive, but I wonder if this could be considered de minimis given how marginal it is? 

---

Circumstances on the day: I was driving my pregnant wife to hospital. There were roadworks on Crooms Hill, and diversion signs in the area. My attention was focused on navigating that safely rather than anticipating a timed restriction Having now revisited the location, the restriction signs are present. However, given the road layout, narrow carriageway and presence of roadworksersions…I believe it would be easy for a driver to miss or not fully process the restriction in time

---

 Questions: Is there any mileage in: Arguing de minimis timing (18:59 vs 19:00)? Arguing that temporary traffic conditions reduced signage adequacy? In terms of council evidence: These do not clearly show the correct signage for my direction of travel due to the lighting in the photos/video. Nor can you see the actual wording on the signs. Is this one worth pushing beyond the discount stage, given recent comments that Greenwich may not always contest tribunal cases? 

Many thanks,

---