Free Traffic Legal Advice

The ltd. grounds is not that strong an argument.

Ok. here is the revised appeal.  Would be great to get some guidance on what should be the sequence of the points - from most important to least ?

FORMAL APPEAL

I am appealing the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the statutory ground that the contravention alleged by the Authority did not occur. The PCN is invalid for the reasons outlined below.

⸻

1. INADEQUATE SIGNAGE – CONTRAVENTION CANNOT OCCUR

The signage for the pedestrian zone restriction is positioned at an excessive height and is not visible to drivers in the normal course of driving.

Supporting Video Evidence

I have submitted video footage recorded from the driver’s perspective while driving along the same route. The footage clearly demonstrates:
• The signs are mounted well above the driver’s natural line of sight.
• While navigating urban streets, a driver must focus on the road ahead, pedestrians, other vehicles, and junctions — not crane their neck upwards to search for signage.
• To read these signs, a driver would need to perform an unusual and unsafe manoeuvre, looking skywards, which is contrary to the principles of safe driving.

The Department for Transport’s Traffic Signs Manual emphasises that traffic signs must be placed at drivers’ eye level where possible and in positions where they are easily visible without distraction. These signs fail that standard.

As the driver could not reasonably be expected to see or read these restrictions while driving safely, the alleged contravention cannot be said to have occurred.

⸻

2. LACK OF PROPER CONSULTATION AND NOTICE

The pedestrian zone restrictions appear to have been recently implemented without adequate consultation or sufficient public notice to residents and local businesses.

I have used this route daily for over 10 years to access essential services and was unaware of any material changes to restrictions. The absence of proper notice meant I was unable to adjust my route in advance, making compliance impossible.

⸻

3. UNREASONABLE AND UNCLEAR “TERM-TIME ONLY” RESTRICTIONS

The restriction operates on a “term-time only” basis. This is:
• Unclear to the general public, who cannot be expected to know school term dates.
• Ambiguous given that different schools may have different calendars.
• Unfair to residents and regular users of the route, who are left guessing when restrictions apply.

Such uncertainty makes enforcement inappropriate and undermines the legitimacy of the restriction.

⸻

4. ESSENTIAL LOCAL ACCESS

On the date in question, I was accessing essential local services, including:
• The Post Office on Sydney Road
• Local businesses, including the barber shop on Perrymans Farm Road

These restrictions effectively block access to essential destinations during normal daytime hours, which is unreasonable given the area’s mixed residential and commercial use.

⸻

5. DISPROPORTIONATE ENFORCEMENT

I received two identical PCNs within 40 minutes. This is indicative of overzealous enforcement rather than a genuine attempt to manage traffic or improve pedestrian safety.

This suggests the primary motivation may be revenue generation, which is not a lawful purpose for traffic restrictions under the relevant legislation.

⸻

6. COLLATERAL CHALLENGE: DEFECTIVE PCN

Under Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, a PCN must state:

“…that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28-day period, an increased charge may be payable.”

The PCN issued to me fails to comply with this statutory requirement and instead states:

“If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice, an increased charge of £240 may be payable.”

This is defective because:
• It conflates two distinct statutory periods using the word “or”, creating ambiguity.
• It wrongly refers to “date of service” rather than the required “date of notice”.
• It fails to clearly and correctly convey when an increased charge applies.

This amounts to procedural impropriety and renders the PCN unenforceable.

⸻

REQUESTED OUTCOME

I respectfully request that this Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled in full on the basis that:
1. The alleged contravention did not occur due to inadequate and unsafe signage.
2. The PCN itself is defective and non-compliant with statutory requirements.
3. The circumstances demonstrate no deliberate contravention but rather a failure of proper signage, consultation, and notice.

⸻

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
• Video footage showing the driver’s perspective and poor signage visibility
• Photographic evidence of high-mounted, obscured signs
• Map and receipts showing essential local service destinations
• Extracts from the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003

Submitted the following reps for both PCNs:


"The contravention did not occur because:

1.  The signage pertaining to term time is proscribed and there are no warning signs.
2.  Your website as per the attached screenshots fetters discretion and limits to one ground of representation which flies in the face of the law and the PCN thereby causing confusion.

In light of the above, please cancel."

I can possibly use your point 2 in my appeal as well.  Have sent you a DM

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information-the-london-local-authorities-a/msg86653/#msg86653

This is an excellent point, and I will add this to the appeal as extra ammunition.  I will also take another video in landscape mode today.  I still don't have clarity on which option to select as the reason for the appeal while submitting it as the procedural impropriety option is missing.

That would be a killer appeal, but it needs to be watertight.

Didn't understand the point about watertight ? What else can be added here ?

As far as I can see there is nothing wrong or inadequate in your original reps, (Hippocrates said "good stuff"). However, the regulations for traffic signs have been studied in more detail since cases of very high, (even absurdly high) have arisen, and recommendations on traffic sign positioning are found in Sectio 5.1 of the Traffic Signs Manual 2018: -

5.4 Mounting heights
5.4.1. Signs should be mounted such that the lower edge of the sign is generally between 900 mm and 1500 mm above the highest point of the adjacent carriageway. Signs mounted at the lower end of this range benefit from receiving the most illumination from vehicle headlamps, but they are also prone to soiling due to spray from passing vehicles. Mounting heights at the higher end of the range should be used where this or obscuration by other vehicles is likely to be a problem. Speed limit signs and other safety-critical signs will not normally be mounted lower than 1500 mm above the carriageway.

5.4.2. Where signs are erected above footways and cycle tracks, adequate clearance must be allowed for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians. Interim Advice Note 195/16 ‘Cycle Traffic and the Strategic Road Network’ requires a minimum height for such structures of 2300 mm for pedestrians and 2400 mm for cyclists. However, to minimise the environmental impact of signs, particularly large directional signs, consideration should be given to adopting lower mounting heights. A minimum clearance of 2100 mm should be maintained over footways, 2300 mm over cycle tracks or shared-use facilities and 2700 mm over equestrian routes.

5.4.3. Detailed consideration may be necessary for the combined effects of location and mounting height at some junctions in order to take account of the differing eye heights of drivers of cars, lorries and other road users. The aim is to optimise the benefits and minimise the disadvantages to any one category of road user at a given site. Alternatively, use of LED- powered internally-illuminated signs might be considered (see section 11). If signs are to be externally lit, the signs should be raised to take into account the risk of vandalism.

5.4.4. Regulatory signs must be placed as near as practicable to the start of a restriction and it is preferable to place them on the back line of the footway, or the verge where no footway is present. They should not be placed right on the corner of the junction, or right on the kerb side. Signs at a junction should be set back from the road, where practical, to aid driver’s visibility when turning in to that road. Setting a sign in this manner makes it aesthetically more attractive, less liable to damage, and more readily visible to road users who need to see it. It may also be sensible to angle signs at junctions slightly towards the side road carriageway so that they can be seen by turning traffic (particularly at night where signs are not directly lit and need to be illuminated by headlamps).

5.4.5. The fixing bands that attach the sign to the support should be tight enough and of an appropriate design to stop signs slipping or twisting around, or being deliberately rotated to give incorrect information to drivers. Designers should ensure adequate consideration is given to f ixings/support for sign plates as this is one of the main causes of failure. Manufacturers should supply suitable and appropriate fixings in accordance with their own declaration of performance to prevent panel separation, twist or slippage, including appropriate torque settings.

So you can see the councils all so terrified of litigation if a pedestrian bangs his head on a sign mounted above a pavement, that they mount them beyond the tallest possible person !

should I present a video of driving normally and presenting a view of how it is impossible to read the signs when driving  on the road and turning into the junction as evidence ?

Quote from: flash2005 on August 18, 2025, 07:09:01 pm

Today I received rejection notice from the council on both the PCNs

Please to post it here.

have posted it in the above post

Would appreciate any help in going to the London tribunals now

I have uploaded the appeal in the earlier post.  Here it is again

I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice on the following grounds:
1. INADEQUATE SIGNAGE AND VISIBILITY
The recently installed pedestrian zone signage is positioned at an excessive height, making it virtually impossible for drivers to clearly read the restrictions while safely operating their vehicles. The sign placement fails to meet reasonable visibility standards and creates a road safety hazard as drivers must crane their necks upward to read the detailed restrictions.
2. LACK OF PROPER CONSULTATION AND NOTICE
These restrictions appear to have been implemented recently without adequate public consultation or advance notice to residents and local business users. As someone who has used this route daily for over 10 years to access essential local services, there was insufficient time to adapt to these sudden changes.
3. UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION TIMING
The "term-time only" restriction is discriminatory and unclear to residents without school-age children. This arbitrary timing creates confusion for the general public who cannot reasonably be expected to track school term dates, especially given that different schools may have varying term schedules.
4. ESSENTIAL LOCAL ACCESS REQUIRED
I was accessing essential local services, specifically:
The Post Office on Sydney Road
Local businesses including the barber shop on Perrymans Farm Road
These are legitimate destinations that serve the local community, and the restrictions effectively prevent reasonable access to essential services during broad daylight hours.
5. DISPROPORTIONATE ENFORCEMENT
Receiving two identical penalties within 40 minutes demonstrates overzealous enforcement rather than genuine traffic management. This suggests the restrictions are being used as a revenue generation tool rather than for legitimate pedestrian safety purposes.
6. MITIGATION CIRCUMSTANCES
Long-term road user: 10+ years of daily use without previous issues
Essential service access: Accessing Post Office and local businesses
Poor signage visibility: Unable to clearly read restrictions while driving safely
Lack of awareness: No advance notice of restriction changes
Reasonable assumption: Believed access was permitted for essential services

REQUESTED OUTCOME
I respectfully request that this Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled in full on the grounds outlined above. The circumstances demonstrate that this was not a deliberate contravention but rather the result of inadequate signage, insufficient public notice, and unreasonable restrictions that prevent access to essential local services.
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Photographic evidence of high-mounted, poorly visible signage
Evidence of essential local business locations requiring access
I look forward to your prompt reconsideration of this matter and the cancellation of this penalty charge.