Show Posts

Profile Info

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - sam1

Pages: [1]

Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Hammersmith & Fulham Settrington Road PCN — advance warning sign angled away and restriction only visible after turn

« on: July 28, 2026, 09:55:59 pm »

I was driving from Narborough Street into Settrington Road. I was not following satnav at the time. Because the blue advance-warning sign was angled away from my direction of travel, I did not see or register it before making the turn. The directional arrow on the sign also appeared to point opposite to the route I was taking, which made the warning confusing and potentially misleading.

Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Hammersmith & Fulham Settrington Road PCN — advance warning sign angled away and restriction only visible after turn

« on: July 28, 2026, 02:02:23 pm »

Thanks. I have attached the redacted PCN, the council’s enforcement images and my photographs of the location and advance signage.

To clarify my direction of travel:

I approached the blue advance-warning sign from the position where the first photograph was taken. In other words, I was travelling towards the photographer’s position/viewpoint shown in that photograph.

The blue sign is positioned almost parallel with the road, rather than facing traffic approaching from my direction. From the driver’s viewpoint, the face of the sign is therefore seen at an angle rather than head-on, making the wording difficult to notice and read while approaching the junction.

Immediately after passing that point, the road bends or turns sharply to the right into Settrington Road. The enforcement camera and the yellow restriction sign are located around or just after that right-hand turn. That is the sign shown in the council’s PCN evidence.

My point is therefore that the council’s camera image shows the restriction sign after I had already reached and committed to the right turn. It does not show that there was clear, readable warning before the point where I needed to decide whether to turn.

The sequence was:

I approached the blue advance sign from the photographer’s position, with the sign facing broadly parallel to the road rather than towards me. I then had to turn immediately right. The yellow restriction sign and camera became visible at or after that turn, by which time I had already committed to the manoeuvre.

I appreciate that the photographs were taken after the alleged contravention, but they show the physical layout, the orientation of the blue sign and the very short distance between the warning sign and the right-hand turn.

My original representation argued that:

the blue advance-warning sign was not facing approaching traffic;
its wording could not reasonably be read while safely approaching the junction;
the restriction sign relied upon by the council only became visible after committing to the right turn; and
there was no safe or practical opportunity to stop, reverse or take another route once the restriction became apparent.

The council rejected the representation but did not appear to address the specific issue of the blue sign being positioned parallel to the road and away from my line of approach.

I would be grateful for views on whether this signage arrangement adequately conveyed the restriction before the point of commitment, and whether this would be a reasonable case to take to Adjudicator

https://1drv.ms/f/c/54f24578f331c34c/IgAPe_OIOui6TqqdMvAaT3uvATOciMXjiGPmYUT0XVyt1bg?e=qjmaa2

Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Hammersmith & Fulham Settrington Road PCN — advance warning sign angled away and restriction only visible after turning

« on: July 28, 2026, 11:27:06 am »

I received a moving traffic PCN from a London council for entering a road restricted to buses, taxis and permit holders.

I challenged the PCN on the basis that the restriction was not adequately conveyed before I entered the road. The council has rejected my representation and has now given me the choice of either paying the discounted amount or appealing to London Tribunals and risking the full penalty.

The important circumstances are:

I approached the restricted road from a side street and had to make a turn into it. There was a blue advance-warning sign before the turn, but it appeared to be bent or angled away from traffic approaching from my direction. Because of its position, it was not clearly visible or readable before I reached the junction.

The main restriction sign shown in the council’s CCTV evidence was located immediately after I had made the turn. By the time that sign became clearly visible, I had already committed to the turn. Stopping, reversing or attempting to turn around at that point would not have been safe or practical.

I submitted a photograph showing the position and angle of the advance-warning sign. However, the council’s rejection does not appear to address that specific issue. It mainly gives a general explanation of the traffic scheme and states that the area is clearly signposted.

The council has offered to accept £80 within 14 days. If I appeal and lose, I would normally have to pay the full £160.

I would appreciate advice on the following:

* Has anyone appealed a similar PCN where the terminal restriction sign only became visible after the driver had already committed to a turn?
* Have appeals succeeded where an advance-warning sign was bent, misaligned or facing away from approaching traffic?
* Would the council’s failure to address the specific photograph and sign-orientation argument help my case?
* How important is it to prove that the sign was in the same position on the exact date of the alleged contravention?
* Based on these facts, does this sound like a reasonable case to take to London Tribunals, or would the risk of losing the discount be too high?

I understand that simply saying “I did not see the sign” is unlikely to be enough. My argument would be that the signage arrangement did not give a reasonably observant driver adequate warning before the point at which the vehicle became committed to the turn.

Pages: [1]