Free Traffic Legal Advice

I've come late to the thread Moving Traffic Contraventions in London in the context of "sign overload" at Rivercourt Road. I was intrigued by the OP's question "can ‘special authorisation’ signs be used for moving traffic contraventions under the 2003 Act?"

The sign which is at the heart of Merton's signage and which they use to allege a contravention is diagram 618.3C, TSRGD 2016 Schedule 8 Part 2 Item 2. This was not in TSRGD 2002 but, in accordance with DfT practice, was held in reserve as a sign which they rolled out with special authorisation when someone asked for it. Having tested it as a special authorisation sign for some years, they then made it available for general use in TSRGD 2016. They seem to have used this practice repeatedly over the years: in the late 1980s/early 1990s they tested diagrams 953 and associated signs before introducing them in TSRGD 1994. 

In accordance with TSRGD 2016, the signs which Merton use omit the bottom panel (which shows waiting restrictions). TSRGD 2016 provides various options for the Except panel, which include "permit holders" but not "authorised vehicles". I do not know whether Merton obtained special authorisation for this. I consider that, however, to be a minor detail.

The main issue is the one raised by the OP: is the sign one for which moving traffic PCNs can be issued? As a London authority, Merton's moving traffic PCNs are issued under London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. Schedule 3 of this Act lists the signs which are scheduled for the purposes of section 4, i.e. contraventions which can be the subject of PCNs. As this schedule was written for TSRGD 2002, it's not surprising that it doesn't list diagram 618.3C.

Unfortunately, legislation.gov.uk only has LLATfL Act 2003 in its enacted form and one needs to check subsequent legislation to work out what the current version is. I searched for primary and secondary legislation since then which included the words "London Local Authorities" and within them for "2003". There are no SIs which are relevant and no Acts since 2013, so it's not surprising that I couldn't find any reference to diagram 618.3C in the Acts which do reference the LLATfL Act 2003; these are the LLA Act 2007 and the LLATfL Act 2008.

It therefore appears to me that the answer to the question which the OP posed is "No". The relevant legislation, LLATfL Act 2003, does not define a contravention of diagram 618.3C as being an offence under section 4. That being so, it appears to me that all of Merton's PCNs alleging contravention of diagram 618.3C were false allegations. 

This argument may help others facing PCNs for contravening any of Merton's signs to diagram 618.3C. How the legal system handles past false allegations by Merton I leave to others.

Thank you. Does the source for your statement that diagram 618.3C is now included cite the legislation which amended Schedule 3 of LLATfL Act 2003? If so, what is it, please?

Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 of LLATfL Act 2003 states:

The signs include permitted variants of the signs as described in the 2002 Regulations.

Is there an analogous statement referencing TSRGD 2016 in the amended Schedule 3? If so, Merton's sign would appear still not to fall within its scope as "Except authorised vehicles" is not a permitted variant for the middle panel of diagram 618.3C.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

There is also the issue as to whether TSRGD 2016 permits the variation of "time period" in the upper panel to display two time periods. Two time periods are shown on the bus lane signs in TSRGD, e.g. diagrams 958, 959B. The wording in Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual is quite different:

Bus lanes
9.3.7.  The times during which the bus lane operates are shown in the bottom panel of the signs to diagrams 958 and 959B. Where there is more than one bus lane along a particular length of road or within the same geographical area, the times of operation should be consistent, where possible, to avoid driver confusion. The working drawings show how time periods are accommodated within the fixed width of the signs. Time periods must be expressed in the manner described in S18‑1 (see also Chapter 7).

Pedestrian and Cycle Zones
6.2.2.  Where the zone is operational for 24 hours on every day of the week, no times are shown on the sign other than those relating to the exceptions. If the zone is part‑time, the operational period is shown in the upper panel below the legend “No vehicles” or below the “no motor vehicles” roundel as appropriate. Where the zone operates only on certain days of the week and for 24 hours on those days, the days only are shown on the sign; the expression “At any time” is not used. Examples of the top panel for zone entry signs are shown in Figure 6‑3. The operational period is not normally shown where a variable message sign is used.

DfT was evidently concerned about the complexity of the pedestrian and cycle zone signs and how readily they could be assimilated by drivers:

6.2.5.  If the entry restrictions change during the day or on different days of the week, a variable message sign is recommended to avoid a complex legend that can be confusing and difficult to read. In this case, the upper panel should not include a time period. The sign should show a complete blank grey or black face, as defined in Schedule 1, during the times when the zone is not operational. The lower yellow panel can be displayed on the variable message sign only during the operational period of the zone (i.e. when the upper and middle panels are displayed).

In effect DfT were saying: if it's complicated, use a variable message sign which lights up when the restrictions apply and is blank when they don't. That was based on their experience while the signs were special authorisation. Then they could reject signs which could not readily be understood from a moving vehicle.

Once DfT put the sign in TSRGD, councils could do what they wanted. Councils have: why incur the cost of a variable-message diagram 618.3C when a complex static sign generates income from PCNs which is mostly paid by those who are from outside the borough?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thank you to @John_S for referencing the drawing number of the DfT special authorisation for the Merton signs. [A warning to those using the DfT page for special authorisations: unlike most search functions, this one is case-sensitive: a search for "merton" doesn't find any.]

The fact that the signs are special authorisations means that they aren't permitted variants and so lie outside the scope of Schedule 3 of LLATfL Act 2003 and therefore of section 4 of the Act.

While this may appear to be a bit of a technicality, and therefore less attractive as a line of argument before an adjudicator, it strikes at the heart of Merton's practices. It appears to me that they have been acting ultra vires and potentially fraudulently (obtaining money by false representations) by issuing PCNs without a sound legal basis.

While they may be able to claim that they have lacked mens rea until now, I have now made an FoI request to them which puts them on notice that the legislation does not support their issuing PCNs for contravening their non-prescribed (but authorised) version of diagram 618.3C.

Unfortunately, legislation.gov.uk only has LLATfL Act 2003 in its enacted form and one needs to check subsequent legislation to work out what the current version is. I searched for primary and secondary legislation since then which included the words "London Local Authorities" and within them for "2003". There are no SIs which are relevant and no Acts since 2013, so it's not surprising that I couldn't find any reference to diagram 618.3C in the Acts which do reference the LLATfL Act 2003; these are the LLA Act 2007 and the LLATfL Act 2008.

Look at the this box:



on this spreadsheet.

@Bustagate This is a tricky one. I’m not aware of any Merton School Streets appeals that have been won on signage alone since they removed all the ‘School term time’ plates. I’ve briefly checked the appeals register and noted that appeals are still being refused for Merton School Streets.

A starting point might be to appeal a PCN based on the LLATFLA argument alone. If that loses, it’s back to the drawing board.

I've taken another look at s.6 LLATfL Act 2003 and now think I answered your initial question wrongly. Sorry!

While Merton's signs are not "scheduled section 36 traffic signs", that merely means that someone passing such a sign does not engage subsection (5)(b):

fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.

but subsection (5)(a) is still engaged:

acts in contravention of a prescribed order;

Subsection (6) ensures that a single action does not give rise to the issuing of two PCNs. The result is:


The Parliamentary draftsmen are better at their job than Merton are at theirs. Merton's correct answer to my FoI would have been:


To the supplementary question which I didn't ask, the answer would have been:


I conclude that challenges to Merton's PCNs have to be about the adequacy of the signage, in particular that which people see before they're committed to entering the Pedestrian and cycle zone.

Back to Rivercourt Road, Camrose Avenue and the like: there, although the TMO is legally valid (because it wasn't challenged within the first six weeks), the restrictions which the TMO imposes may not be what the Council thinks they are.

Strategy of last resort: https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/ealing-cumberland-road-w7-code-53j-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehic/msg56444/#msg56444

Cases decided this year:

Nashrin Master v London Borough of Hackney (2240537076, 19 February 2025)
Guaranteed Cleaning Ltd v London Borough of Lewisham (224056645A, 8 March 2025)
Patrick Tuohy v London Borough of Haringey (2240550573, 18 March 2025)
Ivan Bachkov v London Borough of Newham (2250079444, 20 June 2025)
Fardowsa Ahmed v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2250119673, 18 July 2025)

One variation on the same theme is to send a video on a physical CD by post, as councils seems to ignore them:

Stanmore Quality Services Ltd v London Borough of Islington (2250176349, 14 July 2025)
Commercial Plant Services Ltd v London Borough of Islington (2250222967, 21 July 2025)

I suspect they've farmed out postal receipts to a third-party scanning centre that just throws CDs and other media in the bin.

As the name suggests, the strategy of last resort can win virtually any case if executed correctly, regardless of the underlying merits of the case. The only exception I've seen are Tower Hamlets and sometimes Brent.

Of course in any case where representations have been made already, it's too late.

One place where "may be" is regularly used in legislation involving traffic signs is Except plates for No Entry signs, e.g. Schedule 3 to LLATfL Act 2003 (my capitalisation):

The traffic sign with diagram number 616 is a scheduled traffic sign for the purposes of section 4 (Penalty charges for road traffic contraventions) of this Act only if it indicates a restriction or prohibition which MAY BE indicated by another sign listed in the table.

In other words, if the restriction is one which can be represented by a blue roundel such as diagram 953, it's OK. If it's a plain vanilla diagram 616, it's not (because contravening one of those cannot be the subject of civil enforcement).

From the early days of bus restrictions (before TSRGD 1975), authorities have used diagram 616 + Except plates to implement bus gates. As they weren't signed as bus lanes, bus gates couldn't use the thick white line (diagram 1049) to separate the bus gate from other traffic. Instead, authorities separated them using traffic islands. To stop bus gates being used by other traffic, authorities put rising barriers across them, hence "bus gate". Here's what may have been the last of them (but the bus lanes approaching Hammersmith Bridge had rising barriers until 2019 to ensure at most two buses on the bridge at any time):

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

From the late 1980s, the predecessor of DfT developed the blue roundel signs and started encouraging authorities to apply for special permission to use them. They became freely available in TSRGD 1994 as diagram 953 etc. DfT tried to get authorities to switch to the new signs, but some insisted on sticking with the old signage.

When DfT came to write legislation for civil enforcement, they included diagram 616 as a sign but required it to be accompanied by an Except plate which defined a restriction which could be imposed using one of the other signs which was the subject of civil enforcement. I surmise that the use of "or may be" in Schedule 3 LLATfL Act 2003 was a "catch-all" provision to cover authorities which used weird and wonderful signage which wasn't in Schedule 3 where they could have signed the restriction using signage which was in Schedule 3.

That's my perception of where "may be" came from in legislation for civil enforcement. I agree with @John_S that those writing the legislation had it in mind that civil enforcement of moving traffic offences was only to apply to a subset of possible signage as set out in a list of diagram numbers.


P.S Someone might like to check whether the City are issuing PCNs at the bus gate shown above (junction of Byward Street and Great Tower Street). It now has a No Entry sign with "Except cycles and authorised buses". That's not a restriction which can be signed using any of the blue roundels. Presumably the City authorises (for a fee) certain bus tours to use it; if they just wanted to restrict it to scheduled bus routes, they'd specify "local buses", for which they could use diagram 953 with "local" superimposed over the bus pictogram.

P.P.S. Is there any requirement with PCNs alleging contravention of a traffic order to specify the title of the traffic order? With my son's PCN, Harrow didn't specify it on the PCN but included a copy of the traffic order in the papers submitted for the appeal. Under section 7.2(3) of the Criminal Procedure Rules

(3) If the offence charged is one created by or under any Act, the description of the offence shall contain a reference to the section of the Act, or, as the case may be, the rule, order, regulation, bylaw or other instrument creating the offence.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]