DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 113559--------------------------------------------------
Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply with
prohibition on certain types of vehicle
By: Smee707 Date: March 17, 2026, 5:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=Nunito, Segoe UI, Helvetica, Arial]Hi all, [/font]
[font=Nunito, Segoe UI, Helvetica, Arial]I’ve received a PCN for
allegedly failing to comply with a prohibition on motor vehicles
at Crooms Hill / Nevada Street (northbound). [/font]
[hr]
[font=Nunito, Segoe UI, Helvetica, Arial][b]Key
details:[/font][/b][font=Nunito, Segoe UI, Helvetica, Arial]
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? [/font]
[hr]
[font=Nunito, Segoe UI, Helvetica, Arial][b]Circumstances on the
day:[/font][/b][font=Nunito, Segoe UI, Helvetica, Arial] 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[/font]
[hr]
[font=Nunito, Segoe UI, Helvetica, Arial] [/font][font=Nunito,
Segoe UI, Helvetica, Arial][b]Questions:[/font][/b][font=Nunito,
Segoe UI, Helvetica, Arial] 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? [/font]
[font=Nunito, Segoe UI, Helvetica, Arial]Many thanks,[/font]
[hr]
[font=Nunito, Segoe UI, Helvetica, Arial][img width=600
height=800]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/3PNfTGH_md.jpeg[/img][/font]
[font=Nunito, Segoe UI, Helvetica, Arial][img width=600
height=800]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/zwPS9bB_md.jpeg[/img][/font]
[font=Nunito, Segoe UI, Helvetica, Arial][img width=600
height=337]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/mBQO3Qn_md.jpg[/img][/font]
[font=Nunito, Segoe UI, Helvetica, Arial][img width=600
height=337]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/cZtCjez_md.jpg[/img][/font]
[font=Nunito, Segoe UI, Helvetica, Arial][img width=600
height=337]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ApAIYkx_md.jpg[/img][/font]
#Post#: 113565--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition on certain types of vehicle
By: fraser.mitchell Date: March 17, 2026, 6:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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 !
*****************************************************