DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 117667--------------------------------------------------
(53j) Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering
a pedestrian zone
DIR By: Ray236
Date: May 3, 2026, 3:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://ibb.co/zHCkcGwg
Hi everyone, I’ve just received a Penalty Charge Notice from
Redbridge Council for allegedly entering a pedestrian zone (code
53J) on Charter Avenue on 24/04/2026 at around 16:04. The notice
says it was captured by a roadside camera, and the fine is £160
(£80 if paid within 14 days). I don’t recall seeing any clear
signage at the time, so I’m wondering if I may have grounds to
appeal. Has anyone dealt with something similar in this area or
successfully challenged a PCN like this? Any advice on what to
check or how to approach an appeal would be really appreciated.
#Post#: 117675--------------------------------------------------
Re: (53j) Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles
entering a pedestrian zone
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 3, 2026, 3:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You can see the signs in the first photo on your PCN. A look on
GSV shows them as absurdly high, something we are increasingly
seeing in London, but so far, I don't think this height issue
has been tested at London Tribunals. The signs could be mounted
lower, because the blue signs are not traffic signs at all, and
there is no need for a camera sign either.
However, there are advance warning signs: -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/WNaPCnL2RsoqhW9n7
and
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/WbUHL6hBFZeevTzi9
This makes any representations more difficult, because these
strongly support the test of "adequacy"
Are you aware of the meaning of these "flying motorbike" signs ?
#Post#: 117677--------------------------------------------------
Re: (53j) Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles
entering a pedestrian zone
DIR By: Ray236
Date: May 3, 2026, 4:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, that’s really helpful. I did notice the signs in the
PCN images, but I agree they look unusually high, and I honestly
don’t recall seeing them when driving through. If they’re
mounted higher than typical, that does make me question whether
they’re sufficiently visible to drivers in real conditions.
That’s interesting about the blue signs and camera signage not
being required as well — I hadn’t considered that. Do you think
it’s worth pursuing an appeal on the basis that the overall
signage (especially the height/placement) isn’t adequate, even
if this specific point hasn’t really been tested at London
Tribunals yet? Or would I need stronger grounds alongside that?
#Post#: 117681--------------------------------------------------
Re: (53j) Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles
entering a pedestrian zone
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 3, 2026, 4:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information-the-london-local-authorities-a/msg102639/#msg102639
#Post#: 118166--------------------------------------------------
Re: (53j) Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles
entering a pedestrian zone
DIR By: Ray236
Date: May 9, 2026, 5:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
hi is there any update on this please?
#Post#: 118293--------------------------------------------------
Re: (53j) Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles
entering a pedestrian zone
DIR By: SunSunSuu
Date: May 10, 2026, 7:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ray236 link ---
>
> hi is there any update on this please?
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi Ray, read the message above posted by Hippocrates. Might be
able to get out of it with that response. This also means having
to most likely have the council deny your first appeal and going
to the tribunal. It is also best to argue you did not see the
signs due to a large van infront so there was not enough warning
and when making the turn, there is not enough time to read the
signage without stopping in the middle of the road or doing an
unsafe procedure. Arguing also that you turned in due to a
safety issue works too but most likely they'll reject it as the
councils are trying to find ways to get money out of the working
people.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lb-havering-code-31j-entering-and-stopping-in-a-box-junction/msg97394/#msg97394
"The PCN is missing mandatory information as provided at Para. 4
(8 ) (v) of
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the
28 day period, an increased
charge may be payable.
Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (iii):
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning
with the date of the notice;
Therefore, it follows that the statement: "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” adds to the
lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the
required information was included or not, it is also arguable
that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many
would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the
statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still
no clarity due to the missing information. So, it follows that
it cannot possibly be interpreted disjunctively."
If you follow the post you can see he won an appeal. He linked
it with a GDrive too:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WSBVHktf6Yu3twJANacn8mmlTQKt1-t_/view
Have a read and see if your letter has the same exact wording
#Post#: 118630--------------------------------------------------
Re: (53j) Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles
entering a pedestrian zone
DIR By: Ray236
Date: May 13, 2026, 4:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
many thanks for your response
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1