DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 120507--------------------------------------------------
Merton, code 52J failing to comply with prohibition on certain
types of vehicle, LTN Abbey Road JW High Path
DIR By: arqez
Date: June 3, 2026, 3:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
My mother received three PCNs from London Borough of Merton for
contravention code 52J at LTN - Abbey Road JW High Path:
MT03029885 - 29/03/2026 at 17:44
MT03063205 - 03/04/2026 at 18:55
MT03063679 - 03/04/2026 at 19:22
Vehicle: MA13AVG
We made a formal representation citing Nima Barani v London
Borough of Croydon (case ref 2250259286, adjudicator Sean
Stanton-Dunne, 5 Nov 2025) on the basis that the PCN failed to
particularise which vehicles are prohibited. Merton rejected
this on 2 June 2026.
Additional points:
1. The representation was submitted 22 April but Merton took 41
days to respond.
2. The rejection appears to have been issued the same day it was
logged as "under review", raising questions about whether it was
properly considered.
3. The discount period (£80 per PCN) expires in 14 days.
Street View Link
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/32rupJeJcmzDr3zMA
Evidence
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1so8NXZ9szfOvFn26K0F6-CswM-VbSHJP?usp=drive_link
#Post#: 120511--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton, code 52J failing to comply with prohibition on
certain types of vehicle, LTN Abbey Road JW High Path
DIR By: arqez
Date: June 3, 2026, 4:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've attached the notice of rejection, all three tickets in
separate folders, each of which has videos as well. Thanks in
advance
#Post#: 120544--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton, code 52J failing to comply with prohibition on
certain types of vehicle, LTN Abbey Road JW High Path
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 3, 2026, 6:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We've seen this location before a few years ago, but I can't
remember how it turned out. The restriction signs cannot be seen
until one is on top of them due to the sharp bend and the tree
and hedge obscuring the signs until the last couple of seconds.
It's a pity you didn't come on this forum before submitting your
representations, because you could have put in a lot more than
just base your case on one adjudication at London Tribunals. May
I ask if you submitted reps for each PCN or if you submitted a
single rep plus a list of the PCNs. I'm assuming you got the
first PCN after some days had passed and in the interim, went
the same way unaware of the contravention. Cases like this can
be argued that the subsequent PCNs dated before the first one
arrived in the post so they should be cancelled.
Other point to be aware of is a recent London Tribunals case
where the council argued the blue advance signs gave notice of a
restriction, but this was shot dowe y the adjudicator on the
basis that they are not traffic signs, and the TSRGD has signs
in it that the council could have used. It is on this forum
somewhere but I cant' remember the location, sorry.
Anyway, the real question is - are you prepared to take them to
London Tribunal, with the full £160 in play ? If not then you
might as well pay-up now at the discounted £80. You have a
reasonable case, but it isn't a "slam-dunk" win so you might
lose.
#Post#: 120577--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton, code 52J failing to comply with prohibition on
certain types of vehicle, LTN Abbey Road JW High Path
DIR By: arqez
Date: June 3, 2026, 7:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your response.
To answer your questions:
1. I submitted two representations in total — one for the first
PCN (MT03029885, 29 March) and a separate one for the second
and third PCNs (MT03063205 and MT03063679, both 3 April) which
arrived together.
2. My mother did not receive the first PCN before she drove
through again on 3 April, so she was unaware of the
contravention when the second and third PCNs were incurred.
3. We are prepared to appeal to London Tribunals but would like
to strengthen our case with additional relevant tribunal
decisions beyond Barani. Could you point us to the case about
blue advance signs not being proper traffic signs, and any
Other relevant decisions that have succeeded on similar grounds
at this location or for similar 52J contraventions in Merton?
We want to go into the appeal as well prepared as possible.
#Post#: 124588--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton, code 52J failing to comply with prohibition on
certain types of vehicle, LTN Abbey Road JW High Path
DIR By: citrus
Date: July 14, 2026, 5:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
i dont wish to hijack this post and very interested in it as we
had a similar case where from 1st May. We drove into the zone
before the penny dropped that it was not a through road anymore
... so turned around and went back the way we came so DID comply
with the instruction (eventually!) but the council have
rejected our appeal on the basis that signage was bad and they
didnt respond to the "returned the way we came" point .... we
are now have 27days to appeal to the independent adujicator.
is it best post a new thread and delete this message given its
the same pcn ?
#Post#: 124652--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton, code 52J failing to comply with prohibition on
certain types of vehicle, LTN Abbey Road JW High Path
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 14, 2026, 10:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: citrus link ---
>
> i dont wish to hijack this post and very interested in it as
we had a similar case where from 1st May. We drove into the zone
before the penny dropped that it was not a through road anymore
... so turned around and went back the way we came so DID comply
with the instruction (eventually!) but the council have
rejected our appeal on the basis that signage was bad and they
didnt respond to the "returned the way we came" point .... we
are now have 27days to appeal to the independent adujicator.
>
> is it best post a new thread and delete this message given its
the same pcn ?
>
--- End Quote ---
Please start your own tread, but you can, of course, continue to
observe progress with this one.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1