DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 127382--------------------------------------------------
Abbey Rd - High Path Merton 52J Failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicle
DIR By: Steelman
Date: August 10, 2026, 5:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all looking for some advice and assistance please?
Previously used this road but not since the restriction came
into place, I was on way to A&E at St Georges after being told
to attend immediately by my Doctor.
Coming round the left hand bend in road you are faced with a 7
foot width restriction and you're making sure you are lined up
to get through safely etc.
By the time you see the restriction sign if you notice it you're
already committed etc
Not made any appeal yet, only viewed the evidence online etc
See copy of both sides of PCN notice as attached.
HTML https://imgpile.com/m/nZFbQmS
HTML https://imgpile.com/m/nZFbQmS
Google maps location dated before restriction in place.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/aNRGC2iPFMYXwGix5
Pics taken recently of area
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/15rvI3z
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/15rvI3z
Thanks in advance
#Post#: 127407--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abbey Rd - High Path Merton 52J Failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicle
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 10, 2026, 8:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The width restriction has been there since 2015 : -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/zo3tBUEqZ51cjJTr9
so I think you'd struggle with that one.
We've seen this location before, but before the new restriction.
There is an advance sign on the normal approach: -
Did you not notice this ?
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/mVZejqDC7APixwRq8
However, instead of updating the main, 'geographic layout' sign,
they've just added a blue, non-traffic sign, so there is a
possible argument about adequate signage, (Regulation 18 of
LATOR 2016)
#Post#: 127410--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abbey Rd - High Path Merton 52J Failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicle
DIR By: Steelman
Date: August 10, 2026, 10:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Incandescent,
I knew about the width restriction as had previously driven
through there long before the new LTN restriction, I was more
concerned in lining car up to make sure of not causing any
damage etc, so that was main focus of my attention and I missed
the signs.
The blue sign as you enter off Merantun Way states Abbey Rd &
Pincott Rd closed which is assuming you know the names of the
roads, the Abbey Rd sign is low down and situated on the right
beside the width restriction, which you wouldn't really be
looking at as driving through the width restriction.
The geographic layout sign on the left of the blue sign shows a
dead end to the right of the width restriction which is Station
Rd, that could easily be interpreted as being the closed road if
you are unfamiliar with the local road names etc?
I can see from the forum there are at least 2 other live cases
regarding the same stretch of road and alleged offences etc
#Post#: 127420--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abbey Rd - High Path Merton 52J Failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicle
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 10, 2026, 12:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As I said, we've seen this location before, last year I think,
but tempus fugit does apply to my memory, sorry !! So I can't
remember whether cases got as far as London Tribunals. You could
try searching using the location text on your PCN
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals
#Post#: 127424--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abbey Rd - High Path Merton 52J Failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicle
DIR By: Steelman
Date: August 10, 2026, 1:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I seen this earlier looks similar?
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fHRX2XkcT5rZR1L4b5pTz_COo9lXAiqM/view?usp=sharing
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fHRX2XkcT5rZR1L4b5pTz_COo9lXAiqM/view?usp=sharing
#Post#: 127434--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abbey Rd - High Path Merton 52J Failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicle
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 10, 2026, 3:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I will be back later with a full representation.
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FDVTFmLubtOGDDoSV0o6kX7JaDoOx1zL/view
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/merton-52j-failing-to-comply-with-a-prohibition-ltn-abbey-road-jw-high-path/msg121504/#msg121504
#Post#: 127970--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abbey Rd - High Path Merton 52J Failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicle
DIR By: Steelman
Date: August 17, 2026, 3:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Hippocrates,
not sure if you have managed to draft a full representation as
yet?
As the 14 day appeal period will be up on the 19/08/26
many thanks again
#Post#: 127987--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abbey Rd - High Path Merton 52J Failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicle
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 17, 2026, 5:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Steelman link ---
>
> Hi Hippocrates,
>
> not sure if you have managed to draft a full representation as
yet?
>
> As the 14 day appeal period will be up on the 19/08/26
>
> many thanks again
>
--- End Quote ---
Signage: entrapment and does not show the sign
Does not particularise which vehicles.
Website: wrong grounds - screenshot these first and keep as
evidence.
They will reject with the usual claptrap.
#Post#: 128156--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abbey Rd - High Path Merton 52J Failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicle
DIR By: Steelman
Date: August 18, 2026, 10:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Hippocrates,
Provisional draft as follows, would appreciate you casting your
eye over it and any comments, additions or deletions from
yourself would be welcome etc
Dear Sirs,
1. The PCN does not particularise which vehicles therefore does
not establish any grounds for the alleged contravention to have
taken place.
2. Similarly, neither does the video support your allegation.
3. Upon entering High Path from Merantun Way the white road sign
which is immediately in front of you only shows that there are 2
width restrictions and a dead end in place no mention of
Authorised vehicles only, to the right of this sign you use
non-regulatory signs namely, blue-backed information boards
referencing road names, which are of no assistance to motorists
unacquainted with street names or the whereabouts of those
streets in the area.
There are regulatory signs available to give this type of
advance notification.
The regulatory width restriction signs encourage the perception
that vehicles, other than those prohibited by dimension, may
proceed, there are not any no through road signs in place as you
enter the width restriction area, furthermore the Abbey Road
street name sign is hardly visible to the right low down and
partially obscured by width restriction bollard whilst
navigating the width restriction.
4. 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.
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1