DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 129410--------------------------------------------------
Lewisham / 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition... /
Leahurst Road - Westbound
DIR By: FishBoy
Date: September 2, 2026, 12:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
From searching I can see that this is a fairly well known road,
and would be grateful for advice as to recent appeal outcomes,
bearing in mind the updates to signage. GSV -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/LMG71exvnJ37vgvN9
I used to live nearby about 20 years ago and regularly used it
as a route home. I still often used it as a shortcut during the
intervening years, albeit not recently. So my main excuse is
that when I used it 'for old time's sake' on the way home from a
family day out on a Sunday afternoon, I had zero reason to
expect any restrictions, especially at that time on a weekend.
Looking at the video, and having visited the site since to try
to work out how the hell I missed any signs, I can only guess
that my concentration may have been on the approaching white
car, plus the bollard type sign indicating to keep left may have
made me presume that the signs on the poles were indicating the
same thing; I was aware this is a narrowed section. Also with it
being just a regular residential street, the cars coming the
other way would have made me think that nothing was amiss, no
reason to suspect any restrictions?
Ironically once around the corner and approaching the rail
bridge I did jam on the brakes on seeing two blue "No Motor
Vehicles.." signs, and two 'flying bike / camera' signs further
on after the bridge. Very confused as to whether this
restriction was in force (there were no day / time signs), but
erring on the side of caution, I did a three point turn and
routed down a side road (after double checking the days & times
of the school restriction on it!). I can only presume that the
reason I saw these, and not the ones prior, is the difference in
location & size; the latter ones are clear of any other signs or
background interference, and larger. The ones before the corner
have houses in the background, plus the No Entry signs just
beyond, and are significantly smaller. I'll post up some links
to recent photos as I'm aware GSV is out of date - probably
around the same time that I previously routed through it!
So PCN details:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/eIbxg4X_lg.webp
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/TTnDJbf_lg.webp
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/tJpZfNU_lg.webp
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/55E8l1m_lg.webp
And online evidence screenshot:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/BexJlAw_lg.webp
And images / video:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/lhF0wvM_lg.webp
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/fdR8If1_lg.webp
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/QqNuCG5_lg.webp
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/IoiNX6W_lg.webp
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/6A7WccA
Many thanks for any advice, my gut feeling is that I have no
hope re: inadequate signage, but am keen to know if the online
procedural errors still exist, and if they are being successful
in appeals.
#Post#: 129412--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lewisham / 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition... /
Leahurst Road - Westbound
DIR By: Bulop
Date: September 2, 2026, 12:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing the location, it shows that 4 appeals were
allowed, all in 2024, for inadequate signage! No clue if they've
updated it recently, but the CCTV doesn't show otherwise. The
sign on the left is misplaced and barely visible, leaving only
one sign on the right and the motorist would be looking at the
island and crossing rather than that.
Justin Oliver vs London Borough of Lewisham
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PkrvhZNG2JOnlVfWVmh1aQJx_PbwFaHT/view?usp=sharing
#Post#: 129414--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lewisham / 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition... /
Leahurst Road - Westbound
DIR By: Bulop
Date: September 2, 2026, 12:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
And even better, there have only been 4 APPEALS at the Tribunal
at this location! That means that every single appeal that has
been published has been won.
#Post#: 129417--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lewisham / 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition... /
Leahurst Road - Westbound
DIR By: FishBoy
Date: September 2, 2026, 1:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Photos of Leahurst Rd street view taken this week:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/eSRW5WR_lg.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/1WX1tBW_lg.jpg
And in comparison, the signs just around the corner which were
effective - I re-routed along Pascoe Rd to the right. I presume
it's a different section as it's on a different street
(Ennersdale Rd)?
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/FhJ4VBz_lg.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/9FZ8Lga_lg.jpg
And lastly, a nearby road where Lewisham have used a more
effective method - why hasn't this been used for Leahurst, if
they don't want vehicles using it?!?
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/0ILCaL3_lg.jpg
#Post#: 129418--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lewisham / 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition... /
Leahurst Road - Westbound
DIR By: FishBoy
Date: September 2, 2026, 1:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bulop link ---
>
> After reviewing the location, it shows that 4 appeals were
allowed, all in 2024, for inadequate signage! No clue if they've
updated it recently, but the CCTV doesn't show otherwise. The
sign on the left is misplaced and barely visible, leaving only
one sign on the right and the motorist would be looking at the
island and crossing rather than that.
>
> Justin Oliver vs London Borough of Lewisham
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PkrvhZNG2JOnlVfWVmh1aQJx_PbwFaHT/view?usp=sharing
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for this. The previous cases I found from 2024 seemed to
indicate that there was only one small sign to the left of the
carriageway, and this was the reason it was regarded as
inadequate. From the adjudicators comments it sounds like the
second sign was in place for this appeal, but was still regarded
as inadequate. Plus the other factors are exactly what I have
thought - the keep left sign being a distraction etc.
#Post#: 130029--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lewisham / 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition... /
Leahurst Road - Westbound
DIR By: FishBoy
Date: September 9, 2026, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll submit a challenge for this today, as I think it's close to
the 14 day cutoff - why can't they specify which day this is,
rather than "14 days beginning with the date of this notice"?
I'll include the pertinent reasons as used in the case above
(Justin Oliver vs London Borough of Lewisham) although I presume
it will be rejected automatically regardless of representations
made?
I'd appreciate some thoughts / advice from some of the Hero
Members if possible as to chances at tribunal.
Many thanks.
#Post#: 130034--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lewisham / 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition... /
Leahurst Road - Westbound
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: September 9, 2026, 8:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well over 95% of reps to councils are refused.They do this
because they know that most people cough-up to get the discount
which is usually re-offered.
#Post#: 130040--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lewisham / 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition... /
Leahurst Road - Westbound
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 9, 2026, 10:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll include the pertinent reasons as used in the case above
How?
In that case there was a single gateway sign and a so-called
advance warning sign on the right-hand side of the carriageway
adjacent to parking places. Now there's a pair of gateway signs
and an 'advance' warning sign on the left.
I wonder whether you could you do something with the following:
While an advance sign is non-regulatory and therefore could
comprise a sign or combination which is not prescribed, here the
council have used the regulatory form of the sign with an
associated plate. As this prohibition could be marked with a
single sign, then a motorist could think that this was the start
of the prohibition and because no sign preceded it still be
cursing their luck and seeking to manoeuvre their car safely
through the chicane when they come across a second set(which
according to the council's video marks the actual start of the
prohibition) and be unable to avoid. The council might argue
that a motorist should not be misled because the 'associated
plate' states ** ahead(OP, why is this out of focus, it's
important).
But the regs do not permit such an associated plate to carry
wording to the effect that 'the restriction doesn't start here,
it starts in ***m and this is just a warning'! The only
permitted plates relate to times and exceptions, but without
exception when used in its regulatory form it carries only one
meaning: the prohibition starts here.
Some thoughts.
#Post#: 130072--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lewisham / 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition... /
Leahurst Road - Westbound
DIR By: FishBoy
Date: September 9, 2026, 6:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> I'll include the pertinent reasons as used in the case above
>
> How?
>
> In that case there was a single gateway sign and a so-called
advance warning sign on the right-hand side of the carriageway
adjacent to parking places. Now there's a pair of gateway signs
and an 'advance' warning sign on the left.
>
> I wonder whether you could you do something with the
following:
>
> While an advance sign is non-regulatory and therefore could
comprise a sign or combination which is not prescribed, here the
council have used the regulatory form of the sign with an
associated plate. As this prohibition could be marked with a
single sign, then a motorist could think that this was the start
of the prohibition and because no sign preceded it still be
cursing their luck and seeking to manoeuvre their car safely
through the chicane when they come across a second set(which
according to the council's video marks the actual start of the
prohibition) and be unable to avoid. The council might argue
that a motorist should not be misled because the 'associated
plate' states ** ahead(OP, why is this out of focus, it's
important).
> But the regs do not permit such an associated plate to carry
wording to the effect that 'the restriction doesn't start here,
it starts in ***m and this is just a warning'! The only
permitted plates relate to times and exceptions, but without
exception when used in its regulatory form it carries only one
meaning: the prohibition starts here.
>
> Some thoughts.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for this, I'm aware in that case there was only one
restriction sign, but the positioning is the same, which means
it's still too late to do anything about it before you've
entered the restriction because it's on / after a traffic
calming / pedestrian crossing island.
Your point regarding the non-regulatory advance sign is very
useful, and I think it (or something similar) is mentioned by
the adjudicator in that case. I'm not sure why the sign appears
out of focus for you, zoomed in you should be able to see it
states "25 yds ahead".
The pertinent reasons I was referring to were :
"I find the nature of the location detracts from the restriction
since it encourages motorists to construe the location as a
traffic calmed crossing and thereby inducing the notion that
traffic will be proceeding in order to be calmed"
"the central island prevents motorists from adopting a turn to
effect a remedial manoeuvre in order to avoid transgressing the
sign"
"The sign is placed at the end of the traffic island and, in my
judgement, is unlikely to be seen by the motorist until they
have entered the island
carriageway by which time there is no means of avoiding entry
into the prohibited route.
"The motorist's attention on the approach is likely to be on the
island sign directing traffic to bear to the left of the sign."
I will also mention two other sign related issues hopefully
illustrated by photos below. 1) When approaching from Longhurst
Road (the road to the right on the initial photos) there are two
blue advance warning signs on a sharpish left hand corner just
before the junction with Leahurst Road. The nearside one is
obscured by a hedge, the far side one is right over in the other
side, and there are numerous parked vehicles. A motorist should
be concentrating on negotiating the corner and avoiding traffic
coming in the opposite direction at that point rather than
spotting signs. 2) When reaching the junction with Leahurst Road
(to turn right) the small advance warning sign on the opposite
side of the road is side on, and therefore impossible to read.
So the first time you would be aware of the restriction is when
confronted by the signs on the traffic calming island, which as
mentioned above has it's issues.
I think I'm right in saying that previous Tribunal outcomes are
not used as precedents? So the real question is what chance is
there of success for this case, either with the evidence above,
or with possible admin mistakes etc?
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/MVI2lsE_lg.webp
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/FWV9yrJ_lg.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/CJQy0Ad_lg.jpg
#Post#: 130079--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lewisham / 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition... /
Leahurst Road - Westbound
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 10, 2026, 2:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In your other examples, the warning signs are not regulatory,
which is how it must be for this because a single sign can
suffice therefore a single sign cannot be a warning, it
signifies having regulatory effect.
As regards, 'I'm aware in that case there was only one
restriction sign, but the positioning is the same, which means
it's still too late to do anything about it before you've
entered the restriction because it's on / after a traffic
calming / pedestrian crossing island.', as they say, one
adjudicator's decision is not binding on another, but it is a
decision in favour of your argument none the less.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1