DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 130102--------------------------------------------------
Merton 52J – Abbey Road / High Path LTN – Appeal WON – Signage
DIR By: h4ss4n4
Date: September 10, 2026, 10:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Merton – Abbey Road / High Path LTN – Appeal Allowed
Just to update this thread: my appeal was allowed at the London
Tribunals video hearing.
My main argument was that the restriction was not adequately
conveyed from the actual driver's point of view.
Evidence / arguments I relied on
[*]I had taken a photograph from the driver's actual approach
showing how the restriction and signage appeared when
approaching the width restriction.
[*]The council supplied several photographs, but they were not
clearly dated. Some appeared to be considerably older.
[*]I pointed out that one of the council's photographs showed
the signpost still grey, whereas my photograph showed that the
same post had subsequently been painted bright yellow. This
became relevant when the adjudicator was trying to establish
which photographs best represented the conditions around the
date of the contravention.
[*]I argued that the council's photographs were largely
static/site-inspection views, whereas my photograph showed what
an approaching driver actually sees.
[*]The CCTV itself showed another vehicle entering the
restriction within a very short period. I argued that this was
consistent with the restriction not being sufficiently obvious
to approaching motorists.
Ratcliff case – same location
I also referred to the successful Reverend Peter Ratcliff appeal
concerning the same Abbey Road / High Path restriction and
similar signage/visibility issues.
The adjudicator pointed out that he was not bound by another
adjudicator's decision.
I said I fully accepted that and was relying on the Ratcliff
decision only as context, because it concerned the same
location, broadly the same period and substantially the same
signage issue.
My basic argument throughout was NOT:
"There was no sign."
It was:
"The restriction was not adequately conveyed to a motorist
approaching the location at the material time."
IMPORTANT – know your evidence pack before the hearing
One thing that caused me difficulty was identifying the
exhibits.
The tribunal/council bundle referred to evidence as Exhibits
A/B/C etc, but those labels were not obvious on the actual
photographs.
My appeal had been submitted around six months before the
hearing, so I could not remember which exhibit letter
corresponded to each photograph.
The adjudicator repeatedly asked me which exhibit I was
referring to.
I eventually shared my screen and physically showed him the
photograph I meant.
So before attending a hearing, write down the exact page/exhibit
number of every photograph you intend to rely upon.
This could save you a lot of difficulty during the hearing.
Another potentially useful case – Barani v Croydon
There is also another London Tribunals decision which may help
people receiving Code 52 PCNs:
Nima Barani v London Borough of Croydon
Case number: 2250259286
Decision: 5 November 2025
This appeal was allowed on a separate point.
The PCN said only that the vehicle had failed to comply with:
"a prohibition on certain types of vehicle"
The adjudicator found that this wording did not properly tell
the motorist the exact nature of the prohibition.
The adjudicator also found that the image on the PCN was not
sufficiently clear to cure that defect.
The PCN was therefore found to be invalid and the appeal was
allowed.
So if your PCN simply says "failing to comply with a prohibition
on certain types of vehicle" without properly identifying what
the actual prohibition is, Barani v Croydon 2250259286 may be
worth raising as a separate argument.
Obviously tribunal decisions are not binding precedents and
every case turns on its own facts, but they can still be useful
when the facts or legal issue are similar.
Result: APPEAL ALLOWED.
Hope this helps anyone else who receives a PCN at the Abbey Road
/ High Path restriction.
#Post#: 130112--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton 52J – Abbey Road / High Path LTN – Appeal WON –
Signage
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: September 10, 2026, 1:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Very well done, and this also shows the importance of a personal
hearing, not papers-based.
#Post#: 130120--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton 52J – Abbey Road / High Path LTN – Appeal WON –
Signage
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 10, 2026, 2:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I was the representative in the Barani case.
To assist the adjudicator, you just need a very short skeleton
argument with your main points and reference the documents
accordingly. You could have used the wrong grounds on their
website too.
Could you please drop me a PM as I have severalcases pending and
[member=9826]citrus[/member] has just had one cancelled.
#Post#: 130135--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton 52J – Abbey Road / High Path LTN – Appeal
WON – Signage
DIR By: h4ss4n4
Date: September 11, 2026, 3:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Verdict
Part 1
HTML https://ibb.co/h1FrxYNt
Part 2
HTML https://ibb.co/bMJZb5LJ
#Post#: 130137--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton 52J – Abbey Road / High Path LTN – Appeal WON –
Signage
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: September 11, 2026, 3:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well done, but can you post-up the full text.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1