DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 130419--------------------------------------------------
London Borough of Lewisham - Failure to comply with a
restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (53j)
DIR By: dredd29
Date: September 14, 2026, 3:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The London Borough of Lewisham
Failure to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone (53j)
LOCATION - Trundley’s Road (where it meets Rolt Street) New
Cross, London – restricted access street
Hi all
Thank you for looking at this. Below is the first draft
response for informal challenge with separate attachments for
Appendices. I have nothing to lose to challenge as I assume the
£80 reduced will still apply if the Council reject. Seeking
peoples kind input to strengthen the case and opinions on
whether the case presented below is strong enough to take to
appeal and risk the higher penalty charge? Thank you for your
time and help.
Link to Council CCTV -
HTML https://vimeo.com/1226185880?share=copy&fl=sv&fe=ci
Link to Council PCN Letter -
HTML https://ibb.co/VGfyLNH
Link to Appendix 1 of the below response -
HTML https://ibb.co/bjVD62g6
Link to Appendix 2 of the below response -
HTML https://ibb.co/SXvpDZKN
Link to far back view of the signage -
HTML https://ibb.co/FqBvvB68<br
/>(only being shared on ftla forum not being sent in response)
Link to close up view of the signage -
HTML https://ibb.co/jkTchxWg<br
/>(only being shared on ftla forum not being sent in response)
Proposed draft response:
The London Borough of Lewisham,
Laurence House,
1 Catford Road,
SE6 4RU
Dear Sir or Madam,
PCN number: ZY22918957
Vehicle registration number: MV14LZB
The PCN states that there is an alleged contravention from a
failure to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone (53j).
I received a PCN on 9th September 2026 but I believe the penalty
was wrongly issued and there are mitigating circumstances to
explain why I entered where I did and I would like to submit an
informal challenge for the following reasons:
•
relevant parking restrictions were because there was no clear
signage to explain them. Please see below explanation and your
still images and CCTV video proves such as small unclear
signage, as proof of my informal challenge.
•
circumstances to explain why I entered where I did so I am
requesting that the fine be waived.
There was insufficient signage:
1.
the written contents of such on your prints. It shows the
signage is inadequate and small there is no clear warning
signage to highlight the restrictions. The signage is placed
high up and not at eye level. You can see from the CCTV footage
that you turn a left-hand corner to enter where the signage is
located. As a driver my view was hampered by parked cars on the
left (as shown in the CCTV video a white car which was last
parked) blocked the driver eye view of the approaching signage.
As I pass the white parked car in the video I am looking
straight ahead and make the left turn towards the signage. That
last white car obstruction and the left turn distraction happens
in a split second as the video demonstrates. A driver does not
have prior warning and hampered viewing of the signage due to
the turn road conditions. I also was distracted by the fact on
the road surface there is a block paving brick circle as shown
in the video. I hesitated on the approach looking downwards at
this marking thinking this was a roundabout marking on the road,
very confusing for the driver and caused split second confusion
and further distraction. I also question if no vehicle entry
zone at any time, why not block the entrance to the area or put
clear red bold no entry signs so they are not easily missed. I
point this out as if it is a no entry vehicle zone and it is a
continuation of the road with no warning or physical barriers or
high visibility warning signage then it is clear that it is for
income generation only with no attempt made to make drivers
clearly aware it is not just a continuation of a public road. I
trust an adjudicator inspector would see this blatant lack of
visual warning signage just like I did and before I present this
to an adjudicator, I will lodge a Freedom of Information Request
into the Council to request how many fines have been issued by
this camera at this spot for evidence purposes to prove the
point.
There were mitigating circumstances that are important to note
on the date this occurred as follows:
1.
drove in Central London, I have never visited this area or the
particular roads in question around Trundleys Rd, London SE8
5JE. I knew the area would be busy that day / afternoon as
elaborated in point 2 below so I did some homework on the
surrounding streets to work out where I could park safely to
unload and could see immediately outside 164-196 Trundleys Rd
there was yellow line parking restrictions so from Google Maps
noted the side street of Trundleys Rd that lead into Rolt
Street. As you can see from APPENDIX TWO my research showed
that this was a suitable area to off load and park and as the
screenshot of Google Maps clearly shows at the time of my
research there was no entry restriction signage restricting the
area. I appreciate the map search is out of date but at the
time of my research to reconnaissance the area this clearly
shows that my knowledge was aided by the fact no restrictions
applied so when I entered this area in real time I was already
of the knowledge that I could enter that area without
restrictions.
2.
This is a brand new purpose build halls of residence with
approximately 400 rooms. On 5th September 2026 this was the
first day of student move in, when I arrived by car at around
3pm both sides of Trundleys Road cars were double parked
unloading student belongings. I subsequently tried to park down
turning left into Trundleys Rd heading to Rolt Rd and both sides
of the road where parking permitted were full with cars parked
or unloading. Please see APPENDIX ONE attachment to show the
extent of the unloading car parking conditions. What is
important to note here is this was a one off mass event that
happened in the afternoon of 05/09/26 whereby the unloading
activity caused ciaos on the immediate roads causing stationary
traffic jams and the Council need to take this into account this
was a mitigating unavoidable circumstance that caused the fact I
was distracted and MOST IMPORTANTLY as APPENDIX ONE shows a RED
X marker I initially thought this was a marking for a round
about. The area was congested this area was free of cars as the
CCTV shows but its clear from the footage far to tight for a
vehicle to make a safe turning circle. I beg the question how
are road users who are alert enough to spot the small signage
able to make a U turn in the area marked with a red X? The
council can assess this from the CCTV footage it is visually
clear this area it was to tight a turn circle, there were black
bollards to the right on the pavement (as can be viewed in your
CCTV image) restricting the turn circle and to the left many
pedestrians milling about which would be deemed unsafe to make a
rear reverse turning circle. So the council make restrictions
but do not make provision for road users to be able to turn back
around safely with sufficient space to do so.
3.
parked on entry to the area where the CCTV commences. The one
off event that afternoon confirms the streets were gridlocked
and other than reversing back down Trudleys Rd which is against
traffic law. The CCTV clearly evidences this, it shows the area
was entered only to make a safe U turn this is clearly viewed at
the end of the CCTV clip I commenced the U turn on video in an
area free of pedestrians and parked cars where it was the only
safe space to make the turn and then I exited. I am being
penalised for solely choosing a safe area free of obstructions
to simply to be able to turn my car round in the only place
possible. I did not drive down the road or park on the road
simply to make a U turn at the only place possible.
#Post#: 130428--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Lewisham - Failure to comply with a
restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (53j)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 14, 2026, 5:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No informals in this law. I will be back tomorrow.
#Post#: 130436--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Lewisham - Failure to comply with a
restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (53j)
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: September 14, 2026, 5:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please post the PCN, all sides with only name and address
redacted. Please to not transcribe the text, we need to see the
actual document that may contain fatal errors
It is a postal PCN for a moving traffic contravention, so your
representations will be formal. You only get one opportunity to
submit reps to the council; If they reject then apart from
Havering Council, they invariably reoffer the discount (provided
the reps are receive within the discount period). If you are not
hapy with their rejection, you can then register an appeal with
London Tribunals. Hearings are by phone or video, no need to
attend premises. There are no additional costs apart from the
full PCN penalty if you lose, and if you win you pay nothing.
Anyway, back to the alleged contravention......
Sign on your approach: -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZK2joxgmEjFvpyDb8
After this, GSV is too out-of-date to show the latest road
layout and hence signs, but this view of 2021, shows the road
closed whilst they prepare the turning circle, and erect 'Flying
Motorbike' signs which were straight ahead of you as you
approached.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/SymedK2S2PhaegpD6
You drove straight past them. You say the following, indicating
that you did not understand the meaning of them : -.
--- Quote ---
> here was insufficient signage. I couldn't determine what the
relevant parking restrictions were because there was no clear
signage to explain them. Please see below explanation and your
still images and CCTV video proves such as small unclear
signage, as proof of my informal challenge.
--- End Quote ---
The signs actually mean 'No entry for motor vehicles', and
there is no plate below with days and times so the restriction
applies 24x7. They are nothing to do with parking whatsoever.
Anyway..........
Do you have a case at London Tribunals ? For me, the answer is
no. London Tribunal adjudicators cannot take mitigation into
account. (a High Court decided this some years ago). The video
shows you driving straight past the restriction signs with no
hesitation whatsoever. May I ask if you were using satnav ? This
restriction is relatively new and clearly designed to prevent
through traffic on this road which once allowed one to drive to
Evelyn Street without going the long way round via Sandford and
Edward Streets. Sorry if this reply isn't what you wanted to
hear, but we deal in reality on this forum and London and its
councils is a very unforgiving place for motorists.
The PCN may give a 'technical' appeal possibility that can win
appeals and is totally unliked to the actual contravention, so
post the PCN asap.
I see that our Hippocrates has responded and he has won many
appeals for appellants based on mismanagement of the enforcement
process.
#Post#: 130458--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Lewisham - Failure to comply with a
restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (53j)
DIR By: dredd29
Date: September 15, 2026, 4:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> Please post the PCN, all sides with only name and address
redacted. Please to not transcribe the text, we need to see the
actual document that may contain fatal errors
>
> The PCN may give a 'technical' appeal possibility that can win
appeals and is totally unliked to the actual contravention, so
post the PCN asap.
>
> I see that our Hippocrates has responded and he has won many
appeals for appellants based on mismanagement of the enforcement
process.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hello
Massive thank you for your help and time on this. As requested
here is the PCN letter in full including all pages:
Front cover page -
HTML https://ibb.co/VGfyLNH
Page 2 of PCN -
HTML https://ibb.co/BVBzGKPz
Page 3 of PCN -
HTML https://ibb.co/GQhSx8V7
Page 4 of PCN -
HTML https://ibb.co/tRsV5Sy
You asked if I was using Sat Nav no I wasn't as this was my
destination there was no where to turn round other than go past
the restriction signage. This was the point I was trying to hit
home other than reverse back down the street I had no option but
to U turn on the restricted Rolt Street,
Thank you for your input I will take your advice and lead if you
think there is no Tribunal case then I will pay the fine. I
will hopefully wait and look forward to a response from
Hippocrates now I have posted links to the full PCN letter
pages.
My question is regardless do I still put the appeal into the
Council regardless as nothing to lose and if the Council reject
then just pay the fine? As can I double confirm if the Council
reject an appeal then the cost will remain at £80 as long as I
don't go to stage 2 London Tribunals? As I do not want to pay
£160 this is too much for me.
Thank you :)
#Post#: 130556--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Lewisham - Failure to comply with a
restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (53j)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 15, 2026, 6:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just seen and will work on a draft today/later.
#Post#: 130684--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Lewisham - Failure to comply with a
restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (53j)
DIR By: dredd29
Date: September 17, 2026, 5:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Just seen and will work on a draft today/later.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi Hippocrates, thank you for your time on this really
appreciate your help and thank you for your input. Most
appreciated :)
#Post#: 130949--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Lewisham - Failure to comply with a
restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (53j)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 19, 2026, 2:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I will look asap.
#Post#: 130998--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Lewisham - Failure to comply with a
restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (53j)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 20, 2026, 3:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I make these formal representations against the PCN:
Signage
1. There is no warning signage in place.
2. In effect, there is only one terminal sign visible in the
video as the one on the right is covered by foliage.
3. The signage contains a plurality of signs, the largest of
which is the camera enforcement sign.
4. Therefore, the overall signage is not fit for purpose.
Procedural issues
In addition, I make the following collateral challenges:
1. The PCN conflates the payment and representations periods.
"If you fail.........."
2. The PCN does not contain the information which it must as
provided at section 4 (8) (vii) of the London Local
Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. This subsection
provides that the PCN must state the address to which payment of
the penalty charge must be sent.
3. I say that a web address is not an address within the meaning
of the legislation.
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN
******
4(8) (vii) should read 4 eight vii but have forgotten how to do
this on this site.
(vii)the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be
sent; and
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1