DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 61544--------------------------------------------------
Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition, Royal
Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: Smhn100
Date: March 9, 2025, 7:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have been driving through this road for the last 5 years
without any problems but recently I received 3 PCNs regarding
the same offence in one week: for failing to comply to motor
vehicle prohibition.
However I think it's unfair as it's not clear at all when these
restrictions are applied. I checked London Tribunal past cases
which showed many had appealed and won, and I also saw this post
which I took inspiration from:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-newham-london-52m-prohibition-royal-albert-way-e16/<br
/>
Here is the PCN (there are two others that are the exact same,
just a day's apart):
HTML https://i.imgur.com/oDDjSPq.jpeg
I then appealed back to the council with the below but got
rejected for all 3. I'm now wondering if I should take it to
London Tribunal or just accept the decision. Accepting it will
cost me £195, taking it to Tribunal and losing would cost me
£390...What do you guys think?
I am writing to formally appeal this PCN on the grounds that the
alleged contraventions did not occur due to inadequate and
non-compliant warning signage of the restriction, poor
visibility and poor placement of the motor restriction signage
around the exit. I have been fined three times at this location
within a week, and I believe all three PCNs should be cancelled
for the reasons outlined below.
On the night I was penalised, I was driving through the Gallions
Roundabout. As I approached the roundabout, I saw a diagrammatic
sign which showed an enforcement camera which I interpreted as a
speed enforcement camera rather than a vehicle restriction. The
diagram is of a roundabout that is large and has multiple exits,
and so it fails to clearly indicate that a certain exit is
prohibited. It also does not specify the name of the exit which
adds further confusion. Hence when I saw this sign, I did not
think it was warning me of a vehicle restriction but rather of
speed enforcement.
After this sign, I saw a small separate sign stating, “Royal
Albert Way closed when signs are displayed.” I did not think
this sign was linked to the enforcement camera diagram as they
are two separate signs that were spaced out, which created
further ambiguity. It also did not specify the times when the
road is closed (e.g., after midnight), which is particularly
problematic for drivers like me who have used this exit multiple
times over the last 5 years without encountering the motor
prohibition signal and are unaware of when it applies. It also
did not specify what sign will be displayed.
As I drove around the roundabout, I was focused on navigating
safely, especially as the roundabout is not very well lit which
makes the visibility poor. It should also be noted that this
roundabout is large and has multiple exits, and with cars behind
me I was more concerned with safely maneuvering the dimly lit
roundabout and therefore did not see the motor restriction sign
at the exit.
I later returned to the location during daylight to review the
signages at the location and found it to be inadequate and
misleading:
- I believe the council has failed to meet its obligations under
the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD)
2016 and general principles of fairness. While TSRGD does not
explicitly require advance warning signs, it does require that
any signage used must clearly convey the restriction to drivers.
The advance warning signs (e.g., "Traffic camera enforcement")
are vague and do not specify the nature of the restriction
(e.g., "No motor vehicles"), making it very easy to assume the
cameras are enforcing speed limits or other regulations. At the
same time, it also does not specify restriction times, which
would help a driver realise the enforcement camera is related to
a restriction. The disjointed signage also adds further to the
ambiguity.
- A more effective solution would be to have one traffic sign,
clearly specifying that the enforcement camera applies to the
Royal Albert Way exit and that this exit is closed during
specific times. This would prepare drivers appropriately before
they enter the roundabout. I have attached an example of a
traffic sign, found in Newham, that demonstrates this which
should be adopted.
- Additionally, the placement of the actual motor restriction
signage further exacerbates the problem. There is one last
traffic light before the specific exit where I was penalised. As
shown in the picture, even if a driver was to stop at the
traffic light, the motor restriction sign is too far away to be
seen clearly. This picture was taken in daylight, but visibility
is significantly worse at night given the roundabout is dimly
lit.
- Furthermore, the restriction sign is placed on a bend as
drivers exit the roundabout, making it difficult to see and
react in time. By the time drivers notice the sign, they are
already committed to the turn and cannot safely take evasive
action. The restricted road is also a dual carriageway, leaving
drivers with no safe way to avoid the restriction once they have
exited the roundabout.
In light of the above, I believe the inadequate and misleading
warning signage, combined with the poor placement of the
restriction sign and the poor visibility around the exit, means
that the alleged contraventions did not occur as stated. I
respectfully request that all three PCNs be cancelled, and that
better signage to be installed at this location to help other
drivers.
The pictures I sent to support my appeal:
1) The warning sign at the roundabout
HTML https://i.imgur.com/Y0G4zVe.png
2) The view from the last traffic light before the exit
HTML https://i.imgur.com/zKy8YNh.png
3) The approach to the exit
HTML https://i.imgur.com/ufeYRJM.png
4) The type of sign I think they should use to make it more
clear
HTML https://i.imgur.com/9nGFQLX.png
I plan to use the same points at London Tribunal but keen to get
your thoughts if it's worth the expensive risk.
#Post#: 61545--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition,
Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: Smhn100
Date: March 9, 2025, 8:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please click on each Imgur link to see full rejection letter of
each PCN
This is the rejection letter for one of the PCNs:
HTML https://imgur.com/gP9kplL
HTML https://imgur.com/B5UKmow
This the rejection letter for the other PCN:
HTML https://imgur.com/swi3bkP
HTML https://imgur.com/a/ZMe6OgS
HTML https://imgur.com/a/l8qyG6k
This the rejection letter for the 3rd PCN:
HTML https://imgur.com/Zxps2B2
HTML https://imgur.com/a/ZMe6OgS
HTML https://imgur.com/a/F2kOJWL
#Post#: 61546--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition,
Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: Smhn100
Date: March 9, 2025, 8:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
.
#Post#: 61589--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition,
Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 10, 2025, 6:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Better if you just send us a GSV link to the location. We can
then look around ourselves.
There is a successful appeal here under, (I think Carl Teper),
that hinges on the fact that the sign doesn't match the TRO that
establishes the restriction. The restriction is timed, but there
is no information on times on any of the signs. Of course,
Newham love the money rolling in so won't do anything at all to
make the restriction clearer, and there is no way of forcing
them to, unfortunately.
It's a pity you didn't come on this forum before submitting your
reps because you could have also claimed excessive and
disproportionate penalty, because you only became aware of the
contravention on receipt of first PCN, some time after, but two
more PCNs had been issued between the two dates.
#Post#: 61626--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition,
Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 10, 2025, 7:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There are a lot of allowed appeals here but also some
adjudicators who have refused appeals. Have a look at the
decisions on the London Tribunals site.
Also don't assume all is the same as with previous cases.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/l1J9L2B.gif
#Post#: 61667--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition,
Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: Smhn100
Date: March 10, 2025, 10:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> Better if you just send us a GSV link to the location. We can
then look around ourselves.
>
> There is a successful appeal here under, (I think Carl Teper),
that hinges on the fact that the sign doesn't match the TRO that
establishes the restriction. The restriction is timed, but there
is no information on times on any of the signs. Of course,
Newham love the money rolling in so won't do anything at all to
make the restriction clearer, and there is no way of forcing
them to, unfortunately.
>
> It's a pity you didn't come on this forum before submitting
your reps because you could have also claimed excessive and
disproportionate penalty, because you only became aware of the
contravention on receipt of first PCN, some time after, but two
more PCNs had been issued between the two dates.
>
--- End Quote ---
Here is the GSV link:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/KaXPifTTRTvSfeQx8
Yep I've mentioned no time mentioned under restriction to which
they basically said that they don't need to. They mentioned in
their rejection that restriction is between 10pm to 3am which i
think is also false because I drive at 10 or 11pm nearly
everyday to the gym but there is no restriction sign then. It
tends to switch on after midnight.
Ah oh no is there no way to mention excessive and
disproportionate penalty now? I did tick the options below when
appealing but didn't really go into detail on the excessive
charge in my reasoning:
"The ground on which I wish to make a representation are:
- There was no contravention of an order or failure to comply
with an indication on a sign
- The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the
circumstances of the case "
One of the rejection letters said: "A PCN may be issued each
time the restriction is breached, failure to observe adequately
placed signage does not justify the cancellation of a PCN"
#Post#: 61668--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition,
Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: Smhn100
Date: March 10, 2025, 10:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> There are a lot of allowed appeals here but also some
adjudicators who have refused appeals. Have a look at the
decisions on the London Tribunals site.
>
> Also don't assume all is the same as with previous cases.
>
>
HTML https://i.imgur.com/l1J9L2B.gif
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks, I read through quite a few of them and used their points
to construct my appeal above. Do you think I should use that at
Tribunal also or can it be improved?
#Post#: 61679--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition,
Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 10, 2025, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Last time I looked their website contains a wrong ground of
appeal? Please check and screenshot.
#Post#: 61707--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition,
Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: Smhn100
Date: March 10, 2025, 1:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Last time I looked their website contains a wrong ground of
appeal? Please check and screenshot.
>
--- End Quote ---
Do you mean find an appeal that was rejected?
#Post#: 61973--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition,
Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: Smhn100
Date: March 11, 2025, 3:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi any help?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page