DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 67961--------------------------------------------------
Waltham Forest (LBWF) PCN, Failing to comply with a prohibition,
Tavistock Avenue E17 / Blackhorse Lane E17 (CCTV)
DIR By: CPN2025
Date: April 21, 2025, 2:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I've received a PCN for Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicles (motor vehicles). My case is very
similar to:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/waltham-forest-code-52m-(driving-through-modal-filter)-tavistock-avenue-blackhor/.<br
/>Here is the location:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZnEisoZzaN5yfEbE7
Here is the full CPN:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/7SPBZ25.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/CguNpGE.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/z9bHzbG.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/4TyIQ0c.png
I've done a bit of research and I'm thinking that my best chance
could be to argue that the Motor vehicle prohibited signs are
not compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Directions (TSRGD) 2016 as they're not illuminated, hence no
contravention (I know that might sound strange given it wasn't
night time but I'll explain why below). The reality is that I
was looking for parking and simply didn't see the signs, as the
cul-de-sac sign at the junction is very easy to miss and doesn't
suggest no vehicle access and camera surveillance!
Here is what the junction looks like as you drive from south to
north on Blackhorse Lane as I was:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/5XnWU8F.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/XCxL1eg.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/eoanM37.jpeg
No internal or external lighting:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/k2gIe3d.jpeg
I would also argue that this signage is inadequate, but if I'm
right in interpreting TSRGD 2016 as requiring the Motor vehicles
prohibited signs (diagram 619 [S3-2-12] in the Traffic Signs
Manual [TSM] Chapter 3) to be illuminated, not just
reflectorised, I think that would be my best legal argument. The
reason I think the sign needs to be internally or externally
illuminated, not just reflectorised, is because Schedule 3 of
the TSRGD (p. 70) says that Provision 4 of Part 4 applies to it:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/OqTn2ls.png
And Provision 4 of Part 4 says:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/uvNtrDG.png
The signs in question appear to be in a 30-mph area and within
50 metres of a lamp post. The fact that it was day time is
irrelevant to the argument that the signage is not compliant
with TSRGD 2016, which LBWF acknowledge is ground for
cancellation of a CPN in their Cancellation Procedure document:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/5CVOVsT.png
In terms of the rubbish signage at the junction itself, it's
interesting to note that the council's original design drawings
(and Traffic Order) took a much more commons sense approach, by
placing the Motor vehicles prohibited signs right at the
beginning of the road, which they then modified:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/BPo0T3d.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/pG82OVj.png
What do you think? Have you seen anything like this win before?
I have some experience with going to the Environment and Traffic
Adjudicators at the London Tribunals, I won a couple of
(identical) cases in 2018 (with adjudicator Anthony Chan, who
allowed the appeals on a technicality regarding the wording of
the TMO in question at the time). Any advice would be very much
appreciated. I'll make representation to LBWF before the 28th;
unfortunately, I imagine they're likely to reject (whatever my
arguments are), and then I'll need to decide if I want to try to
take it to the tribunal or not.
#Post#: 67977--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest (LBWF) PCN, Failing to comply with a
prohibition, Tavistock Avenue E17 / Blackhorse Lane E17 (CCTV)
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: April 21, 2025, 6:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, you can try it, as you seem willing to risk the full PCN
amount. Do be aware that because you went there in broad
daylight, an adjudicator could well decide the lack of
illumination is not relevant to your case. Also are you totally
sure this street is 30 mph and not 20 mph ?
It seems strange to have the signs some way down the street, but
I assume access to the back of commercial premises on Blackhorse
Lane has to be available.
Frankly, I don't think your argument is all that strong, but see
what the others say. Any particular reason for passing the signs
? Do you know what they mean ?
#Post#: 68008--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest (LBWF), code 52M, Failing to comply with a
prohibition, Tavistock Avenue / Blackhorse Lane E17 (CCTV)
DIR By: CPN2025
Date: April 22, 2025, 4:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, thanks for your response.
In terms of speed limit, given there appear to be no 20-mph
signs, it's fair to assume the limit is 30 mph. I don't think my
argument is intuitively all that strong either, especially as it
was broad daylight as you put it, but if I'm correct in my TSRGD
2016 understanding that the Motor vehicles prohibited signs
(diagram 619 [S3-2-12]) need to be internally or externally
illuminated, then I think the adjudicator would have to allow
the appeal, because inconsistently illuminated signs at the same
location create confusion. Motorists need to be able to see key
regulatory signs consistently throughout the day, so a lack of
illumination during the night impacts the day as well. Which is
why Clifton Avenue, the road before Tavistock Avenue, looks like
this:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/mlkpAdt.jpeg
There the council recognised that the No Entry sign needed to be
internally or externally illuminated, not just reflectorised. I
think my argument may be undermined by the following section of
the TSRGD 2016:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/JB70awX.png
Sub-paragraph (4) and (5) seem to state that signs that must be
illuminated at certain times may simply be reflectorised "during
those times when it is not required to be illuminated". However,
I still think there is a fairness and consistency argument as
the same driver could theoretically be charged for the same
manoeuvre during the day but not during the night, if the signs
are deemed legal during the day but not during the night. I
think the signs have to be TSRGD compliant throughout the day.
Lastly, like I said in my first post, I passed the signs because
I simply did not see them. I was looking for parking and nothing
at the junction suggested no motor vehicle access or the
possibility of enforcement cameras. I think I saw the cul-de-sac
sign as I turned in but imagined I might have to turn around at
the end of the road but could find parking on the way there. And
yes, I know what the signs mean, I just didn't see them at the
time. Thanks.
#Post#: 68030--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest (LBWF) PCN, Failing to comply with a
prohibition, Tavistock Avenue E17 / Blackhorse Lane E17 (CCTV)
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: April 22, 2025, 6:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok, well go ahead, and we'll see how it goes !
#Post#: 68087--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest (LBWF) PCN, Failing to comply with a
prohibition, Tavistock Avenue E17 / Blackhorse Lane E17 (CCTV)
DIR By: CPN2025
Date: April 22, 2025, 9:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll definitely make representation with WF along these lines,
unless anyone else suggests something else. I haven't decided if
I'll appeal the NoR if I get one yet. I'm hoping to get advice
about my interpretation of the TSRGD requirements for the
specific signs in question. I'll wait to see if anyone else
comments, hopefully I'll get more of a sense of whether it's
worth appealing a NoR or not. It sounds like you think it may
not be worth it, and given how much experience you have in these
matters, I'm currently not sure if it's worth me putting £65 on
the line. I'll wait and see. It'll presumably be a few weeks
until I have to decide whether to appeal (to the tribunals) or
not, depending how long it takes WF to reject, if that's what
happens. Hopefully I'll get a few more responses.
#Post#: 72578--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest (LBWF) PCN, Failing to comply with a
prohibition, Tavistock Avenue E17 / Blackhorse Lane E17 (CCTV)
DIR By: CPN2025
Date: May 21, 2025, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I've now received my Notice of Rejection. Here is the full
letter:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/S8ZjO0G.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/4zX21Z4.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/cUWZ1EM.png
Would anyone advise appealing to the London Tribunals or is the
concensus that I should just pay the £65? I would appreciate any
advice.
For context, here is the full representation / appeal letter I
submited to the issuing council (which was just rejected today):
HTML https://i.imgur.com/gAqhj5D.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/7b5fPy9.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/t3BSKhj.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/Hd8erpU.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/QMRJhYk.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/YtVql0p.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/KUWrVES.png
Thank you!
#Post#: 73390--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest (LBWF) PCN, Failing to comply with a
prohibition, Tavistock Avenue E17 / Blackhorse Lane E17 (CCTV)
DIR By: CPN2025
Date: May 27, 2025, 7:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi [member=1]cp8759[/member],
Apologies for tagging you personally, I just wanted to reach out
and ask if you thought I was likely to get any more responses on
my post, or if I needed to do anything else to encourage
responses. I've not used FTLA before so I'm not sure what to
expect. I was hoping to get more advice about whether a London
Tribunals appeal would be worth a shot or not. I had a couple of
responses from Incandescent early on, but nothing since (perhaps
that's normal...). I have to decide whether to pay or appeal by
early next week. Any advice would be much appreciated, regarding
the PCN or how to encourage more responses.
Many thanks.
#Post#: 73418--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest (LBWF) PCN, Failing to comply with a
prohibition, Tavistock Avenue E17 / Blackhorse Lane E17 (CCTV)
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 27, 2025, 9:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=5188]CPN2025[/member] I've got to be honest the
representation was misguided given this contravention was in
broad daylight. Some adjudicators would say that if you couldn't
see the signs at all in those lighting circumstances, it's
questionable whether you should be driving at all.
This is case that would have been best suited to the strategy of
last resort
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/ealing-cumberland-road-w7-code-53j-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehic/msg56444/#msg56444,<br
/>but it's a bit late for that now. In the circumstances I can't
say an appeal to the tribunal would have a greater than 50%
chance of success, so you might want to just cut your losses.
I will request the TMO just in case it provides some sort of
trump card, unfortunately I don't have the traffic order for
this location on file. If you pay and the order turns out to be
non-existent or flawed, you can still file an appeal regardless
of whether you're paid.
#Post#: 73454--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest (LBWF) PCN, Failing to comply with a
prohibition, Tavistock Avenue E17 / Blackhorse Lane E17 (CCTV)
DIR By: CPN2025
Date: May 27, 2025, 10:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your response. The TMO documents are available
here I believe:
HTML https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/roads-and-pavements/road-traffic-schemes-and-consultations
I've attached some of them to this post.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 73458--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest (LBWF) PCN, Failing to comply with a
prohibition, Tavistock Avenue E17 / Blackhorse Lane E17 (CCTV)
DIR By: CPN2025
Date: May 27, 2025, 10:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here are the last TMO documents I have.
[attachment deleted by admin]
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page