DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 73279--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 26, 2025, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: baroudeur link ---
>
> [quote author=BertieBath link=topic=6502.msg73249#msg73249
date=1748234377]
>
>
> More images to consider:
>
HTML https://imgur.com/a/ZuiBX7d
>
> - Driver attention is already maxed out. Between the overhead
gantry, height panels, boom barriers, speed limit signs, average
speed camera warnings, and diverging lanes, it becomes
impossible to spot and interpret the weight restriction in time
to take action.
>
> - The actual tunnel entrance is well beyond the initial
signage and barrier. The “restrictions ahead” board appears at
the narrowing. But once you’ve passed the barrier system, you’re
fully committed, with no physical or legal way to turn around.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Should the restriction be seen at the last moment there is an
escape route for restricted vehicles clearly signed
HTML https://tinyurl.com/4vz74s79
[/quote]
Indeed there is, but the sign in advance of it only refers to
overheight vehicles. So again, I would say while there are
indeed a lot of signs, one could question the adequacy of signs
for overweight vehicles.
However, it does look indeed like London Tribunal adjudicators
have made their minds up and that's the end of it. Of course the
OP has the right in law to take his case there, but the appeal
text will need to be carefully written. I would suggest the
escape lane be signed for vehicles overheight or overweight,
which it isn't now. Of course TfL love the money the weight
limit gives them from PCNs so have no incentive to make changes.
#Post#: 73312--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
DIR By: BertieBath
Date: May 26, 2025, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks all. You're right that adjudicators seem to have largely
waved these cases through — but perhaps that’s exactly why it’s
worth testing. The signage at Rotherhithe isn’t just busy — it’s
absurdly cluttered, inconsistent in purpose (structural vs
environmental), and arguably misleading by design.
Regulation 18 might give authorities a wide margin of discretion
— but surely that discretion isn’t limitless. “Adequate” has to
mean more than just technically present, especially when a
driver is confronted with 12+ symbols in live traffic, and the
key restriction is clearly :
- Too small
- Visually ambiguous (a 2t inside a stylised Luton van icon?)
- Not repeated at the point of enforcement
Even if other appeals haven’t succeeded, maybe it’s time this
one landed on the desk of an adjudicator willing to look at the
real-world effect of what’s effectively become a legalised trap.
If nothing else, it might shake the system loose from its
automated assumptions.
Out of interest — if I appeal within the 14-day window, what
exactly do I stand to lose?
#Post#: 73317--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 26, 2025, 2:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Out of interest — if I appeal within the 14-day window, what
exactly do I stand to lose?
--- End Quote ---
TfL will reject your representations, be in no doubt about that,
and will re-offer the discount. However, if you decide to stand
your ground and take them to London Tribunals, it would be with
the full PCN penalty in play, so an additional £80 to the £80
discount amount basically.
If you do go all the way, your text here is a good start: -
--- Quote ---
> "“Adequate” has to mean more than just technically present,
especially when a driver is confronted with 12+ symbols in live
traffic, and the key restriction is clearly :
>
> - Too small
>
> - Visually ambiguous (a 2t inside a stylised Luton van icon?)
>
> - Not repeated at the point of enforcement"
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 73319--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: May 26, 2025, 2:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Send a PM to cp5789 he will have a tactic if one is available.
For myself I would want to know what evidence they have that the
van is over the limit.
#Post#: 73324--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 26, 2025, 2:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/VehicleFound?locale=en
Its MGW is an objective reality determined by its recorded
classification which can be ascertained from its VRM, not a
moment in time assessment
#Post#: 73326--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
DIR By: BertieBath
Date: May 26, 2025, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks [member=428]H C Andersen[/member] — that’s helpful
context. Yet the signage itself does not state that the 2t
refers to Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW). It simply shows a goods
vehicle icon with “2t”, which could reasonably be interpreted by
a driver as Unladen weight. Considering my van had the partition
wall removed, I reasonably assumed it's approximately 2t.
[member=156]Pastmybest[/member]: where do I find cp5789?
#Post#: 73328--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
DIR By: ManxTom
Date: May 26, 2025, 3:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: BertieBath link ---
>
> Hi all,
>
> I’ve received a TfL PCN for allegedly breaching the 2-tonne
unladen weight restriction in the Rotherhithe Tunnel, while
driving a 2008 VW Crafter (SWB) during rush hour.
>
> Key Points:
>
> • My vehicle’s unladen weight is approx. 2,030 kg — just over
the limit, but I was genuinely unaware at the time. I was
driving alone, with no passengers or cargo...
>
--- End Quote ---
You weren't just over the weight limit, you were well over it,
weren't you?
The 2 tonne limit refers to Gross Vehicle Weight or "permissible
maximum weight" and not to unladen weight.
If you challenge the ticket on signage grounds it might be best
not to claim you were just over the limit.
#Post#: 73345--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
DIR By: BertieBath
Date: May 26, 2025, 11:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That misunderstanding is actually part of the problem: the
signage doesn’t specify “GVW”.
Also worth pointing out: older TfL signage for the Rotherhithe
Tunnel did clearly state “GVW” — see this official TfL press
image:
🔗
HTML https://tfl-newsroom.prgloo.com/resources/various-restrictions-in-place-at-rotherhithe-tunnel-pn120
So TfL previously used signage that clarified the restriction as
applying to Gross Vehicle Weight. The current version omits this
completely — a regression in clarity and compliance, which
surely raises questions about whether it meets the legal
standard of “adequate information” under LATOR Regulation 18.
On another note, the PCN description reads (sic):
“Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of
vehicle goods vehicles exceeding max gross weight indicated”
This sentence is grammatically and syntactically defective —
there’s no punctuation or clause break between “certain types of
vehicle” and “goods vehicles exceeding max gross weight”.
Moreover, it refers to “max gross weight indicated”, yet the
current sign doesn’t actually indicate GVW.
Could both the unclear PCN wording and the omission of “GVW”
from the sign contribute to a challenge based on procedural
impropriety and/or signage inadequacy?
#Post#: 73588--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
DIR By: baroudeur
Date: May 28, 2025, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Why impose a vehicle weight of 2 tonnes for commercial vehicles
as there are many cars that have a GVW in excess of 2 tonnes and
are larger than small vans. It can't be for environmental
reasons as 2t GVW is the weight limit at which car speed limits
apply to commercial vehicles.
Environmental weight restrictions for vehicles of less than 7.5
tonnes are usually applied for structural reasons on roads that
have weak structures such as bridges so, is there an
environmental application to London's tunnels?.
#Post#: 73595--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 28, 2025, 9:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is going off topic but it appears the goods vehicle weight
limit relates to fire hazard.
HTML https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-0176-2021<br
/>
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page