DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 85549--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of London, Code 53 - Restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone, Old Broad Street x2
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 13, 2025, 11:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks.
To whom is the PCN actually addressed, you or the hire company?
You MAY NOT respond in your own name if it's addressed to
another party IRRESPECTIVE of what their terms of contract might
be.
On the subject of the evidence, at which sign were you snapped,
the one at the junction of London Wall or the one at the
junction with Broad Street Avenue?
IMO, Sign 2 has no legal effect. There's no provision for
repeater signs with this prohibition, therefore it's the sign at
the London Wall end which applies - but there's no
contemporaneous evidence as to its location, condition or
visibility. The BSA sign only has effect if you had passed a
Zone Ends sign between London Wall and BSA.
#Post#: 85599--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of London, Code 53 - Restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone, Old Broad Street x2
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 13, 2025, 4:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sign 1, the one at the London Wall end of Old Broad St, allows
access to premises, but Sign 2 doesn't. So, as you correctly
write, we need to know the status of Sign 1; it may not be there
anymore. If it's still there, then CoL have a problem, but does
it help the OP who wasn't requiring access to premises on Old
Broad St.
#Post#: 85604--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of London, Code 53 - Restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone, Old Broad Street x2
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 13, 2025, 4:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
+1, but OP let's deal with the procedural issue first pl.
#Post#: 85606--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of London, Code 53 - Restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone, Old Broad Street x2
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 13, 2025, 4:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> +1, but OP let's deal with the procedural issue first pl.
>
--- End Quote ---
+1 !!
#Post#: 85611--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of London, Code 53 - Restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone, Old Broad Street x2
DIR By: hirerspcn
Date: August 13, 2025, 5:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> To whom is the PCN actually addressed, you or the hire
company?
>
> You MAY NOT respond in your own name if it's addressed to
another party IRRESPECTIVE of what their terms of contract might
be.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
It is addressed to me.
The procedure is that the hire company receives Letter > I get
notified (by email) > Hire company transfers liability to me > I
receive letter in post a week or 2 later
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> On the subject of the evidence, at which sign were you
snapped, the one at the junction of London Wall or the one at
the junction with Broad Street Avenue?
>
> IMO, Sign 2 has no legal effect. There's no provision for
repeater signs with this prohibition, therefore it's the sign at
the London Wall end which applies - but there's no
contemporaneous evidence as to its location, condition or
visibility. The BSA sign only has effect if you had passed a
Zone Ends sign between London Wall and BSA.
>
--- End Quote ---
Sign 2, Junction with Broad Street Avenue.
There are no other signs after Sign 1 (London wall) apart from
the Broad Street Avenue.
Thanks
#Post#: 85612--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of London, Code 53 - Restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone, Old Broad Street x2
DIR By: hirerspcn
Date: August 13, 2025, 5:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> Sign 1, the one at the London Wall end of Old Broad St, allows
access to premises, but Sign 2 doesn't. So, as you correctly
write, we need to know the status of Sign 1; it may not be there
anymore. If it's still there, then CoL have a problem, but does
it help the OP who wasn't requiring access to premises on Old
Broad St.
>
--- End Quote ---
Sign 1 is still there.
#Post#: 85968--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of London, Code 53 - Restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone, Old Broad Street x2
DIR By: hirerspcn
Date: August 16, 2025, 5:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Bump
[member=12]Incandescent[/member] [member=428]H C
Andersen[/member]
#Post#: 86042--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of London, Code 53 - Restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone, Old Broad Street x2
DIR By: 404BrainNotFound
Date: August 17, 2025, 3:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The matter you raise concerns two Penalty Charge Notices issued
by the City of London under contravention code 53, namely
failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone at Old Broad Street. The core issue is whether
the restriction relied upon by the authority was adequately and
lawfully conveyed to the motorist by traffic signs, and whether
any procedural safeguard has been breached such as to render
enforcement unlawful.
The statutory obligation rests upon the enforcement authority to
ensure that any restriction imposed by a traffic regulation
order is properly indicated by signs which are adequate to
secure that sufficient information as to the effect of the order
is made available to road users. This duty arises under
Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders
(Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The signs
themselves must conform with the Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2016, and where a restriction is imposed by
way of a zone entry sign it must remain in force until the
driver encounters a corresponding zone end sign. Only then may a
different restriction be imposed by a new entry sign.
In the present case, Sign 1, situated at the London Wall end of
Old Broad Street, establishes a pedestrian and cycle zone with
exemptions for access and local buses. That restriction
continues until it is lawfully terminated. There is no evidence
of a "Zone Ends" sign on the approach to Broad Street Avenue.
Instead, the City has erected Sign 2, which imposes a materially
different prohibition, namely a timed restriction between 7am
and 7pm with exemption only for local buses. Without an
intervening "Zone Ends" sign, Sign 2 has no lawful effect. The
Traffic Signs Manual and the TSRGD do not provide for a repeater
sign that alters the character of the restriction already in
place. In the absence of a proper termination, the motorist is
entitled to rely upon the entry restriction as originally
signed, which allowed entry for access. This alone provides a
substantive ground of representation that the contravention did
not occur because the restriction relied upon by the City was
not lawfully conveyed.
The second issue concerns adequacy. Even if Sign 2 were treated
as valid, the authority must still show that it provided
adequate information to motorists. The evidence demonstrates
that only a single sign is placed on the left-hand side at Broad
Street Avenue. Department for Transport guidance recommends that
restrictions of this kind be signed on both sides of the
carriageway wherever practicable to ensure conspicuity. Where
the only sign is susceptible to obstruction by parked vans or
high-sided vehicles, the test of adequacy under Regulation 18 is
not satisfied. In Herron v Sunderland City Council [2011] EWCA
Civ 902, the Court of Appeal affirmed that signage must be clear
and not misleading. Confusion between two successive signs
imposing different restrictions without intermediate warning,
coupled with poor visibility and single-sided placement, is
strong evidence that the signage was not adequate.
There is also a procedural safeguard in play. Under Schedule 1
to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act
2003, a charge certificate may not be served until 28 days after
the deemed date of service of the penalty charge notice. The
notices here are dated 24 July 2025 and are deemed served on 28
July 2025. Any attempt to accelerate enforcement prior to the
expiry of that statutory period would render proceedings void,
as held in Camden LBC v The Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWHC 295
(Admin). It is therefore vital to check dates of any subsequent
notices carefully.
Finally, as the vehicle was on hire for less than six months,
liability may be transferred to the hirer provided the hire
company supplies both a copy of the hire agreement and a
statement of liability. From the extracts you have provided, the
hire agreement is fully compliant and transfers liability in
accordance with the Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations
2000. Accordingly, you are the proper respondent to the PCNs and
there is no procedural defence on that ground.
In terms of prospects, you have a credible case to argue that
the contravention did not occur on two independent grounds.
First, that Sign 2 is without legal effect because there was no
intervening zone end sign to terminate the restriction
established at Sign 1. Second, that even if Sign 2 is considered
valid, the signage taken as a whole was inadequate to satisfy
the statutory test under Regulation 18, being confusing,
contradictory and not conspicuous. Both arguments should be
advanced in your representations to preserve them for
adjudication. If the City rejects your representations, you will
have the right to appeal to London Tribunals, where an
independent adjudicator will determine whether the authority has
discharged its burden of proof.
Tactically, it is essential to focus on the legality and
adequacy of signage rather than mitigation. You should also
scrutinise the enforcement timetable to ensure that the City has
complied with all statutory time limits. If they have not, that
provides an additional procedural ground to resist enforcement.
The recommended course is therefore to submit formal
representations on the basis that the contravention did not
occur because the signage was neither lawful nor adequate, with
the alternative submission that enforcement has been
procedurally defective. This maximises your prospects of success
both at the representation stage and, if necessary, on appeal.
#Post#: 86353--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of London, Code 53 - Restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone, Old Broad Street x2
DIR By: hirerspcn
Date: August 19, 2025, 1:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am not good at drafting, but here goes:
Dear City of London,
The contravention did not occur, as the signage as a whole is
inadequate under Regulation 18. The evidence shows that only a
single sign is positioned on the left-hand side on Old Broad
Street. The Department for Transport guidance recommends that
restrictions of this nature be signed on both sides of the
carriageway to ensure visibility.
Kind Regards
#Post#: 88581--------------------------------------------------
Re: City of London, Code 53 - Restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone, Old Broad Street x2
DIR By: hirerspcn
Date: September 5, 2025, 10:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have received a charge certificate even though i submitted an
appeal.
What do i do from here?
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 8
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page