DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 90091--------------------------------------------------
52JM - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of
vehicle on Federal Road, Perivale.
DIR By: uej00
Date: September 15, 2025, 3:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A PCN was issued to me for a vehicle on 01 June 2025. The
alleged contravention was 52JM - Failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicle on Federal Road,
Perivale.
Following receipt of the PCN, an initial representation was made
to the council challenging the notice. The basis for this
challenge was that the signage was inadequate, specifically that
the advance warning sign for the restriction had been turned
away from oncoming traffic, making it illegible. On 11 September
2025, Ealing Council issued a "Notice of Rejection of Formal
Representations." In this letter, the council acknowledged the
specific claim about the turned advance sign but rejected the
appeal, stating that non-awareness does not exempt a driver from
liability.
The core legal argument for the appeal is that the contravention
did not occur due to a failure by the council to provide
adequate and legally compliant signage. The faulty advance
warning sign did not give fair notice of the prohibition,
creating an "enforcement trap." The final sign at the junction
was only visible after a driver was already committed to the
turn, with no safe opportunity to take an alternative route.
Strong evidence has been gathered to support this claim,
including clear photographs showing the advance warning sign is
turned sideways and illegible from the driver's perspective. The
council's own rejection letter also serves as written
acknowledgement of the claim about the faulty sign.
In conclusion, I would like to understand whether I should
appeal this to the London Tribunals and lose the discounted
price, but hoping to win the appeal, or just pay the discounted
price as the rate of success is low.
Thanks and kind regards.
Documents and proofs:
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZeSpJ-h3pfk5XFPVXywShchJCa5xs4bT?usp=sharing
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZeSpJ-h3pfk5XFPVXywShchJCa5xs4bT?usp=sharing
#Post#: 90102--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52JM - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types
of vehicle on Federal Road, Perivale.
DIR By: catnip
Date: September 15, 2025, 4:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please post the documents that you have received plus the photos
that you have so they can be reviewed.
Have a look at this post which contains details of how to upload
the information:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
#Post#: 90110--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52JM - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types
of vehicle on Federal Road, Perivale.
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: September 15, 2025, 6:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately GSV is not sufficiently up-to-date and also omits
a significant length of Federal Road in its coverage. However,
the advance sign is not a traffic sign, and is shown not facing
oncoming traffic even in the latest GSV view of August 2024.
However, the council clearly considered an advance sign was
necessary, and not wonder, because this restriction is clearly
designed to stop HGVs, LGVs and other commercial traffic from
proceeding to and from the industrial premises on Wadworth Road.
Regulation 18 of the The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders
(Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 puts a duty on
councils to place adequate signage of a restriction and to
maintain that signage the whole time the restriction is in
operation:-
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18
Clearly they have failed here. However, notwithstanding the very
poor advance sign, the fact is that one approaches the
restriction head-on and can see the signs from a distance away,
so this would count against an appeal succeeding.
So it all depends on your attitude to risk of having to pay £160
instead of £80
Here is what the Earl of Montrose wrote: -
"He either fears his fate too much
Or his deserts are small
Who fears to put it to the touch
To win, or lose it all"
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1