DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 93214--------------------------------------------------
Newham – Code 52M, Browning Road E12 (North Side) – Poor sign
visibility (PCN PN77444424)
DIR By: Ahmedyali
Date: October 7, 2025, 6:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I’ve received a Moving Traffic Penalty Charge Notice from London
Borough of Newham for allegedly “Failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles)” —
contravention code 52M.
Details:
PCN number: PN77444424
Vehicle Reg: EA12 NHZ
Contravention date/time: 27/09/2025 at 07:50
Location: Browning Road E12 (North Side)
Webcode: 193AT741
Front of PCN:
HTML https://postimg.cc/gallery/k7SZxXq
Council video:
HTML https://streamable.com/9hzo21
Side-angle photo of the signage:
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/dVktGtqJ/1-FMA-MYL-10313.webp
My account of what happened
I was driving along Browning Road (North Side) early in the
morning.
The signage for the restriction is facing the oncoming traffic,
making it extremely difficult to see from my approach angle. By
the time the signs become visible, it’s already too late to turn
off safely without stopping abruptly or causing an obstruction.
From my dash-level view (see video), you can see the
restricted-vehicle signs are placed side-on, not in a direct
line of sight for drivers coming from my direction. The
council’s camera angle also exaggerates visibility compared to
what a driver actually sees.
The side-view photo above clearly shows how the signs are angled
— they face traffic coming from the opposite side, not towards
vehicles from my lane.
Supporting reference
There’s an article about this exact location highlighting
confusion and poor signage placement:
HTML https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/east-london-street-council-made-27244595
The article confirms that many motorists have been caught out
because of how unclear and misleading the restriction signage
is.
What I’m hoping for
Please could someone help me check:
1) Whether the signage at this location complies with the legal
placement and visibility requirements for a motor vehicle
restriction.
2) If there’s a known history of successful appeals for this
location (Browning Road E12 North Side).
3) Any previous tribunal cases or template representations I
could refer to.
Thanks very much for your time.
Ahmedyali
#Post#: 93256--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham – Code 52M, Browning Road E12 (North Side) – Poor
sign visibility (PCN PN77444424)
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: October 7, 2025, 11:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The test for signage, (apart from legal adherance to The Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016), is "adequacy".
Signs can all be legal and in accordance with regulations, but
still not be adequate. Councils are under a duty in Regulation
18 (1)(a) of the The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders
(Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 to place
adequate signage advising motorists of a restriction imposed by
a Traffic Order.
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18
The problem with use of the word "adequate", is it is
subjective. Your "inadequate" signage will be considered
"adequate" by the council, leaving it to an adjudicator to
decide one way or the other based on the arguments of both sides
As for previous successful cases, you can search the London
Tribunals Statutory Register using the location and a date range
as your search.
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals
#Post#: 93430--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham – Code 52M, Browning Road E12 (North Side) – Poor
sign visibility (PCN PN77444424)
DIR By: Ahmedyali
Date: October 8, 2025, 7:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve just come across a new tribunal decision that seems to
match my situation almost exactly.
London Tribunals case reference 2240583131 (Malgorzata Dorota
Czernik v London Borough of Newham) — Browning Road (North
Side), decided 13 February 2025 — was allowed on the grounds
that the signage wasn’t adequately visible to drivers
approaching from Rectory Road.
Here’s the full case record on the London Tribunals site:
👉
HTML https://londontribunals.org.uk/ords/pwslive/f?p=14952:70::INITIALISE::70:P70_CAS_REFNO,P70_PCN_REFNO,P70_RETURN_PAGE,P70_AST_CODE:1661501,3061690,60,APPEAL&cs=3-r43pjP3QxkUWcbM-GzgSu4escT-pzdygkjipgH7Q7o-2sO1wkTx2ohjXgdqhisJGbeeAdMtVsFMqbtzw-ujQA#content
The adjudicator (Cordelia Fantinic) accepted that:
> “The restriction signs are positioned on either side of
Browning Road but are not visible to a driver approaching from
Rectory Road, as they are too close to the junction and angled
away from the line of sight.”
She also noted that the warning sign on Rectory Road is on the
right-hand side of the carriageway and could easily be missed by
a driver turning left from Chesterford Road — which is exactly
the same situation I described in my case.
My approach and line of sight are identical to what’s described
in that appeal. I’ve attached my own council video
(
HTML https://streamable.com/9hzo21)
and side-angle photo of the
signs (
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/dVktGtqJ/1-FMA-MYL-10313.webp)
which
clearly show how the signs are facing oncoming traffic and not
visible from my lane.
Would you say this tribunal decision is strong and compelling
evidence to rely on in my formal representation? It feels like a
mirror of my case, right down to the approach route and the sign
angles.
#Post#: 98723--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham – Code 52M, Browning Road E12 (North Side) – Poor
sign visibility (PCN PN77444424)
DIR By: IHateUnfairPCNs
Date: November 18, 2025, 10:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Did you end up paying it or in the process of appealing it?
#Post#: 116539--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham – Code 52M, Browning Road E12 (North Side) – Poor
sign visibility (PCN PN77444424)
DIR By: Plywood-Enthusiast
Date: April 21, 2026, 6:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I hate it when people ask for help and then just go AWOL and
dont come back to report the outcome.
Got the same ticket, wanted to see what the situation is.
#Post#: 116544--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham – Code 52M, Browning Road E12 (North Side) – Poor
sign visibility (PCN PN77444424)
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: April 21, 2026, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Plywood-Enthusiast link ---
>
> I hate it when people ask for help and then just go AWOL and
dont come back to report the outcome.
>
> Got the same ticket, wanted to see what the situation is.
>
--- End Quote ---
Best start your own thread. You can also search the London
Tribunals Statutory Register using the location name and a date
range to see what appeals there may have been: -
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1