DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 96508--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition
DIR By: filippi9
Date: November 2, 2025, 5:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've driven down the road again, and unfortunately yes the
advance warning sign is there. Never noticed it before though,
on that section of the road you're focusing ahead, looking out
for oncoming traffic as the road curves to the left. The sign is
also just on one side of the road, the opposite side of
direction of travel.
Pictures of the signs:
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/4AGcigV
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/4AGcigV,
it looks like they have removed
the “Except authorised vehicles” wording.
I think I'd still argue the signage isn't sufficient, there is
no warning at the start of the road, and this particular warning
side is very easily missed due to where it's been placed.
#Post#: 96612--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition
DIR By: JoCo
Date: November 3, 2025, 8:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
To be honest, I think appeal on basis that warning sign is not
clear is weak in law on two bases. 1) IMO the advanced sign IS
clear 2) Not sure that an advanced sign is strictly necessary
for enforcement anyway.
However... if OP is feeling lucky. It may well be worthwhile
continuing the appeal process for the following reasons 1)
Greenwich has a habit of not defending appeals at tribunal so OP
might win on default. 2) For the charge to stick, Greenwich
would have to establish that you passed a restriction sign. The
video alone does not show the restriction you breached, as
camera is facing the opposite direction. (The actual restriction
is included in photos in OP's above post).
So for tactical reasons, OP might be best placed to keep cards
close to chest and appeal on the basis of no advanced warning.
So that the council, concentrate in establishing that advance
warning existed. And hope they neglect to include details of
restriction itself in evidence pack, if they defend at all.
So double or quits, gambling on Council incompetency.
#Post#: 116390--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition
DIR By: filippi9
Date: April 20, 2026, 5:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks all for your suggestions and assistance, just wanted to
update that I managed to argue successfully that the advance
warning was insufficient, and that it had been acknowledged as
such in the notice of rejection.
The council was not represented, but they did submit an evidence
pack.
Anyhow, relevant extract from the adjudicator's reasons:
The restriction sign relied upon by the Enforcement Authority is
that prescribed by Diagram 619 at
Item 12 in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Traffic Signs Regulations
and General Directions 2016, as
indicating 'Motor vehicles prohibited'.
In its Notice of Rejection, the Enforcement Authority states,
"Please note that the signs are compliant
with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
(TSRGD) and approved by
Department for Transport, however, we have taken on board the
residents feedback regarding the
signs, and are implementing new signs at this location improving
clarity on the restrictions."
The Enforcement Authority have submitted images of advance
warning signs, although it is not clear
exactly where these all situated in relation to the alleged
contravention. However, the sign presumably
before this location has the Diagram 619 symbol with an
associated plate bearing the legend 'except
authorised vehicles'. However, although Paragraph 15(1)(d) does
authorise "permit holder" or "permit
holders", and, where appropriate, a permit identifier, there is
no authorisation for 'except authorised
vehicles'.
It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check
carefully at all times whilst driving their
vehicle, so as to ensure that they do so only as permitted. This
includes making sure that they comply
with all restrictions and prohibitions indicated by the signs.
However, it is also the responsibility of the
Enforcement Authority to ensure that restrictions and
prohibitions are clearly signed. This means not
only that signs are compliant but also that by their size,
position and number, signage in totality is
such as is adequate to inform the motorist of the requirements.
The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making
findings of fact on the basis of the
evidence actually produced by the parties and applying relevant
law.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me I am not
satisfied that, on this particular occasion,
the restrictions was sufficiently clearly signed.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed
#Post#: 116392--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: April 20, 2026, 5:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well done :)
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page