DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 104563--------------------------------------------------
Hounslow Hartington Road code 52 Tribunal rejection
DIR By: mezzyd
Date: January 4, 2026, 4:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I’d be grateful for any input concerning a tribunal rejection of
an appeal, which was mainly based upon the lack of advance
warning of the restriction, together with the impossibility of
avoiding it without making a 3 point turn.
This is a quote from the decision:
“She says that she began her journeys from Quinton Hogg Memorial
Ground which meant she did not pass any advanced warning
signage. She has provided a plan as supporting evidence.
The Enforcement Authority have provided a plan and photographs
of the signage relied upon, including advanced warning signage.
I am not clear how the Appellant reached the Memorial Ground on
either occasion and I am not satisfied she had not passed
advanced warning signage.”
I don’t believe the adjudicator has considered the appeal
properly but not sure whether anything else can be done to
challenge this. If the appellant has provided a plan showing her
journey, how can the adjudicator be unclear about the route
taken?
Thanks in advance
#Post#: 104566--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hounslow Hartington Road code 52 Tribunal rejection
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 4, 2026, 4:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but we need to know the full background to this, so you
need to post up the original PCN, your representations and the
council response. Please also post the London Tribunals Case
Number.
#Post#: 104568--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hounslow Hartington Road code 52 Tribunal rejection
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: January 4, 2026, 4:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
225043458A
#Post#: 104570--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hounslow Hartington Road code 52 Tribunal rejection
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 4, 2026, 5:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Seems to me the esteemed Mr Burke is being rather harsh here.
Here are the restriction signs: -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/dKuViQfpS1H6VnKcA
No way of reversing direction except a 3-point turn. OK, it's 20
mph, but hey, does Burke ever drive around London ? I think not,
it'll be the 8.00 am from some posh suburb no doubt. However
there is a sign on the main A316 going west:-
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/dKuViQfpS1H6VnKcA
and another going east:-
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/dBV8Z2znNXPdKuye7
Pity the OP didn't post on this forum when she received the PCN.
#Post#: 104644--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hounslow Hartington Road code 52 Tribunal rejection
DIR By: mezzyd
Date: January 5, 2026, 10:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the responses thus far.
Am struggling to find the original PCNs but these are the
original reps:
The contravention did not occur
Poor quality images, insufficient to support the alleged
contravention.
The local authority has provided CCTV footage of the alleged
contravention, together with stills taken from the video. The
images are of very poor quality, with the number plate being
fuzzy and very difficult to make out. I would contend that there
is sufficient doubt about the details to make this unsafe
evidence on which to base a penalty charge.
Furthermore, the vehicle in the video has passed two signs, but
the view of the signs is impeded by the trees, foliage and
bright sunshine, such that it is impossible to see the detail of
the sign. Again, this is insufficient evidence on which to base
a penalty charge as it is not clear what sign the vehicle has
passed.
The signage is insufficient for securing adequate information as
to the effect of the order is made available to road users.
Following receipt of this PCN I have researched the signage
connected with this restriction, keeping in mind the
stipulations contained in Chapter One of the Traffic Signs
Manual, “...it is essential that all signing provided is
necessary, clear and unambiguous, and gives its message to road
users at the appropriate time. The message must be quickly and
easily understood at the point it is needed; neither too soon
that the information might be forgotten, nor too late for the
performance of any necessary manoeuvre.”
I note that there are advance warning signs on the A316, but
unfortunately these signs fail to meet the above standards. The
motorist’s attention is naturally drawn to the large plate
describing the distance to the restriction, the date and time it
applies and the exemption for permit holders. This a lot of
information to take in when travelling at 40mph, and in fact
once the motorist has processed this information they might then
turn their attention to the roundel, which is in fact much
smaller than the plate, but by then they would quite likely have
passed the sign and missed the message which should have been
conveyed by an effective advance warning sign. I would question
whether the sign complies with TSRGD 2016 as the sign and plate
are out of proportion, and would request sight of the
authorisation of this sign by the Secretary of State, in the
event that the local authority reject this representation.
Once in Hartington Road there is no further warning sign until
the motorist reaches the beginning of the restriction, by which
time it is too late to take an alternative route as there is no
way of escape either at the beginning of the restriction or on
the final approach. I would suggest that a clear warning sign is
necessary prior to Ibis Lane, to meet the required standard
above, ie before it is too late for the performance of the
necessary manoeuvre to divert from the route straight ahead
which leads to the restriction.
The motorist must have sufficient time on seeing the signage to
safely take evasive action to avoid contravening the
restriction. Having reached the sign, the only evasive action
the motorist can take here is to turn around in the road, which
is a ridiculous thing for a local authority to require of a
motorist and is contrary to the requirement of section 122 of
the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, in which the duty is
imposed on the local authority to secure the expeditious,
convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic.
I would like to point out that my journey along Hartington Road
began at the Quintin Hogg Memorial Sports Ground which is in
Hartington Road, therefore I did not even have the advance
warning of the inadequate signs on the A316. The local authority
seems to have made an assumption that motorists would already
have travelled on the A316 before turning into Hartington Road
but this was not the case for me.
The diagram to sign 619, which is used here, gives effect to an
order which prohibits the use of a road by motor vehicles,
according to Chapter Three of the Traffic Signs Manual, but this
restriction is quite confusing to motorists, as use of the road
is not completely prohibited. I had driven the opposite way on
my journey to the Quintin Hogg Memorial Sports Ground with no
problem and the CCTV footage shows another vehicle travelling in
the opposite direction past my vehicle, which brings a
contradiction in the mind of the motorist. If traffic is
prohibited on this section of road, how come I could drive on it
earlier today and other traffic is still using it? I would
contend that the signage misleads the motorist as well as
failing to give adequate information in good time.
I note from Council minutes the number of penalty charge notices
being issued for the Hartington Road access restrictions was far
higher than would be expected given the length of time that the
restrictions had been in place.* This statement in itself shows
that the signage is inadequate. I would request the local
authority to provide details of the signage review which was
ordered following that Council meeting*, should the local
authority decide to reject this representation. * Chief Officer
Delegated Decisions 3rd August 2022.
The CCTV footage is obviously taken from height, but there are
plenty of trees and foliage wafting in the breeze and this
raises the question of whether I had a clear view of the sign in
my approach. I note that the minimum clear visibility distance
when travelling at 20mph is 45m and I would ask the local
authority to provide evidence that the full recommended sight
line to the whole of the sign face is preserved for this
distance, in the event that the local authority reject this
representation. Advice in the Traffic Signs Manual is clear that
cutting back of vegetation only in the immediate vicinity of the
sign might not be sufficient; sign visibility should always be
checked from the appropriate viewing distance.
#Post#: 104647--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hounslow Hartington Road code 52 Tribunal rejection
DIR By: mezzyd
Date: January 5, 2026, 11:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
PCN:
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/hWgHvA1#RBtTdu8
#Post#: 104649--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hounslow Hartington Road code 52 Tribunal rejection
DIR By: mezzyd
Date: January 5, 2026, 11:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
NOR
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/WTJ2t6D
#Post#: 104650--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hounslow Hartington Road code 52 Tribunal rejection
DIR By: mezzyd
Date: January 5, 2026, 11:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Text for the tribunal appeal:
PCN: NJ42352561
Vehicle reg: EY61 JEO
All the points in my original appeal still stand, but I would
ask the adjudicator to allow the appeal purely on the basis of
the local authority’s failure to show evidence that it has
considered my representations and supporting evidence, contrary
to Schedule 1 paragraph 1 (7)(a) of the London Local Authorities
and Transport for London Act 2003.
The local authority in its Notice of Rejection has provided
standardised text which is probably included in every response
to appeals against Penalty Charge Notices issued at this
location.
If the local authority had read and considered my appeal, it
would have seen that there was no need to point out the signs on
the A316 as I had referred to them in my appeal, also that
warning signs on Dan Mason Drive would have been no use to me as
I did not drive past them on my journey.
If the local authority intends to contest this appeal, I request
that specific answers to all the representations I made be
provided in its evidence pack for the adjudicator to consider:
Poor quality images;
Authorisation from the Secretary of State for the advance
warning signs on the A316;
Lack of a warning sign prior to the junction with Ibis Lane,
which was the last opportunity to perform the necessary
manoeuvre to divert from the route straight ahead which leads to
the restriction (see map);
The diagram to sign 619 provides confusing information to the
motorist since the use of the road by motor vehicles is not
totally prohibited, which is the purpose of this sign according
the TSRGD 2016;
The results of the signage review of this restriction conducted
by the local authority, following the Council meeting in August
2022;
Evidence that full sight line to the whole of the sign face is
preserved for the recommended distance of 45m.
A plan of the route taken was also included
#Post#: 104657--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hounslow Hartington Road code 52 Tribunal rejection
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 5, 2026, 12:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, thanks for all that stuff, but you've lost at London
Tribunals.
Looking at the judgment, I cannot really see anything that could
support a request for a review, maybe others can. There are
advance warning signs on the main road as you turn into
Hartington Road, yet you haven't mentioned them at all. Is this
because you approached the Quintin Hogg from the north end of
Hartington Road, not the south end?
You might have got on better if you'd posted here first ! You
have 14 days to apply for a review. If that is declined, the
only other way of questioning the decision is juicial review,
which is mega-expensive in relation to the sum involved.
#Post#: 104662--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hounslow Hartington Road code 52 Tribunal rejection
DIR By: mezzyd
Date: January 5, 2026, 12:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for that & I appreciate your comments.
The driver had travelled from the north end of Hartington Road
to the Quintin Hogg ground and there is no restriction on the
traffic in the other direction. On the return journey she was
caught by the camera with no advance warning; she had not driven
on the main road at all.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1