DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 106145--------------------------------------------------
Overweight PCN
DIR By: Stretch79
Date: January 16, 2026, 5:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Just joined the site, so hello!
Has anyone been able to successfully appeal a PCN from
Kensington and Chelsea for going over the Albert Bridge?
Didn't realise my vans gross is 3.225T and bridge is 3T, which
is a company van I use,
Totally my fault of course but didn't notice to be honest as
travelling into the bridge on my left I didn't see the signs
Can provide any details needed.
Thanks all
#Post#: 106165--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overweight PCN
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: January 16, 2026, 7:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Which side? Post the PCN.
This restriction is recent (2024) and we've not seen any cases.
But there was one allowed at the tribunal yesterday for the
north side.
--------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
I heard the Appellant in person by video link on two occasions.
The Appellant’s case is that from the direction in which he was
approaching the bridge the weight restriction was not clearly
indicate. He illustrates the drivers view on approaching the
bridge with photographs. These show the presence of a single
weight restriction sign set well back towards the bridge. It
seems to me this would not come clearly into view before the
entrance to the bridge is reached. Advance warning is clearly
required, and this is implicitly acknowledged buy the Council by
the provision of a blue advance warning sign positioned on the
left shortly before the traffic lights at the junction.
The Appellant submits that this sign is overloaded and not
sufficiently visible as it contains advance warning of both the
weight limit and width restriction
I adjourned the case for the following reason:-
“The Adjudicator has heard the Appellant in person. He raises
the issue of the difficulty for the motorist in absorbing the
effect of the two symbols on the blue advance warning sign.
The sign is apparently a variation of Diagram 818. 4 Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. Whilst the
permitted variants of the sign clearly allow a width limit
symbol (amongst others) to be substituted for the weight limit
symbol, there appears to be no provision for more than one
symbol on the sign.
The hearing is adjourned to give the Council the opportunity to
draw the Adjudicator’s attention to any provision to the
contrary he may have overlooked, or to provide evidence of
authorisation from the DfT. If the sign transpires to be
non-compliant the Council would presumably wish to reconsider
its position.
The Council’s response is as follows:-
“In regards to the Adjudicators adjournment question. The Blue
signage located on Oakley Street is an advanced warning sign.
The signage just prior to the bridge, as seen on the footage is
the restriction sign. This sign meets the TSRGD requirements.”
The Council therefor appears to accept that the warning sign is
non-compliant, but its position is that this is does not matter
providing the actual sign on the bridge is correct . I do not
entirely agree.
The signage taken as a whole has to be sufficient to inform the
motorist of the restriction relied on. Certainly the sign
indicating the actual restriction has to be compliant (as in
this case it is) ; but it is not the case that a compliant sign
is necessarily a clear sign or on its own sufficient to give the
necessary information. In a case where warning signage is
necessary one obviously has to consider the clarity of that
signage and whether it is sufficient to give the necessary
information lacking by virtue of the positioning of the main
sign. I would accept that the mere fact that a warning sign is
not TSRGD compliant does not automatically deprive it of any
effect; I regularly see many examples of non-statutory as
warning signs. However the fact that a sign is non – statutory
does not assist a Council ,and deprives it of any argument on
the basis that motorists are expected to be on the alert for and
to comply with traffic signs prescribed by law. In the present
case the fact that the TSRGD permits only one symbol to appear
suggests to me that to permit more than one would lead to
signage overload , and an unclear sign. Having considered the
matter I agree with the Appellant that the inclusion of two
symbols renders the weight restriction much easier to miss
particularly when driving in traffic approaching a busy
junction, with traffic lights and yellow box markings claiming
the motorist’s attention.
On the particular facts I am unable to be satisfied that the
signage was adequate to inform the Appellant of the restriction
relied on and he Appeal is allowed
#Post#: 106175--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overweight PCN
DIR By: Stretch79
Date: January 16, 2026, 8:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Stamford,
It was the north side as per below, if you need actual one let
me know would need to link it, thanks.
Case Status: Open
PCN Number:
Vehicle Registration Number:
Vehicle Make: FORD
Contravention Description: Failing to comply with a prohibition
on certain types of vehicle - goods vehicles exceeding max gross
weight indicated
Contravention Explanation:
Location: Albert Bridge (north side)
Contravention Date: 07/01/2026
Contravention Time: 10:29 AM
Outstanding Amount: £80.00
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1