DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 106331--------------------------------------------------
LB Enfield code 52M – Failure to comply with the prohibition of
motor vehicles at Montagu Gardens
DIR By: zwi
Date: January 17, 2026, 8:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
I’d appreciate advice from those familiar with Enfield PCNs and
contravention 52M.
My brother received a PCN from the London Borough of Enfield for
52M – Failure to comply with the prohibition of motor vehicles
at Montagu Gardens N18 (ANPR).
Date/time: 07/01/2026 at 21:19.
This was my first time driving through this location, and it was
dark. The approach appears to be a normal residential road, with
parked cars and vehicles visible coming from the opposite
direction. There is no physical barrier or clear advance
indication of a prohibition.
The “No motor vehicles” signs appear to be placed only at the
pinch point and are side-mounted, competing with other signage
(bollards, height restriction signs, etc.). By the time they are
clearly visible, a driver is already committed with no realistic
opportunity to turn back.
I’ve attached a Google Street View image showing the approach.
My questions:
Are there reasonable grounds to challenge this PCN on signage
adequacy/clarity, especially at night?
Has anyone had success appealing this location?
If I appeal, do I lose the discount?
In practice, is it worth appealing or safer to pay the discount?
Thanks in advance for any advice.
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6163778,-0.0516213,3a,75y,293.17h,87.71t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sylGTeyPmzZ_YU9NvCfCXLw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D2.290957064265058%26panoid%3DylGTeyPmzZ_YU9NvCfCXLw%26yaw%3D293.1651852057387!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDExMy4wIKXMDSoKLDEwMDc5MjA3MUgBUAM%3D
HTML https://mega.nz/file/csU3yDLB#9e5sOV96J41Ee3j1Y02Z2okdmgswsf5hMMC43glS3b0
HTML https://mega.nz/file/hhFA1YSQ#Tz59kHTjBT6DxaVo8qCfCXm3xOeGNjebk-XztSUnVAk
HTML https://mega.nz/file/ph9GHI6S#2Z5Hz8Y7yA8mTA2i49SlqbwZVa8G4JcQC5n1Ky3nJDI
HTML https://mega.nz/file/clMAjJIA#ePwMYbGENciixehpBRWcYltV4oEDcFbGT0ZrBqeWKDM
HTML https://mega.nz/file/4hNFFCgD#RmatlmLF6_WEkrABpFi2qvqlFxURq4F5fHvhxPOMhKY
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/kpYIhfS_xl.jpg
[img width=950.7999877929688
height=1466]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/tB9mi0G_xl.jpg[/img]
[img]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Z88wXV9_lg.mp4[/img]
[img width=950.7999877929688
height=1466]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/2VqQSbO_xl.jpg[/img]
#Post#: 106335--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Enfield code 52M – Failure to comply with the prohibition
of motor vehicles at Montagu Gardens
DIR By: RichardW
Date: January 18, 2026, 2:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You say your brother received PCN, but then imply you were
driving? Keeper has to deal with / pay the PCN.
You could have driven into the road, but would have needed to
use the width restriction - any reason why not? Video doesn't
seem to show any delays in making the decision to bypass the
restriction.
Many of these moving traffic conventions can be beaten at
tribunal, but full penalty is in play - others will advise the
chances of this one getting cancelled.
#Post#: 106354--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Enfield code 52M – Failure to comply with the prohibition
of motor vehicles at Montagu Gardens
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 18, 2026, 5:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
PCN issues. 28 days to consider representations from the date of
service. There are more too. Have a look at any other Enfield
case as I find the image rather small.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1