DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 107066--------------------------------------------------
TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
By: perpicon Date: January 23, 2026, 4:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
My case is somewhat like this one:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/tfl-52g-rotherhithe-tunnel-2t-weight-limit-branch-road/
I was driving a (electric citroen berlingo
HTML https://ev-database.org/car/2159/Citroen-e-Berlingo-M-50-kWh).
My TFL PCN images:
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/0VXpCmv
I was not expecting the vehicle to be overweight (driving alone,
no cargo) and entering the tunnel requires care and navigational
attention so I was overwhelmed by the signage upon entering.
• I remember seeing multiple signs about the 2m height/width
restrictions, but nothing that clearly indicated a weight limit.
Having now reviewed Google Maps, I can see there is a sign, but
it’s a small “2t” inside a lorry icon, which is not really clear
or obvious for drivers (especially coming from the big
roundabout south of the tunnel during rush hour).
• The van passed through the 2m barriers without issue,
reinforcing the impression that my vehicle was fully compliant.
I’m hoping there’s some case I can make? Financially this comes
at a very bad time.
Thank you for any support!
Matt
#Post#: 107073--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
By: stamfordman Date: January 23, 2026, 5:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Tribunal appeals are mostly lost here but I noted this recent
case allowed on PCN wording and signage.
But the adjudicator is probably the most friendly.
------------
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
Owner.
Reasons
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of "failing to
comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle goods
vehicles exceeding maximum gross weight indicated".
TFL's evidence is that the vehicle exceeded the maximum gross
laden weight of 2 tonnes and that the prohibition is on vehicles
in excess of that weight. This is not, however, clear from the
PCN. There is nothing to indicate or explain the applicable
weight restriction.
A PCN is required to state the grounds on which the enforcement
authority believes that the penalty charge is payable. Those
grounds must be expressed in terms which allow the recipient of
the PCN to properly understand the alleged contravention. The
PCN needs to explain, whether by wording or images, exactly what
the prohibition is.
I therefore find that the PCN was invalid.
I am also not satisfied that the signage was adequate to alert
Mr Saini to the weight restrictions. Mr xxxxx says that he had
no idea of the weight restrictions in place and that the signage
was not clear.
This is one of six PCNs issued to this vehicle for the same
alleged contravention over an eight-day period. The no entry
sign shows a lorry with 2t in the centre. Mr Saini’s Vauxhall
Vivaro van is a light goods vehicle.
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 states
at 'Item 13 diagram 622.1A in the sign table in Schedule 3, Part
2' that the sign plate at the location means the following:
"Goods vehicles exceeding max gross weight indicated
prohibited". It is the only sign permitted in the 2016
Regulations and there is no signage for a light goods vehicle.
The sign in place is the only sign available for use by TfL and
it is, therefore, legally compliant. Legal compliance does not,
however, prevent signage from being misleading or confusing in
particular circumstances.
In my judgement, there is a very real danger that a motorist
will see the sign as relating to lorries and not to light goods
vehicles because they will not see further than the image of the
lorry. One panel sign in place carries width and height
restrictions with two lorry images. The problem is that,
historically, there have not been weight restrictions for
smaller vehicles, and the available signage does not address the
need for an image which clearly conveys the type of vehicle
being restricted.
I allow the appeal for these reasons.
#Post#: 107082--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
By: fraser.mitchell Date: January 23, 2026, 6:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is the "plated" weight that decides if the vehicle complies
or not, not if it's empty, or else everybody would claim the
vehicle was empty !
I agree the signage can be confusing, esp the weight limit, that
no doubt complies with the standard, but the biggest problem for
me having looked on GSV is all the signs are crammed together so
the important weight limit tends to disappear in the clutter.
#Post#: 107125--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL / 52g / Rotherhithe Tunnel 2t Weight Limit / Branch Road
By: stamfordman Date: January 23, 2026, 10:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is a more usual result from a case yesterday but the
adjudicator accepted the signage is clear and the PCN wording
was not drawn to his attention.
-------------------
Case reference
Declarant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
within 28 days.
Reasons
Recovery and cancelled the Charge Certificate but it did not
cancel the original Penalty Charge Notice, as clearly stated on
the face of the Order.
A contravention can occur if a vehicle is driven so as to fail
to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at the entry
to Rotherhithe Tunnel, as shown in the closed-circuit television
(cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Enforcement Authority’s case is that the vehicle passed the
sign which clearly indicates that goods vehicles with a maximum
gross weight exceeding two tonnes are prohibited.
The sign is that prescribed by Diagram 622.1A at Item 13 in Part
2 of Schedule 3 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Directions 2016, being a permitted variant thereof, as
indicating ‘goods vehicles exceeding the maximum gross weight
indicated prohibited’. The sign is also illustrated in the
current edition of the Official Highway Code.
Under Section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 “goods
vehicle” means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use
for the carriage of goods, or a trailer so constructed or
adapted.
Gross maximum weight is what is shown on the vehicle
registration document as ‘revenue weight’, ‘gross vehicle
weight’ (GVW) or ‘maximum permissible mass’. The ‘mass in
service’ figure shown in the vehicle registration document is
legally defined by European Directive 95/48/EC as the mass of a
motor vehicle in a ready to drive condition with the fuel tank
90% full, a driver on board weighing 68 kg and luggage of 7 kg.
This latter figure is not the gross maximum weight. The
Enforcement Authority submit that the Driver and Vehicle
Licensing Authority return shows this vehicle to have a revenue
weight of 2770 kg, which is 2.77 tonnes.
This also shows that the vehicle type approval is classified by
the Vehicle Certification Agency as ‘N1’, being a vehicle used
for the carriage of goods and having a GVW not exceeding 3500
kg.
The Appellant has not submitted any new grounds, but in his
original representations to the Enforcement Authority explained
as the normal driver, he had no idea of the weight and had never
before received a Penalty Charge Notice regarding weight.
I accept that this may have been a genuine mistake but 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.
The penalty charge is £160. The amount of the penalty charge is
set by the Transport, Environment and Planning Committee of
London Councils and approved by the Mayor of London with the
authority of the Secretary of State. Under Section 4(8)(a)(iv)
and 4(10) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for
London Act 2003 the enforcement authority must accept the
reduced penalty of £80 if paid within 14 days of the date of the
Penalty Charge Notice. This is different from some other types
of Penalty Charge Notice, where the relevant date is service.
Once this period has expired and, for whatever reason including
appealing to the Adjudicator and/or making representations to
the authority, the charge remains unpaid then the full penalty
becomes due.
Section 4(18) of the 2003 Act provides that in determining, for
the purposes of any provision of the Act, whether a penalty
charge has been paid before the end of a particular period, it
shall be taken to be paid when it is received by the authority
concerned.
As set out above, the Charge Certificate increasing the penalty
charge amount to £220 has been cancelled.
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. The Court of Appeal
has affirmed that the Adjudicator has no power to consider
mitigating circumstances of any description, including reducing
the amount of the full penalty charge.
Applications for time to pay the Penalty Charge Notice must be
addressed to the Enforcement Authority direct.
Considering all the evidence before me carefully I must find as
a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did
occur, and the Penalty Charge Notice was properly issued.
Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.
*****************************************************