So I drove through a bus gate in Southwark. But in my defence, I did not see the markings nor did I really have a chance because of a really poor layout and badly maintained signage: - One sign and the street marking was obscured by the bus at a red light, and I was behind the bus. - Another sign suffered a hit and was pointing towards the shops, so not fully visible from the street. - The third sign was mounted too high up on the lamp post, actually separated from the rest of the signage. - The road markings are a bit confusing, the direction of travel which should be followed by all non-bus traffic seems like a side road. This is not all, actually no signage is in any way fit for purpose due to lack of maintenance. Broken, wonky, even so far as not being properly illuminated (all lamps broken/ripped off). Went through the appeal process, presented all of the above... council rejected it (but then fixed one of the signs a few days later!), PATAS rejected it saying: - On balance I should have seen it. - The adjudicator did not want to refer to the traffic signage regulation on the basis that "there's a lot there" (her words), and recent cases have set the standard that "on balance" the driver should have been aware even if the signage is poor. So, I'm annoyed that what should be a process to hold the councils to a certain standard of signage is blatantly failing in this case. I can pay the £130 fine now, but I'd rather it cost me x10 that and the serious failings are fixed and someone is held to a standard for all motorists. Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Thoughts? (or suggestions for a good solicitor who would be willing to take on this fight?)