Case reference 2250337302
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Camden
VRM LF74ZOM
PCN Details
PCN CU70881220
Contravention date 15 May 2025
Contravention time 18:14:00
Contravention location Tottenham Court Road by junction with Howland Street
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Referral date -
Decision Date 19 Nov 2025
Adjudicator Chez Cotton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
Introduction
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for using a route restricted to certain vehicles (Code 33).
2. This a postal appeal.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is that the signage is unclear and inadequate, comprising only of one on the left-hand side. This was obscured by a large vehicle turning left at the time the Appellant approached the relevant road.
4. The Appellant refers to personal and financial circumstances.
5. In these circumstances the Appellant asks for the PCN to be cancelled.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
6. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on footage to show the contravention occurred. A plan and photographs of the signage has been provided. The EA says this shows the restriction is signed and clear, and, further, enforceable under a valid Traffic Management Order (TMO), a copy of which is provided.
7. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations and does not wish to exercise their discretion.
8. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
9. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully.
10. Based on the footage provided, and additional evidential materials from the EA, I am satisfied the Appellant’s vehicle is shown at the relevant location, at the relevant time. I am further satisfied that if a contravention occurred it is enforceable by way of a valid Traffic Management Order, which I have seen.
11. The question I must decide is whether the signage is adequate to inform a reasonably careful, competent driver of the restriction, and allow for an alternative course to be taken to avoid the contravention.
12. In this respect I note the location is a busy road, with several pedestrians in the area. I note the signage is placed very near to a pedestrian crossing. I note there are building works taking place adjacent to where the signage is placed, with scaffolding and notices pasted onto the boarding. I note there is a large red banner/notice that appears to be very near to the next post along to whether the signage is positioned. Taking all these factors into account, on balance, I am not satisfied that the single signage is adequate at this particular location, but is, instead ‘lost’ in the general activity and numerous competing signage and activity.
13. I further consider, the single sign is in danger of being obscured by any large vehicle turning left into what appears to be an active building construction sight, as is shown on the footage in the Appellant’s case.
14. On balance, I consider the library shot of the signage shows a clarity that is not present at the location itself.
15. I have also considered the additional photographic evidence presented by the EA under ‘Category H – Map/Site report’. I do not find these to be of assistance, save for showing the wider location. On balance, I am not persuaded that this is evidence that shows adequate warning signage in relation to the relevant location that is subject of this appeal.
16. For these reasons, on balance, I am not satisfied a contravention occurred. It follows that I am not satisfied the PCN has been validly issued.
Decision
17. The appeal is allowed.
