The NOR from Camden has been located. There has been a gross failure of the house post protocol which left it lying on the floor behind a cupboard. The letter is dated 24 June 2025 so my appeal has to be submitted on Tuesday.
The reduced amount was re-offered but now expired so going to the Tribunal - which we expected.
PAGE 1;
PAGE 2;
PAGE 3;
PAGE 4;
PAGE 5;
and there is a Tribunal form enclosed.
** Just going to ponder over my appeal - any help appreciated **
Even thought their NOR doesn't mention the turn left arrow on the traffic light in the picture they have included, can I use it in my appeal?
I'v been looking at some refused Tribunal cases of which there are 8 for this location and a couple are a bit odd;
Case: 2250131227, Adjudicator: Graeme Wallington
"Appellant states the signage was only on the left side of the road, not on the right making it hard to read. The Appellant drives past the restriction sign which was on the same side of the road as her direction of travel."
Case: 2240498928, Adjudicator: Martin Hoare
"establish that it was driven in this adequately signed pedestrian zone"
it's a bus gate not a pedestrian zone - perhaps incorrectly filed.Case: 2250210174, Adjudicator: Andrew Harman
"I was satisfied on that footage that the appellant's vehicle stopped on passing signage. I did not doubt that the appellant had then reversed, but this contravention occurs at the point at which a vehicle passes signage, whatever remedial action the driver then takes."
Case: 2240537349, Adjudicator: Edward Houghton
"The Appellant’s case is essentially that the signage indicating the restriction was inadequate. In the light of the CCTV footage and the site photographs I am unable to agree. Although there is only a single sign, it is quite large and facing oncoming traffic. Some advance warning of the bus only restriction is given by the turn left sign mounted on the traffic lights at the preceding junction. Although the clarity of the signage would certainly be reinforced by carriageway markings the fact that signage could be improved (as it often can) does not necessarily render what is in place inadequate. As a result of what was an oversight on the Appellant’s part the vehicle was in contravention, and it cannot be said the PCN was issued anything other than lawfully."
- oh dear!Case: 2250062452, Adjudicator: Henry Michael Greenslade
"The sign, on each side of the carriageway, is that prescribed by Diagram 953 at Item 33 in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, being a permitted variant thereof, as indicating ‘route for use by local buses and pedal cycles’."
- but there is only one sign why does the adjudicator state "The sign, on each side of the carriageway,"Case: 225010762A, Adjudicator: Michael Burke
"The Appellant...criticises the quality of the signage... The Enforcement Authority have provided photographs of the signage relied upon, including advanced warning signage which is additional to legal requirements." - there is no 'advanced warning' sign for the bus gate, just the turn left arrow on the traffic light.
Case: 2250082788, Adjudicator: Kevin Moore
(Vehicle was on hire and the appeal seems to be about passing th fine onto the hirer)
"Regarding the contravention itself, I am satisfied that there is reliable evidence showing that the driver used a route restricted to certain vehicles, namely local buses and pedal cycles during restricted hours of 8am-7pm. There are no valid grounds to allow the appeal."
Case: 2250133299, Adjudicator: Edward Houghton
"The CCTV footage shows the vehicle passing a round blue sign indicating a route restricted to buses; and the site photographs show there is a preceding sign on the traffic lights directing vehicles to turn left. The vehicle was in contravention by passing the sign and the PCN waslawfully issued."
- not clear which 'sign' the adjudicator is referring to.Allowed appeals;
Case: 2240583109, Adjudicator: Sean Stanton-Dunne
"I have looked at the CCTV footage and the still images from the Council. These show a single restricted route sign in Tottenham Court Road. The sign is attached to a post on the left hand side of the road. It is placed after the junction and next to a pedestrian crossing area."
Case: 2250057339, Adjudicator: Sean Stanton-Dunne
"The footage and images show a single restricted route sign in Tottenham Court Road. The sign is attached to a post on the left-hand side of the road. It is placed after the junction with Howland Street and next to a pedestrian crossing area."
Case: 2250121019, Adjudicator: Sean Stanton-Dunne
"On the basis of the evidence presented on 21 May, I agreed with Mr Curland that the signage in Tottenham Court Road was not adequate for the restricted route.
The footage and images show a single restricted route sign in Tottenham Court Road. The sign is attached to a post on the left-hand side of the road. It is placed after the junction with Howland Street and next to a pedestrian crossing area."
Not looking good unless Sean Stanton-Dunne is assigned to your appeal...
Looking through other appeals for the other 3 bus gates on TCR - not looking good;
There is another bus gate with a single sign while 2 have dual signs.
There is a refused appeal where the adjudicator stated the road markings 'All traffic routes' (with a right arrow) is sufficient instead of a second sign.
How are Camden getting away with it?
Interestingly, the bus gate at Great Russell Street used to have what looks like a timed 'No Entry' sign (closes when not applicable) very prominent - GSV:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/jTd1cHPEEpBVrrUo7