Thank you. Thinking of sending the following appeal. Please let me know what you think.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally appeal against the issuance of the two Penalty Charge Notices referenced above, both of which were issued within one minute of each other on the same stretch of Tottenham Court Road. These notices relate to a single, continuous driving movement, and I respectfully ask that you consider the following mitigating circumstances.
My primary ground for appeal is that the restriction signage is placed too late to provide adequate advance warning to motorists. Approaching Tottenham Court Road from the relevant direction, there is no clear indication prior to the junction that a restriction is in effect. By the time the sign becomes visible — placed after the junction and adjacent to a pedestrian crossing — the driver has already committed to the turn and entered the restricted zone. In my case, this is exactly what occurred: the vehicle had passed the point of no return when the signage became visible, and the PCNs were issued almost immediately.
This concern has already been upheld in a recent case: Case Reference 2240583109, decided by Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne on 25 March 2025. In that decision, the adjudicator ruled that the signage was inadequate and stated:
"In my judgement, the motorist travelling along Tottenham Court Road will not see the restricted route sign until it is too late to safely avoid using the route... I am allowing the appeal because I agree with Mr Khan that the signage is not adequate for the restricted route."
He also noted that although a blue directional arrow is visible at the lights, it is misleading, as it does not relate directly to the restricted route enforcement.
Additionally, I wish to highlight that both PCNs were issued for a single, continuous act — not two separate violations. Issuing two separate penalties for what was effectively one incident seems excessive and unfair. I respectfully request that, if both PCNs cannot be cancelled, then at the very least one be withdrawn in the interest of fairness and proportionality.
This was not a case of deliberate contravention but an unavoidable and honest mistake, exacerbated by unclear and poorly placed signage. I hope Camden Council will take these factors — including the precedent set in the aforementioned case — into account when reviewing my appeal.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
