There have a been a number of appeals at this location, but most are refused - generally for drivers going along Greenford Road and turning left. However, this one was for a driver doing the same route as you and it was allowed. Note of course that adjudications don't sent a precedent, and subsequent ones (even with the same adjudicator!) can come to the opposite conclusion.
Case Details
Case reference 2250476794
Appellant Bridie Lebdiri
Authority London Borough of Ealing
VRM LC60OMS
PCN Details
PCN AO05215814
Contravention date 16 May 2025
Contravention time 14:35:00
Contravention location Costons Lane
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 17 Jan 2026
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 failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (Code 53).
2. This appeal was scheduled as an online hearing at which the Appellant appeared in person. The Enforcement Authority (EA) was not due to attend but instead provided their evidence electronically.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is that on the route they drove, the advance warning sign and the restriction signs on the relevant road cannot be seen. This means the Appellant had no opportunity to avoid the restriction.
4. The Appellant has provided photographic evidence in support.
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. The EA state they are ‘…satisfied the formal regulatory signs give adequate information to alert motorists of the prohibition in place during restricted hours.’
8. The EA does not wish to exercise their discretion.
9. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
10. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully.
11. Based on the footage provided, and additional evidential materials from the EA, I am satisfied the Appellant’s vehicle was in the relevant location, at the relevant time. The Appellant helpfully confirmed in the hearing this is not in dispute. I am further satisfied that if a contravention has occurred, it is enforceable by way of a valid Traffic Management Order, which I have seen.
12. The question I must decide relates to whether the signage in place was substantially compliant, clear and adequate.
13. In this respect I found the evidence of the Appellant to be credible and measured. I accept the Appellant drover up Costons Lane, turned right across Greenford Road and then turned left into the restricted road section of Costons Lane very top of
14. On balance, I am not satisfied that the signage at the relevant location is substantially compliant, clear and adequate for a motorist following this route.
15. This is because the restrictions signage at Costons Lane is at the very top of the road and facing outwards. For a driver turning left into the restricted road, these signs cannot be seen properly. In this respect, on balance, I can see this from the position of the signage in the footage (for a car turning left), and in the photographic evidence provided by the Appellant. On balance, I find the signage would need to be at the curve where the 20mph signs are, to allow a motorist to view the restriction sign, and to have sufficient space and time to turn around.
16. In relation to the advance warning ‘no right turn’ ahead signage, I accept for a motorist in Costons Lane turning right into Greenford Road, this would not be easily seen or seen at all. This is because Greenford Road is busy, the motorist would need to cut across the oncoming traffic and move almost on a diagonal, to be in position to turn left into the restricted road. On balance, I find the ‘no right turn’ is placed too far back for it to be viewed by a motorist making this manoeuvre. However, for completeness, on balance, given the complication of crossing at this junction, I do not consider moving it further along the road would be of assistance. The junction is busy, and a motorist would reasonably be required to focus on the traffic and ensuing it was safe to cross and turn.
17. For these reasons I find a contravention did not occur and the PCN has not been validly issued.
Decision
18. The appeal is allowed
2 others were allowed: 2250372631 (same route as you) and 2250390644 (Route not stated).
