Free Traffic Legal Advice

Formal Representation: PCN CU70801006
Vehicle: VO23UCC | Date: 06/05/2025

Dear Camden Council,

I respectfully request cancellation of the above PCN, as the alleged contravention resulted from inadequate signage and exceptional personal circumstances.

1. Context of the Journey
On 06/05/2025, my wife was driving our leased vehicle to collect our son from the UCH Macmillan Cancer Centre. Due to his cancer treatment and limited mobility, driving was essential. The complex road layout and obscured signage in this area made compliance unintentionally difficult.

2. Visibility Issues with Signage
The council’s footage shows:

  - The restricted route sign is placed after the junction with Howland Street (adjacent to a pedestrian crossing), consistent with the adjudicator’s findings in Khan v. Camden (Case 2240583109).

  - At the time, our vehicle was surrounded by larger vehicles, likely obscuring the sign.
  - The blue directional arrow at the traffic lights (not included in the council's evidence) indicates a left turn only, while the straight-ahead route appears accessible. As noted in Khan, this creates confusion because:

        > The arrow implies all traffic must turn left, when in fact the straight-ahead restriction is time-limited
        > Drivers continuing straight (as my wife did) receive no clear advance warning of the bus/cycle restriction
        > The actual restriction sign appears too late to react safely

3. Adjudicator’s Findings in Khan v. Camden
In the nearly identical case Khan v. Camden (25 March 2025, Case 2240583109), Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne allowed the appeal, stating:

"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. The motorist will, of course, see the blue sign at the traffic lights with the directional arrow directing traffic to turn to the left but the PCN was not issued for the alleged contravention of failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign. The blue sign directional arrow is also misleading as the restricted route beyond the lights can be used outside of controlled hours."

The adjudicator explicitly noted:

 - The sign’s placement violates requirements for advance warning.
 - The blue arrow creates confusion, as it does not align with the restricted route’s enforcement.

4. Request for Discretion
Given the identical signage defects confirmed in Khan; My son’s medical needs necessitating the journey; and The council’s footage failing to show critical signage context, I kindly ask for cancellation of this PCN. I also urge Camden to review this junction’s signage to prevent further confusion.

Formal Representation: PCN CU70801006
Vehicle: VO23UCC | Date: 06/05/2025

Dear Camden Council,

I respectfully request cancellation of the above PCN on the basis of inadequate signage and exceptional personal circumstances.

1. Purpose of Journey
On 06/05/2025, my wife was driving our leased vehicle to collect our son from the UCH Macmillan Cancer Centre. He is undergoing cancer treatment and has significantly limited mobility. Driving was essential for this journey.

2. Signage and Visibility Issues
The alleged contravention occurred on Tottenham Court Road by the junction with Howland Street. The signage at this location is demonstrably inadequate:

- The restricted route sign is positioned after the Howland Street junction and adjacent to a pedestrian crossing, not giving sufficient advance warning.
- Our vehicle was surrounded by larger vehicles, which likely obscured the restricted route sign.
- The blue directional arrow at the traffic lights suggests a left turn is mandatory, when in fact the straight-ahead restriction is time-limited. This is misleading, as noted in multiple appeal cases.

3. Adjudicator Findings in Two Identical Cases
Khan v. Camden (Case 2240583109, decided 25 March 2025)
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne allowed the appeal, stating:

"The motorist traveling along Tottenham Court Road will not see the restricted route sign until it is too late to safely avoid using the route... The blue sign directional arrow is also misleading..."

He concluded that the sign’s placement and lack of advance warning rendered the restriction unenforceable.

Michael Curland v. Camden (Case 2250121019, decided 11 June 2025)
In another appeal involving the exact same location, the same adjudicator again ruled that the signage was inadequate. He adjourned the hearing to give Camden a chance to supply evidence of advance signage. When Camden failed to do so, they withdrew and did not contest the appeal. The appeal was allowed.

This strongly reinforces that the signage remains non-compliant and has repeatedly failed scrutiny.

4. Request for Discretion and Action
In light of:

- The consistent adjudicator findings in both Khan and Curland,
- The misleading and obscured signage,
- The medical necessity of this journey,

I respectfully request cancellation of this PCN and urge Camden Council to address the signage at this location to prevent further penalisation of well-meaning drivers.