Free Traffic Legal Advice

I respectfully appeal against the above PCN on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur due to inadequate and misleading signage at the location, as has already been confirmed by this tribunal in three previous decisions involving the same road layout and signs.

1. Inadequate Signage at Tottenham Court Road / Howland Street
The signage is placed after the junction, adjacent to a pedestrian crossing. There is no advance warning, and the blue directional arrow at the traffic lights misleads drivers into believing they must turn left, when in fact the straight-ahead route is only restricted during certain hours. This confusing setup caused the alleged contravention.

2. Consistent Tribunal Findings – Three Precedents
The following appeal decisions have all found the signage at this exact location to be non-compliant:

Khan v Camden (Case 2240583109, 25 March 2025)
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne allowed the appeal, stating:

“The motorist... will not see the restricted route sign until it is too late... The blue sign directional arrow is also misleading...”

Curland v Camden (Case 2250121019, 11 June 2025)
The same adjudicator again ruled the signage inadequate. After an adjournment to allow the Council to supply evidence of advance signage, Camden withdrew the case and the appeal was allowed.

Kanzen v Camden (Case 2250057339)
Once more, Adjudicator Stanton-Dunne confirmed:

“The motorist... will not see the restricted route sign... until it is too late... The blue sign directional arrow is also misleading...”

These repeated findings demonstrate that the signage at this junction fails to comply with statutory requirements and creates avoidable confusion for motorists, resulting in repeated wrongful enforcement.

3. Additional Personal Context
My wife was driving to collect our son from the UCH Macmillan Cancer Centre, where he was receiving cancer treatment. Due to his limited mobility and treatment side effects, driving was the only viable option. The road layout and misleading signage made it impossible to comply despite best efforts.

4. Conclusion
In light of:

- Three previous appeal decisions confirming the signage is inadequate,
- Camden’s failure to remedy or update the signs,
- The misleading blue arrow and absence of proper advance warning,
- And the essential nature of the journey,

I respectfully ask that this appeal be allowed and the PCN cancelled.

I respectfully appeal the above PCN on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur due to inadequate, misleading, and contradictory signage, as confirmed in three previous decisions by this Tribunal at the exact same location.

1. Signage Defects – Inconsistent and Misleading
The alleged contravention occurred at Tottenham Court Road, just after the junction with Howland Street. The signage at this location is fundamentally flawed:

- The "Buses and Cycles Only" restriction sign, which is time-limited, is placed after the junction, giving no adequate advance warning.
- The blue directional arrow at the traffic lights is a mandatory "Turn Left" sign, but the PCN was not issued for failing to comply with it.
- This means Camden is enforcing a restriction that directly contradicts another regulatory sign at the same junction, creating confusion and uncertainty for motorists.

The presence of an obsolete or misleading Turn Left sign—still treated as legally binding by its design—renders the signage layout contradictory and unlawful. The Council’s own CCTV footage fails to show any advance signage warning drivers of the time-limited restriction straight ahead.

2. Tribunal Precedent – Three Cases Confirm Inadequate Signage
Three appeals have already been allowed at this same location, all heard by Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne:

>> Khan v Camden (Case 2240583109, 25 March 2025)

Quote

“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. 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.”

>> Curland v Camden (Case 2250121019, 11 June 2025)
After a hearing was adjourned for Camden to produce evidence of advance signage, the Council withdrew, and the adjudicator allowed the appeal.

>> Kanzen v Camden (Case 2250057339, 08 Apr 2025)
Again, the adjudicator confirmed:

Quote

“In my judgement, the motorist travelling along Tottenham Court Road will not see the restricted route sign with its controlled hours until it is too late to safely avoid using the route. There is a blue sign at the traffic lights with a 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.”

These repeated findings show that Camden has failed to remedy unlawful signage at this location, and continues to issue PCNs under conditions that do not meet the legal standard for enforceability.

3. Personal Context – Exceptional Circumstances
On this occasion, my wife was driving to collect our son from the UCH Macmillan Cancer Centre, where he was receiving treatment for cancer. His medical condition and limited mobility made public transport unviable. The poor signage and conflicting directions made compliance unintentionally impossible.

4. Conclusion – Appeal Should Be Allowed
In light of:

- The contradictory signage, with a still-visible mandatory Turn Left arrow not enforced,
- The absence of any advance warning of the time-limited restriction,
- Three Tribunal decisions confirming the signage is non-compliant,
- Camden’s ongoing failure to correct the layout,
- And the essential medical nature of the journey,

I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed and the PCN cancelled.