Free Traffic Legal Advice

Whether you used 100 ft or 500ft, you used the route. You do not have to traverse the whole route.

IMO, their interpretation is correct and your argument goes to mitigation only which the adjudicator may not consider.

Well, you may be right, but for me, "use" means for a purpose, so by going along a road, you are using it to get somewhere, but in this case, the route was not "used" because the motorist turned round and went another way. No doubt the adjudicators agree with you, but I think they are wrong. Of course if it was an offence just to pass the sign, like a No Entry sign, it's another matter.

Quote from: tincombe on July 28, 2026, 07:36:27 pm

Whether you used 100 ft or 500ft, you used the route. You do not have to traverse the whole route.

IMO, their interpretation is correct and your argument goes to mitigation only which the adjudicator may not consider.

Well, you may be right, but for me, "use" means for a purpose, so by going along a road, you are using it to get somewhere, but in this case, the route was not "used" because the motorist turned round and went another way. No doubt the adjudicators agree with you, but I think they are wrong. Of course if it was an offence just to pass the sign, like a No Entry sign, it's another matter.

Look at the different contraventions.

For example:

Code 31
Entering and stopping in a box junction.
Code 53
Entering a pedestrian zone.
Code 32
Failing to proceed in the direction shown.
Code 33
Using a route restricted to certain vehicles.

it's quite clear if they wish to penalise entering and using

in this case surely even if we go by the spirit of the law , the aim of the 33H is to not use the road as a through route

Update
I paid today as the balance showed £80 outstanding and i thought it was the easier option (maybe i got lucky as i thought it was going to be £160)

the reason i paid is my case relied on the below and the case reference appeared very similar to mine, i share my research below

Code 33 is defined in the statutory guidance as "Using a route restricted to certain vehicles."

Contrast that with other codes on the same table: Code 31 is "Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited" and Code 51 is "Failing to comply with a no entry restriction." Parliament used the word "entering" where it meant entering. For Code 33 it chose "using." That distinction is deliberate and can argue it directly.


Statutory language — Code 33 says "using," not "entering." You didn't use the route.
Purpose of the restriction — Bus gates exist to prevent through traffic. You did not travel through.
Incomplete evidence — Their own footage ends before showing how you exited. They cannot prove a completed contravention.


ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.

Case Details
Case reference    2250210174
Appellant    Salim Chowdhury
Authority    London Borough of Camden
VRM    GP19OZC

PCN Details

PCN    CU70172658
Contravention date   04 Mar 2025
Contravention time    08:55:00
Contravention location    TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD By Junction With Howland Street

Penalty amount   GBP 130.00

Contravention    Using a route restricted to certain vehicles 33H

Referral date    -

Decision Date   15 Jul 2025

Adjudicator   Andrew Harman

Appeal decision    Appeal refused

Direction    Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.

Reasons   
The appellant attended the hearing of this appeal today on the Microsoft Teams video conferencing platform.
The council did not attend the hearing, it not being expected to do so.

The contravention alleged in this case was that this vehicle used a route restricted to certain vehicles.
The appellant said that upon seeing the sign he reversed, he not continuing to drive down the road.
I viewed the council's cctv footage of the incident at the hearing, my sharing it with the appellant. 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. I found this contravention proved.

The appellant's case amounted to mitigation only which I have no power to take into account.

The appeal was refused.