Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: bigred247 on June 09, 2025, 10:36:21 am
-
Thanks @Hippocrates
I will write this off and settle the balance by the end of the week.
-
I have looked at the pack. I see no merits in applying for a review unfortunately.
-
@Incandescent
In your opinion, is it worth appealing/challenging the tribunals decision based on this?
-
From the case summary: -
"The blue directional arrow indicates for vehicles to turn left into Howland Street to avoid the restriction."
What tosh!
The restriction is not 24x7, but this sign on the traffic lights is, being a mandatory 24x7 instruction. So why are they serving PCNs for the route restriction when the PCN recipient has already passed a mandatory left turn sign ? Basically, the signage at this location is flawed.
-
@Hippocrates
@Incandescent
Apologies for the late posting. This is Camden's evidence pack. What do you think?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oUCDuBaAlwLcOQzKyM3Fds3eti9Pe7x1/view?usp=sharing
-
@Hippocrates
I suspect you mean the evidence pack? I will upload a link to the doc shortly.
-
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/camden-using-a-route-restricted-to-certain-vehicles-local-buses-cycles-only-urge/msg96927/#msg96927
This is why I don't do Mondays.
****
As per my usual advice: tis impossible to advise re a review unless we know ALL the angles raised e.g.: the TMO supplied by Camden.
-
Disagreeing with other decisions is not a ground for review.
Indeed it isn't but surely this "august body of adjudicators" should accept that identical circumstances should give the same outcome. OK, the date is different !
-
Disagreeing with other decisions is not a ground for review.
-
@stamfordman @Incandescent
Hi folks,
I had my Tribunal hearing yesterday, but my appeal was unsuccessful. The hearing was adjudicated by Andrew Harman.
In my argument, I cited previous successful cases (involving other drivers) that were handled by Sean Stanton-Dunne. However, right from the off, Adjudicator Harman made it clear that he didn't agree with the outcomes of those previous cases, so I feared the worst.
I tried to stand my ground, but he stated that precedent in traffic law doesn't necessitate that the outcome will follow previous decisions and that each case is subjective.
Given that he's explicitly disagreeing with established Tribunal decisions, is it worth appealing, or should I take the loss on this occasion?
PS. I did receieve an evidence pack from the council, but due to work and family pressures, completely forgot to post this here for feedback.
Adjudicator's 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 these proceedings was that this vehicle, at Tottenham Court Road, by
the junction with Howland Street, used a route restricted to certain vehicles.
The appellant made submissions in accordance with those set out in writing, he explaining that he
was driving to collect his son from the UCH Macmillan Cancer Centre, he raising the issue of signage.
On the evidence before me, the appellant drove through regulatory signage posted at this junction
giving a mandatory direction to proceed left at it, the vehicle then being driven past a regulatory sign
posted on the left warning the appellant of the restriction.
I was satisfied on the council's video footage of the incident that that latter sign would have been
within the appellant's line of vision, it being clear and unobstructed.
I did not accept that there was any conflict in signage at this location, or that signage was confusing,
and I found signage, taken as a whole, to be adequate.
I respectfully disagreed with the adjudicator on this point in the cases cited by the appellant.
I accepted that driving in central London is not easy, and I noted the purpose of the appellant's
journey, but I was not satisfied that he had a defence to this penalty charge, and I found this
contravention proved.
The appeal was refused.
Andrew Harman
Adjudicator
10th November 2025
2250363958
CU70801006
-
Thanks ;)
-
I would initially say you rely on your representations but add a few notes on the rejection, which hasn't addressed in particular the sandwich between two vehicles, the reference to 'signs' plural when I think there is only one, and maybe others - check the rejection against your reps.
Go for a telephone or Teams meeting.
-
I believe it is the 28th day today, so i will be making an appeal before midnight. Nothing like cutting it in fine.
-
@stamfordman
Thank you for your reply.
I usually add comments in the box (below) when making an appeal. Are you saying there is no harm in leaving this blank, and later add my appeal, when the council has submitted its evidence pack/claim? Is their any detrement in adding context initially? Can the appeal explanation be modified later?
(https://i.imgur.com/WvSlpNA.png)
-
If you are appealing to the tribunal you don't need to include anything until you see their evidence pack should they contest.
-
Any thoughts?
-
@Incandescent
Does this capture it? I have made a reference to the left arrow.
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)
“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:
“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.
-
You need to emphasise the signs ****-up in that the traffic signals have a mandatory Turn Left arrow, but the PCN was not issued for this, indicating it is now obsolete, but has not been removed. The PCN was for passing the Buses Only sign which is subject to a days and hours restriction on its applicability. Therefore in view of the incorrect signs, and the lack of any advance warning you request that the PCN be cancelled and cite the cases you have listed.
-
Any feedback on the appeal template below?
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.
-
@Incandescent
I've missed the 14 day discount period as I've been back and forth to hospital for my sons treatment. So at this point I don't think there is any thing to lose?
Thank you for your advice about checking the register (i didn't know even know it existed and that it was publicly available). As a result, I managed to find a 3rd case where the appeal was allowed by the same adjudicator in similar circumstances. I have posted brief details below:
Case reference 2250057339
Oded Kanzen v London Borough of Camden
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
“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.”
So I now have 3 supporting cases which i can mention in my appeal.
Michael Curland v. Camden (Case 2250121019, decided 11 June 2025)
Khan v. Camden (Case 2240583109, decided 25 March 2025)
Oded Kanzen v Camden (Case 2250057339, decided 08 Apr 2025)
(https://i.imgur.com/7DRDYBh.png)
Any thoughts?
-
We've seen this location before, and the OP was successful on the grounds of inadequate signage, but it may have been enhanced since then.
The traffic lights are a sign just like all other signs, and here are wrong, because the permanently displayed Left Turn arrow is a mandatory instruction, yet the Buses Only sign beyond it is day and time restricted, so the signage here is a complete mess, frankly. There should be an advance sign with a geographic map of the junction showing the restriction ahead and its applicabble days and times, and the traffic lights should be changed to reflect the Buses Only days and times.
Of course if you decide to register an appeal at London Tribunals, it will be with the full PCN penalty in play, so clearly it is your decision and a win is not guranteed the same as in any other court of law, but I'd say your case is reasonably strong. You could try searching the London Tribunals Statutory Register for the location on the PCN to see if there are any previous cases here and what the result was.
-
I took some more pictures at the location a few weeks back. You can see the sign but only very late due to the traffic lights before the junction. The sign surely should be posted before you reach the junction. There must be many motorists that have been caught out by this.
(https://i.imgur.com/f4hXsvE.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/pefFLv1.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/9ns9Enf.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ase8w3D.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Vg7OJpD.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/hqyiaEl.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/SbXz4k9.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/lSzsEml.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/MZXXtBi.jpeg)
-
Hi folks,
I receieved a NOR but have missed the 14 day discount to make an appeal. I don't see much in the NOR to lend further support for Camden's case. Any opinions and advice concerning this?
(https://i.imgur.com/vZRzINI.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/S6R52vf.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/zzaVkYU.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/IjdGOOv.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/qahB9Ay.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/1AnapKn.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/86C2sJM.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/v7Ve5gJ.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/wznvLtz.jpeg)
-
Be aware from that case that Camden may have improved the signage (with something in advance) but I can't see it makes a significant difference to what is there just beyond the junction now.
When looking at tribunal cases you are mostly looking at alleged contraventions that took place often months ago.
-
@stamfordman thanks for the new case details.
I have updated the template to reference the latest case.
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.
-
Case Details
Case reference 2250121019
Appellant Michael Curland
Authority London Borough of Camden
VRM EN06SZZ
PCN Details
PCN CU69874024
Contravention date 03 Feb 2025
Contravention time 10:07:00
Contravention location Tottenham Court Road by Junction with Howland Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Referral date -
Decision Date 11 Jun 2025
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
Mr Curland was scheduled for a personal hearing by video link on 21 May 2025 but he did not attend and the appeal therefore proceeded in his absence. Mrs Fee Cummins attended for the Council by video link.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of using a route restricted to buses and cycles in Tottenham Court Road.
On the basis of the evidence presented on 21 May, I agreed with Mr Curland that the signage in Tottenham Court Road was not adequate for the restricted route.
The footage and images show a single restricted route sign in Tottenham Court Road. The sign is attached to a post on the left-hand side of the road. It is placed after the junction with Howland Street and next to a pedestrian crossing area.
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.
I did, however, adjourn the hearing on 21 May because Mrs Cummins said that the Council had evidence of advance warning signs of the restricted route. I decided to give the Council the opportunity to produce photographic evidence of the signage which Mrs Cummins said was in place.
No further evidence has been received from the Council but London Tribunals has now received from the Council a notice stating that the appeal is no longer contested.
I allow the appeal for the reasons set out in the adjournment correspondence of 21 May.
-
@stamfordman any thoughts on this updated version?
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.
-
Thank you for the feedback. I'll draft an updated version shortly.
-
This isn't right. There is nothing unlawful or a precedent - appeals are allowed/refused depending on each case, although there are a few high frequency places where adjudicators tend to agree and cite each other.
Do reps starting with the particular of your case, including where you were going/from and why as that's good mitigation, and according to the video it looks to me you were sandwiched between two large vehicles and the sign could well have been hidden.
Then note the allowed case.
Keep it polite and non-confrontational.
(https://i.ibb.co/TxRtbJMG/camd-ezgif-com-video-to-gif-converter-1.gif)
-
I have drafted an appeal but would greatly appreciate any feedback. I read the notes in the links @stamfordman posted on recent/pending cases.
I formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur, due to inadequate and non-compliant signage at the location. My case mirrors the recent adjudication decision in Khan v. Camden (Case 2240583109, 25 March 2025), where the tribunal ruled identical signage at this junction unlawful.
Grounds for Challenge:
1. The restricted route sign is placed too late for drivers to safely comply, as confirmed by adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne in Khan. The sign is positioned after the junction with Howland Street, adjacent to a pedestrian crossing, not clearly visible to road users approaching the restriction and fails to give adequate advance warning.
Camden’s footage omits the critical blue directional arrow at the junction, which misleads drivers into believing the route is accessible. This further undermines the enforceability of the PCN.
2. Binding Precedent (Khan v. Camden). The tribunal’s decision in Khan is directly applicable:
- Identical location (Tottenham Court Road/Howland Street).
- Identical contravention ("using a route restricted to buses/cycles").
- Identical signage defect (single sign placed post-junction).
Camden’s continued enforcement despite this ruling demonstrates a systemic failure to rectify non-compliant signage.
3. The council’s evidence does not show the full context of the junction (e.g., missing the blue arrow sign), preventing a fair assessment of driver visibility.
Given the tribunal’s clear precedent and Camden’s failure to address known signage defects, I request the immediate cancellation of PCN CU70801006 and recommend that Camden council rectify signage at this location to comply with TSRGD.
Should you reject this representation, I reserve the right to appeal to the Tribunal, citing Khan and the council’s evidentiary omissions.
-
@stamfordman
Thanks for sharing the links. I'll take a look.
-
See this thread:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/help-with-camden-pcns-two-received-one-minute-apart-on-tottenham-court-road/msg71354/#msg71354
and there looks to be another case cited today:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/camden-using-a-route-restricted-to-certain-vehicles-local-buses-cycles-only-urge/
-
some additional images
(https://i.imgur.com/tnvrFNO.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/DflUPBn.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/hn1ac2E.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/iXo1IG4.png)
-
Hi all,
re: PCN Camden - using a route restricted to certain vehicles local buses and cycles only
We received a PCN from Camden Council a couple of days ago, relating to a recent visit to the UCH Macmillan Cancer Centre, just behind Tottenham Court Road. We were there to collect my son, who is currently undergoing treatment.
This is a leased vehicle, and I was informed by the leasing company around two weeks ago that they had passed my details on to Camden Council.
My wife was driving at the time of the alleged offence.
Navigating around the Tottenham Court Road area by car is extremely challenging, but due to my son's current mobility issues, we sometimes have no option but to drive. The confusing road layout and unclear signage often make it difficult to avoid contraventions until it’s too late.
Does anyone know if there are any grounds for appeal in this case?
(https://i.imgur.com/7SBZU6A.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/wqYyaBL.png)