Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: markie76 on June 09, 2025, 07:47:47 pm
-
Case reference 2250337302
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Camden
VRM LF74ZOM
PCN Details
PCN CU70881220
Contravention date 15 May 2025
Contravention time 18:14:00
Contravention location Tottenham Court Road by junction with Howland Street
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Referral date -
Decision Date 19 Nov 2025
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 using a route restricted to certain vehicles (Code 33).
2. This a postal appeal.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is that the signage is unclear and inadequate, comprising only of one on the left-hand side. This was obscured by a large vehicle turning left at the time the Appellant approached the relevant road.
4. The Appellant refers to personal and financial circumstances.
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 and does not wish to exercise their discretion.
8. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
9. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully.
10. Based on the footage provided, and additional evidential materials from the EA, I am satisfied the Appellant’s vehicle is shown at the relevant location, at the relevant time. I am further satisfied that if a contravention occurred it is enforceable by way of a valid Traffic Management Order, which I have seen.
11. The question I must decide is whether the signage is adequate to inform a reasonably careful, competent driver of the restriction, and allow for an alternative course to be taken to avoid the contravention.
12. In this respect I note the location is a busy road, with several pedestrians in the area. I note the signage is placed very near to a pedestrian crossing. I note there are building works taking place adjacent to where the signage is placed, with scaffolding and notices pasted onto the boarding. I note there is a large red banner/notice that appears to be very near to the next post along to whether the signage is positioned. Taking all these factors into account, on balance, I am not satisfied that the single signage is adequate at this particular location, but is, instead ‘lost’ in the general activity and numerous competing signage and activity.
13. I further consider, the single sign is in danger of being obscured by any large vehicle turning left into what appears to be an active building construction sight, as is shown on the footage in the Appellant’s case.
14. On balance, I consider the library shot of the signage shows a clarity that is not present at the location itself.
15. I have also considered the additional photographic evidence presented by the EA under ‘Category H – Map/Site report’. I do not find these to be of assistance, save for showing the wider location. On balance, I am not persuaded that this is evidence that shows adequate warning signage in relation to the relevant location that is subject of this appeal.
16. For these reasons, on balance, I am not satisfied a contravention occurred. It follows that I am not satisfied the PCN has been validly issued.
Decision
17. The appeal is allowed.
-
Harman has got it totally wrong; the requirement is to erect adequate signage. Whilst a single sign is the minumum requirement, the location where the signs are to be placed should decide the number of signs and whether advance warning is needed.
So 0/10 for Harman in my book. No doubt he wants a quiet life if he's nearing retirement.
-
It was vital to attend this. My only personal hearing was with the same adjudicator and he was dismissive of unsighted signage in a case where my wife was driving and we failed to convince him despite good evidence.
This one backed up by the case I cited should have been won but I doubt it can be reviewed.
The critical factor of where the CCTV is seems to lost on Mr Harman.
The attendance by Camden is noteworthy.
------------
Case reference 2250362354
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Camden
VRM FV23JVH
PCN Details
PCN CU70251787
Contravention date 12 Mar 2025
Contravention time 18:11:00
Contravention location Tottenham Court Road by J/W Howland Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Referral date -
Decision Date 31 Oct 2025
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
Mrs Cummins, for the council, attended the hearing of this appeal today on the Microsoft Teams video conferencing platform.
The appellant did not attend the hearing.
I decided the appeal in his absence.
The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this vehicle, at Tottenham Court Road, used a route restricted to certain vehicles.
I acknowledged the submissions made by the appellant around the issue of signage.
The council is required to sign this restriction with one regulatory sign only.
Signage was I found, on the council's cctv footage of the incident, which I viewed, visible, and, I inferred, fully within the appellant's line of vision. I was satisfied that it was clear and correct. I noted that prior to meeting the restriction, the appellant also failed to comply with a mandatory direction to turn left at the preceding junction.
I was satisfied against this background that this contravention had occurred.
The appeal was refused.
Yes but it is advisable to place two terminal signs in some circumstances.
Chapter Three TSM
1.8.5. There is no specific requirement that signs indicating the beginning of a restriction
or prohibition must be placed on each side of the road or on each side of the appropriate
carriageway of a dual carriageway road (see 8.2 in respect of speed limit signs). This
relaxation has been made to reduce environmental impact, but care should be taken to
ensure that a single sign is clearly visible to all road users and does not give rise to
issues relating to enforcement or road safety. This might require a single sign in some instances to be placed on
the off side of the road
-
Yes but we need to talk.
-
I don't do Tuesdays. So, this will have to be adjourned to a Wednesday, Friday or Saturday. PM received. We had better communicate by phone to sort out a date, which will most probably be March now. PM sent.
@Hippocrates
Rescheduled to: Friday 20 March 2026 - 3:30pm
Any good for you?
-
Hello all,
I received a PCN for the exact same thing. That sign is ridicolously small and should be 3 times bigger imo.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/camden-borough-bus-lane-as-whole-road/
(https://i.ibb.co/1tCqHMBY/dfdf.png) (https://ibb.co/ksL8YJzV)
-
I don't do Tuesdays. So, this will have to be adjourned to a Wednesday, Friday or Saturday. PM received. We had better communicate by phone to sort out a date, which will most probably be March now. PM sent.
-
OK so wrong case but for reference here is the video and we know Camden is taking an interest as authorities don't attend many adjudications.
(https://i.ibb.co/JWyBNDgs/London-Boroughof-Camden-PCNEvidence-ezgif-com-video-to-gif-converter.gif)
-
Thanks, you're right.
Can't delete at present.
-
Appeal lost.
OP did not appear but the authority were represented.
The adjudicator's findings were that one sign is the regulatory requirement(where this bold statement comes from I've no idea, as we know the minimum legal test is 'adequacy') and that 'Signage was I found, on the council's cctv footage of the incident, which I viewed, visible, and, I inferred, fully within the appellant's line of vision
(my emphasis).
Whether there's a case for review on the grounds that the adjudicator took into account something which they should not, perhaps we can discuss. I refer to this in the decision: 'I noted that prior to meeting the restriction, the appellant also failed to comply with a mandatory direction to turn left at the preceding junction.'
Also, OP what were the circumstances surrounding you not appearing?
I think you have posted on the incorrect thread..?
-
It was vital to attend this. My only personal hearing was with the same adjudicator and he was dismissive of unsighted signage in a case where my wife was driving and we failed to convince him despite good evidence.
This one backed up by the case I cited should have been won but I doubt it can be reviewed.
The critical factor of where the CCTV is seems to lost on Mr Harman.
The attendance by Camden is noteworthy.
------------
Case reference 2250362354
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Camden
VRM FV23JVH
PCN Details
PCN CU70251787
Contravention date 12 Mar 2025
Contravention time 18:11:00
Contravention location Tottenham Court Road by J/W Howland Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Referral date -
Decision Date 31 Oct 2025
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
Mrs Cummins, for the council, attended the hearing of this appeal today on the Microsoft Teams video conferencing platform.
The appellant did not attend the hearing.
I decided the appeal in his absence.
The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this vehicle, at Tottenham Court Road, used a route restricted to certain vehicles.
I acknowledged the submissions made by the appellant around the issue of signage.
The council is required to sign this restriction with one regulatory sign only.
Signage was I found, on the council's cctv footage of the incident, which I viewed, visible, and, I inferred, fully within the appellant's line of vision. I was satisfied that it was clear and correct. I noted that prior to meeting the restriction, the appellant also failed to comply with a mandatory direction to turn left at the preceding junction.
I was satisfied against this background that this contravention had occurred.
The appeal was refused.
-
Appeal lost.
OP did not appear but the authority were represented.
The adjudicator's findings were that one sign is the regulatory requirement(where this bold statement comes from I've no idea, as we know the minimum legal test is 'adequacy') and that 'Signage was I found, on the council's cctv footage of the incident, which I viewed, visible, and, I inferred, fully within the appellant's line of vision
(my emphasis).
Whether there's a case for review on the grounds that the adjudicator took into account something which they should not, perhaps we can discuss. I refer to this in the decision: 'I noted that prior to meeting the restriction, the appellant also failed to comply with a mandatory direction to turn left at the preceding junction.'
Also, OP what were the circumstances surrounding you not appearing?
-
To add my six penneth, can I suggest you start with a simple and clear description of the signage. Not what you were doing or other vehicles or whatever but simple scene setting.
The location is situated in Tottenham Court Road approx. ** metres to the north/south/east/west (whichever) of the junction of Tottenham Court Road with ****.
The sign changes the prevailing situation on TCR, namely **-way traffic without moving traffic restrictions into a bus and **-only carriageway.
This is effected on the ground by a single traffic sign situated behind and clustered among other traffic signs and infrastructure.
There are no advance warning signs or any other indication of this dramatic change. Put simply, if a motorist could see the sign from a reasonable enough distance away, then there's a chance that they could discern its meaning and act accordingly. But when there is poor intervisibility such as travelling behind a high-sided vehicle on TCR or when they turn left then a motorist's view is diminished or even non-existent until they are virtually at the sign.
In my case............
By the way, what's the speed limit in that section of TCR?
-
Paras. 11 and 12 apply in your case:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Practice%20Direction%2002-2025%20on%20behalf%20of%20ETA%2019%20August%202025%20-%20Service%20of%20evidence%20by%20Enforcement%20Authorities.pdf
@Hippocrates - I've received the 'evidence pack' by email today which consists of;
1. Video.
2. PDF of various docs inc; appeal confirmation, TMO, Challenge, letters, stills, site pictures (some old ones highlighting the turn left blue arrow?), picture showing the turn left arrow (except buses & cycles) with the timed restriction sign in the background past the road junction.
What should I do with it?
Appeal date: Tuesday 11th Nov 2025 Time: 10:00 Type: Personal - video
Thank you.
-
Paras. 11 and 12 apply in your case:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Practice%20Direction%2002-2025%20on%20behalf%20of%20ETA%2019%20August%202025%20-%20Service%20of%20evidence%20by%20Enforcement%20Authorities.pdf
-
Just over a month to go to the adjudicator appeal; when should I expect the Council's 'evidence pack'?
Should be with you by a week before the hearing.
-
Just over a month to go to the adjudicator appeal; when should I expect the Council's 'evidence pack'?
-
You should upload to the appeal as you state to be safe. I am still offering to represent you. I would not pay it. Up to you. I am not going to engage in open disagreements on the forum. I'll PM you my phone number if you wish to do so mano a mano. FGS!
I suggest we all go to bed. ;) I have another 10 appeals to write tomorrow.
@Hippocrates, hope your appeals went well. I also don't want to pay anything as I haven't done anything wrong.
Your offer is gratefully accepted and when you have time, can we can discuss further here or by PM/email... (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji106.png)
In all probability your appeal will be registered - the tribunal factor in postal delays and other matters and normally apply a limit of 30 days or more as they are permitted to do. I wouldn't fret. The important thing is that you submitted it.
Currently they're scheduling for October, so we've plenty of time once it's been registered.
The appeal has been accepted/registered for a date in November as you indicated - we have plenty of time... (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji106.png)
-
In all probability your appeal will be registered - the tribunal factor in postal delays and other matters and normally apply a limit of 30 days or more as they are permitted to do. I wouldn't fret. The important thing is that you submitted it.
Currently they're scheduling for October, so we've plenty of time once it's been registered.
-
You should upload to the appeal as you state to be safe. I am still offering to represent you. I would not pay it. Up to you. I am not going to engage in open disagreements on the forum. I'll PM you my phone number if you wish to do so mano a mano. FGS!
I suggest we all go to bed. ;) I have another 10 appeals to write tomorrow.
-
Clearly day 1 is 26th June. You had a NOR. Then communicate again with them. I hope the Tribunal accept it as it is late if you cannot provide further evidence re their extension.
Sorry, I am not a one-man-band and have a life outside of helping people - just! In fact, I am taking most of August off.
With all due respect all the experts on FTLA who give up their own time to help others in trouble do a wonderful job and are much appreciated.
You offered to help on the 20th which I accepted then not hearing anything further on the 22nd posted on the thread again.
Then I PM'd you on the 24th as I was getting stressed not hearing any further.
As per your PM on the 25th I emailed you an update and again nothing until today the 27th.
You can't help everyone even though you might like to, but if you do offer to help please don't leave them in the dark stressing out & missing deadlines.
Clearly day 1 is 26th June. You had a NOR.....
As someone not versed in parking appeals procedure, no there is no 'clearly' about it and since the letter simply states 'end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of which the NOR is served.' - pure gobbledegook to the ordinary man in the street. Add to that the decline of Royal Mail standards, when you actually receive your post is becomming a lottery anyway.
I suppose I should upload to the appeal, the email reply dated 21JUL25 stating the discount period has been reset which made me believe the '28 day period' had also.
Although another seriously stressed part of me is now seriously considering paying the discount to make this just go away.
-
Clearly day 1 is 26th June. You had a NOR. Then communicate again with them. I hope the Tribunal accept it as it is late if you cannot provide further evidence re their extension.
Sorry, I am not a one-man-band and have a life outside of helping people - just! In fact, I am taking most of August off.
-
Have you provided evidence that they extended the discount in writing?
Stop compiling War and Peace.
AT THIS STAGE registering your appeal requires nothing more than 'Contravention did not occur' and you rely on your formal reps.
Didn't know I had to - H C Andersen's post above says my "appeal requires nothing more than 'Contravention did not occur'"
-
Have you provided evidence that they extended the discount in writing?
-
The original NOR is now passed. What have they sent you as per your PM?
@Hippocrates terrible timing, if only you were here 10 minutes earlier.
I pm'd you on the 22d then I emailed you an update as you requested in your PM of the 24th.
Please tell me what you have done and written.
I registered an appeal;
Ground(s)for appeal: No contravention
Reason for appeal: Contravention did not occur.
-
The original NOR is now passed. What have they sent you as per your PM?
@Hippocrates terrible timing, if only you were here 10 minutes earlier.
I pm'd you on the 22d then I emailed you an update as you requested in your PM of the 24th.
Please tell me what you have done and written.
-
2 questions, can the scheduled appeal be changed and option to have someone represent me changed?
Yes and Yes.
Follow Hippocrates' advice.
I got the email confirmation with 'The tribunal will consider your appeal and let you know if it is accepted within 7 days' :'(
I will once I get some... :'(
-
2 questions, can the scheduled appeal be changed and option to have someone represent me changed?
Yes and Yes.
Follow Hippocrates' advice.
-
The original NOR is now passed. What have they sent you as per your PM?
@Hippocrates terrible timing, if only you were here 10 minutes earlier.
I pm'd you on the 22d then I emailed you an update as you requested in your PM of the 24th.
-
OK, if I rely on my formal reps doesn't that mean I can't introduce any new appeal points?
No, you can submit further points before the hearing: you can also respond to any points raised by the Council in their aevidence pack.
Done online.
2 questions, can the scheduled appeal be changed and option to have someone represent me changed?
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The original NOR is now passed. What have they sent you as per your PM?
-
OK, if I rely on my formal reps doesn't that mean I can't introduce any new appeal points?
No, you can submit further points before the hearing: you can also respond to any points raised by the Council in their aevidence pack.
-
Stop compiling War and Peace.
AT THIS STAGE registering your appeal requires nothing more than 'Contravention did not occur' and you rely on your formal reps.
OK, if I rely on my formal reps doesn't that mean I can't introduce any new appeal points?
-
Stop compiling War and Peace.
AT THIS STAGE registering your appeal requires nothing more than 'Contravention did not occur' and you rely on your formal reps.
-
Can we get back to registering an appeal.
The trigger for the tribunal is the date of issue of the NOR, not the date of an email copy.
The authority re-offering the discount has NO effect on the tribunal's timetable or the regulations.
Register your appeal NOW or risk losing your opportunity and therefore by default £160.
OK.
So should I appeal in line with my challenge that from my riding position looking at the traffic light on the right handside of the road I wasn't aware of any prohibition type on certain vehicles due to inadequate signage and cite the 3 allowed appeal cases.
EDIT: Add something highlighting that other bus gates on the same road do have signs on both sides of the road, like at Great Russell Str & Store Street)
(GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/NoumFjzn68ZWxHFHA & https://maps.app.goo.gl/GDYUCYdAqCLHbVh29)
Add to that, there is no other form of 'advance notice' of the timed prohibition as the signage the council have included in their NOR being beyond the point where the prohibition begins making it at that point unsafe to change direction of travel (even if you see it as it is high up and angled slightly inwards) e.g. if a bus was behind you.
Also the picture of the left hand side traffic light with left blue arrow (also included with the NOR) directing all traffic to turn left into Howland Street before the prohibition begins. This is both misleading and conflicting because; The blue arrow instructs all traffic except busses and cycles to turn left 24/7 while the Council claims the prohibition on cetain vehicles being allowed to travel straight ahead applies only between 8am & 7pm.
- Can the alleged '33H' contravention even occur due to the turn left blue arrow which applies to all vehicles (except bus & cycles) 24/7 on the traffic light before it?
-
Can we get back to registering an appeal.
The trigger for the tribunal is the date of issue of the NOR, not the date of an email copy.
The authority re-offering the discount has NO effect on the tribunal's timetable or the regulations.
Register your appeal NOW or risk losing your opportunity and therefore by default £160.
-
I wander what counts as a write off?
Probably diplomatic plates, or foreign plates, or non-existent reg marks.
Thanks for your reply.
Possibly.
The data does have columns to register if a foreign vehicle and if appealed/represented - it would take a bit of analysis if you're up for it ;D
[attachimg=2]
EDIT: The written off ones state "Bankruptcy, unable to trace"
[attachimg=3]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I wander what counts as a write off?
Probably diplomatic plates, or foreign plates, or non-existent reg marks.
-
Today, 27 July, you posted:
so I think that's [appealing to the tribunal]the only option
Which implies that at present you have not registered an appeal. If so, you are now beyond the 28-day period. If not registered get on with it. All you do is register. You don't need any detailed argument, just get it registered.
Thank you for your reply.
Sort of. I did email Camden parking last week when I saw the amount online had increased but I hadn't had a reply yet. They replied on Monday with a NOR email copy and that they have reset the discounted amount (shows 80 again online). So I'm assuming the 28 day period is also reset.
If this isn't allowed here please let me know - I did some research on Camden's own data: https://opendata.camden.gov.uk/
and in the current year there have been 83,900 code '33H' fines issued on Tottenham Court Road;
[attachimg=1]
Some very high numbers there and dissapointingly low number of appeals/canx. (paid assumes payment made during discount period)
I wonder what counts as a write off?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Today, 27 July, you posted:
so I think that's [appealing to the tribunal]the only option
Which implies that at present you have not registered an appeal. If so, you are now beyond the 28-day period. If not registered get on with it. All you do is register. You don't need any detailed argument, just get it registered.
-
So Tribunal or not?
@Hippocrates
I haven't done anything wrong due to their inadequate single sign strategy and I'd rather not pay Camden a penny, so I think that's the only option :-\
Looking at the refused cases, what do you reckon the chances are?
-
So Tribunal or not?
-
Please update me having read your PM.
@Hippocrates Done as requested.
-
Please update me having read your PM.
-
Should I be doing something? :-\
-
You count from day 1 as 26th June. I am happy to represent you.
Aha, that gives a bit more time.
Thank you for your kind offer which I would be grateful to accept :)
-
You count from day 1 as 26th June. I am happy to represent you.
-
The NOR from Camden has been located. There has been a gross failure of the house post protocol which left it lying on the floor behind a cupboard. The letter is dated 24 June 2025 so my appeal has to be submitted on Tuesday.
The reduced amount was re-offered but now expired so going to the Tribunal - which we expected.
PAGE 1;
(https://i.ibb.co/HfhPkqLr/nor-01.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HfhPkqLr)
PAGE 2;
(https://i.ibb.co/Ps76qzxB/nor-02.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Ps76qzxB)
PAGE 3;
(https://i.ibb.co/hx0Yjc6b/nor-03.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hx0Yjc6b)
PAGE 4;
(https://i.ibb.co/bgw9rk8P/nor-04.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bgw9rk8P)
PAGE 5;
(https://i.ibb.co/Ld5HzZrY/nor-05.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Ld5HzZrY)
and there is a Tribunal form enclosed.
** Just going to ponder over my appeal - any help appreciated **
Even thought their NOR doesn't mention the turn left arrow on the traffic light in the picture they have included, can I use it in my appeal?
I'v been looking at some refused Tribunal cases of which there are 8 for this location and a couple are a bit odd;
Case: 2250131227, Adjudicator: Graeme Wallington
"Appellant states the signage was only on the left side of the road, not on the right making it hard to read. The Appellant drives past the restriction sign which was on the same side of the road as her direction of travel."
Case: 2240498928, Adjudicator: Martin Hoare
"establish that it was driven in this adequately signed pedestrian zone" ??? it's a bus gate not a pedestrian zone - perhaps incorrectly filed.
Case: 2250210174, Adjudicator: Andrew Harman
"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."
Case: 2240537349, Adjudicator: Edward Houghton
"The Appellant’s case is essentially that the signage indicating the restriction was inadequate. In the light of the CCTV footage and the site photographs I am unable to agree. Although there is only a single sign, it is quite large and facing oncoming traffic. Some advance warning of the bus only restriction is given by the turn left sign mounted on the traffic lights at the preceding junction. Although the clarity of the signage would certainly be reinforced by carriageway markings the fact that signage could be improved (as it often can) does not necessarily render what is in place inadequate. As a result of what was an oversight on the Appellant’s part the vehicle was in contravention, and it cannot be said the PCN was issued anything other than lawfully." - oh dear!
Case: 2250062452, Adjudicator: Henry Michael Greenslade
"The sign, on each side of the carriageway, is that prescribed by Diagram 953 at Item 33 in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, being a permitted variant thereof, as indicating ‘route for use by local buses and pedal cycles’."
- but there is only one sign why does the adjudicator state "The sign, on each side of the carriageway,"
Case: 225010762A, Adjudicator: Michael Burke
"The Appellant...criticises the quality of the signage... The Enforcement Authority have provided photographs of the signage relied upon, including advanced warning signage which is additional to legal requirements." - there is no 'advanced warning' sign for the bus gate, just the turn left arrow on the traffic light.
Case: 2250082788, Adjudicator: Kevin Moore
(Vehicle was on hire and the appeal seems to be about passing th fine onto the hirer)
"Regarding the contravention itself, I am satisfied that there is reliable evidence showing that the driver used a route restricted to certain vehicles, namely local buses and pedal cycles during restricted hours of 8am-7pm. There are no valid grounds to allow the appeal."
Case: 2250133299, Adjudicator: Edward Houghton
"The CCTV footage shows the vehicle passing a round blue sign indicating a route restricted to buses; and the site photographs show there is a preceding sign on the traffic lights directing vehicles to turn left. The vehicle was in contravention by passing the sign and the PCN waslawfully issued."
- not clear which 'sign' the adjudicator is referring to.
Allowed appeals;
Case: 2240583109, Adjudicator: Sean Stanton-Dunne
"I have looked at the CCTV footage and the still images from the Council. These 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 and next to a pedestrian crossing area."
Case: 2250057339, Adjudicator: Sean Stanton-Dunne
"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."
Case: 2250121019, Adjudicator: Sean Stanton-Dunne
"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."
Not looking good unless Sean Stanton-Dunne is assigned to your appeal... :'(
Looking through other appeals for the other 3 bus gates on TCR - not looking good;
There is another bus gate with a single sign while 2 have dual signs.
There is a refused appeal where the adjudicator stated the road markings 'All traffic routes' (with a right arrow) is sufficient instead of a second sign.
How are Camden getting away with it?
Interestingly, the bus gate at Great Russell Street used to have what looks like a timed 'No Entry' sign (closes when not applicable) very prominent - GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/jTd1cHPEEpBVrrUo7
-
Did you get an acknowledgment to your representation?
Thanks for your reply.
Yes, an online 'Submission successful' screen (screenshot taken) and an email.
-
Did you get an acknowledgment to your representation?
-
Still no reply to my challenge submitted on 10 June 2025 BUT I checked it on the Camden website and the 'outstanding' is now showing as £160 (previously £80);
(https://i.ibb.co/3yJsHDZF/increase.jpg) (https://ibb.co/3yJsHDZF)
What should I do now?
-
Case Details
Case reference 2250121019
Appellant Michael Curland
Authority London Borough of Camden
Excellent find 👍
I have another appointment tomorrow and will have a good look for these claimed 'advance warning signs of the restricted route'. 🛑
Will also take pictures of my route/visibility if required at a later date.
-
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.
-
I was puzzled to receive this PCN but on reviewing the video I can see that from my riding position on my motorbike, I was unsighted by the van in front of me from seeing the only sign about a restriction on vehicles of a certain type at this location.
Good point 🏍️ - now submitted and I will update once I hear back.
As always all your input greatly appreciated.
-
I was puzzled to receive this PCN but on reviewing the video I can see that from my riding position on my motorbike, I was unsighted by the van in front of me from seeing the only sign about a restriction on vehicles of a certain type at this location.
-
I would go for it at London Tribunals, as the cited cases are very recent and Camden, (as usual) has done absolutely sweet-FA (nothing) to improve the signage. Why should they when this location is a nice little earner for them.
Thank you.
I just got it.....
OK Thank you.
Amended;
"Dear Sir/Madam,
I was puzzled to receive this PCN but on reviewing the video I can see that I was unsighted by the van in front of me from seeing the only sign about a restriction on vehicles of a certain type at this location.
I was returning from a hospital appointment and have not ridden in the area for over 10 years when Tottenham Court Road was a one-way street.
I don't feel the signage is adequate and trust Camden will agree and cancel the PCN on this occasion.
Thank you for your time and consideration."
-
I just got it...
Keep it simple - you were puzzled to get the PCN but on reviewing the video see you were unsighted by the van from seeing the only sign.
You don't feel the signage is adequate and trust Camden will agree and cancel the PCN on this occasion.
Bear in mind the contravention is nothing to do with the direction arrows but with the timed bus/cycle gate.
I wouldn't bother citing other cases or saying much more. You can say something about a hospital appointment.
(https://i.ibb.co/JwZz5HWW/cam2-ezgif-com-video-to-gif-converter.gif)
-
I would go for it at London Tribunals, as the cited cases are very recent and Camden, (as usual) has done absolutely sweet-FA (nothing) to improve the signage. Why should they when this location is a nice little earner for them.
-
Post the video.
Sorry I don't know how and can't find a guide - I PM'd you the link/details. Worked it out;
https://vimeo.com/1092266741
So at about 1.5 seconds I appear at the rear corner of the van and I'm checking the two 'circular side plates' (obscured in the video) on the traffic light on the right hand side of the road and concluded they're nothing and didn't see any other sign, so continued straight ahead.
-
Post the video.
-
Anyone? I've got 2 hours to submit :'(
I may well be prepared to go all the way to tribunal - so anything in my draft I should omit or include?
Are my grounds 'There was no contravention of a prescribed order; or failure to comply with an indication; or contravention of the lorry ban order.'?
-
I have drafted the following - your feedback much appreciated;
Dear Sir/Madam,
This is my representation to PCN: X
On 21 May 2025 as it was a nice day, I decided to scoot to my UCLH appointment. After my appointment I set off navigating the one way streets between Gower Street and Tottenham Court Road. I found myself in Torrington Place behind a transit van waiting at the red traffic light.
When the traffic light turned green, I turned right into Tottenham Court Road following the transit van positioned at its offside rear - my usual position for riding in traffic ready to filter. Shortly after completing the turn, the van's left turn indicator came on, but ahead I could see the traffic light on the right hand side of the road, was red and I decided there is no point to filter past.
When the traffic light turned green I moved off behind the rear offside corner of the van. As the van began its left turn manoeuvre into Howland Road, my attention was drawn to the two circular side plates on the traffic light on the right hand side of the road I previously looked at (Picture 1). I thought I could see some blue in the top one like it was a mandatory instruction (arrow) – but as I got closer, concluded it must be covered up rather than faded and there is no mandatory instruction/instruction in force, so I continued straight ahead.
I did not knowingly contravene the restriction on particular types of vehicle, but I just did not see any signs relating to it due to;
1. My road position behind the transit van limiting my vision to the left.
2. I was focussing on the traffic light on the right hand side of the road where there is no restriction sign.
This concern of inadequate signage has already been upheld in a two tribunal cases;
Case Reference 2240583109, decided by Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne on 25 March 2025. In that decision, the adjudicator ruled that the signage was inadequate and stated:
"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... I am allowing the appeal because I agree with Mr Khan that the signage is not adequate for the restricted route."
Case Reference 2240129273, decided by Adjudicator Cordelia Fantinic on 22 April 202. In that decision, the adjudicator also concluded the signage was inadequate and stated:
“I was not able to satisfy myself on the evidence before me, that the restriction was clearly and adequately signposted”
Specifically referring to a lack of signage on the right hand side of the road;
“There does not appear to be any sign on the right hand side of the road, which although not a requirement, is often installed in busy streets to assist with visibility.”
This was not a case of deliberate contravention but an unavoidable and honest mistake. The last time I rode on Tottenham Court Road was 12-15 years ago when it was still a one-way road. I hope Camden Council will take these factors — including the precedent set in the aforementioned cases into account when reviewing my representation.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
PICTURE 1
(https://i.ibb.co/QjFYrrYq/traffic-light-cover.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QjFYrrYq)
-
I noted one of those successful appeals here in the second of the two in this thread. Suggest you go on inadequate signage citing the cases - is the other one similar.
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/
Thank you for your reply.
The other one doesn't mention the actual location at all so cannot be 100% but from the reason it sounds like it;
"said that he did not knowingly contravene the restriction, as he did not see the relevant signs."
and
"There does not appear to be any sign on the right hand side of the road, which although not a requirement, is often installed in busy streets to assist with visibility."
and
"and the traffic light, which is positioned on the junction before the sign is far more eye catching."
and
"The blue carriageway for the cycle lane also draws the motorists attention"
It sounds like the junction with Howland street and similar situation to myself where I was at the rear of the van turning left looking at the traffic light on the right where there are no signs about the bus gate.
For my representation shall I go into detail with pics (I could revisit the scene in the morning) or just a description and cite the cases?
Thanks,
Mark
-
I noted one of those successful appeals here in the second of the two in this thread. Suggest you go on inadequate signage citing the cases - is the other one similar.
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/
-
Hello,
I've left this PCN a bit late due and I have to submit my representation tomorrow and your expert help would be much appreciated.
On 21 May 2025 as it was a nice day I decided to scoot to my hospital appointment off Tottenham Court Road W1.
From previous trips by bus I knew it had been made into a two way road but last time I rode along it it was still one way (10-15 years ago).
After my appointment I turned right into Tottenham Court Road from Torrington Place and I was behind a transit van positioned on it's offside rear - my usual position for city traffic riding as I filter a lot. After the turn, the van's left indicator came on, but ahead I could see the traffic light on the right was red and I decided no point to filter past.
When the light turned green we moved off and as the van began its left turn, my attention was drawn to the two circular side plates (where you would normally see prohibition plates) on the traffic light - I thought I could see some blue in the top one like a mandatory instruction (arrow) - but I concluded it must be covered up rather than faded and I continued straight ahead. Google streetview; (https://maps.app.goo.gl/tRsQrg5pwRR59qFY9)
(https://i.ibb.co/QjFYrrYq/traffic-light-cover.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QjFYrrYq)
The PCN issue date is 27 MAY 2025 and was received on 2 JUN 2025 - My representation deadline is tomorrow 10 JUN 2025 I believe(?).
PCN;
Page 1
(https://i.ibb.co/s9jH8YZ8/TCR-PCN-1-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/s9jH8YZ8)
Page 2
(https://i.ibb.co/J0fkP2P/TCR-PCN-2-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/J0fkP2P)
Please PM if you would like to see the video but it only starts at the point the van is already turning into Howland Street - doesn't show where I was waiting behind it when the light was red.
A friend works in the area kindly sent me a picture of the Tottenham Court Road/Howland Street junction from the pavement.
You can see the two traffic lights at that junction have different, confusing/conflicting information on them - due to my riding position behind the van, I was only looking at the traffic light ahead on the right in clear view.
The one nearest the junction shows a blue left turn arrow and a 'bus gate' type sign.
But the other one on the right just has the two white inserts/covers;
(https://i.ibb.co/LXtHfhdd/Junction-lights.jpg) (https://ibb.co/LXtHfhdd)
Would I be correct in thinking that outside of the restricted bus gate hours, every vehicle driving past this traffic light is committing a 'failing to drive in the direction shown by an arrow on a blue sign' offense - unless that blue left turn arrow turns off or covers up?
I would appreciate your help if you could check the PCN is correct and ok and the best way for me to appeal this.
I've seen there are possibly two upheld adjudicator cases for this junction; 2240583109 & 2240129273 sounds like this junction aswell.
Thanks,
Mark