DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 75484--------------------------------------------------
PCN Camden - using a route restricted to certain vehicles local
buses and cycles only
DIR By: bigred247
Date: June 9, 2025, 4:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
HTML https://i.imgur.com/7SBZU6A.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/wqYyaBL.png
#Post#: 75487--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Camden - using a route restricted to certain vehicles
local buses and cycles only
DIR By: bigred247
Date: June 9, 2025, 4:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
some additional images
HTML https://i.imgur.com/tnvrFNO.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/DflUPBn.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/hn1ac2E.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/iXo1IG4.png
#Post#: 75603--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Camden - using a route restricted to certain vehicles
local buses and cycles only
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: June 9, 2025, 2:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
See this thread:
HTML 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:
HTML 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/
#Post#: 75727--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Camden - using a route restricted to certain vehicles
local buses and cycles only
DIR By: bigred247
Date: June 10, 2025, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=2249]stamfordman[/member]
Thanks for sharing the links. I'll take a look.
#Post#: 75802--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Camden - using a route restricted to certain vehicles
local buses and cycles only
DIR By: bigred247
Date: June 10, 2025, 9:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have drafted an appeal but would greatly appreciate any
feedback. I read the notes in the links
[member=2249]stamfordman[/member] posted on recent/pending
cases.
--- Quote ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 75816--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Camden - using a route restricted to certain vehicles
local buses and cycles only
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: June 10, 2025, 10:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/TxRtbJMG/camd-ezgif-com-video-to-gif-converter-1.gif
#Post#: 75825--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Camden - using a route restricted to certain vehicles
local buses and cycles only
DIR By: bigred247
Date: June 10, 2025, 10:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the feedback. I'll draft an updated version
shortly.
#Post#: 76061--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Camden - using a route restricted to certain vehicles
local buses and cycles only
DIR By: bigred247
Date: June 11, 2025, 12:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
@stamfordman any thoughts on this updated version?
--- Quote ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 76147--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Camden - using a route restricted to certain vehicles
local buses and cycles only
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: June 12, 2025, 3:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Case Details
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Howland Street
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
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.
#Post#: 76230--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Camden - using a route restricted to certain vehicles
local buses and cycles only
DIR By: bigred247
Date: June 12, 2025, 10:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=2249]stamfordman[/member] thanks for the new case
details.
I have updated the template to reference the latest case.
--- Quote ---
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page