DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 96927--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles; local
buses & cycles only - URGENT
DIR By: markie76
Date: November 5, 2025, 11:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
@Hippocrates
Rescheduled to: Friday 20 March 2026 - 3:30pm
Any good for you?
#Post#: 96965--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles; local
buses & cycles only - URGENT
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 5, 2025, 1:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes but we need to talk.
#Post#: 97685--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles; local
buses & cycles only - URGENT
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 11, 2025, 8:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
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
#Post#: 97717--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles; local
buses & cycles only - URGENT
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: November 11, 2025, 11:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 98940--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles; local
buses & cycles only - URGENT
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: November 20, 2025, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
#Post#: 117399--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles; local
buses & cycles only - URGENT
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: April 30, 2026, 6:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
;D 2250373179 The OP is a hero and did a brilliant
representation and preparation.
#Post#: 117403--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles; local
buses & cycles only - URGENT
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: April 30, 2026, 6:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Outcome
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/14V-3afGMJyALoqf0qDfOrnIImarxKmYJ/view.
#Post#: 117493--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles; local
buses & cycles only - URGENT
DIR By: markie76
Date: May 1, 2026, 4:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> ;D 2250373179 The OP is a hero and did a brilliant
representation and preparation.
>
--- End Quote ---
Steady... ;D
Well I hadn't (and still haven't) done anything wrong... :)
Thank you for all your help and please continue your excellent
work helping other
motorists...
HTML https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji106.png
#Post#: 117548--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles; local
buses & cycles only - URGENT
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 1, 2026, 3:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: markie76 link ---
>
> [quote author=Hippocrates link=topic=6732.msg117399#msg117399
date=1777547955]
> ;D 2250373179 The OP is a hero and did a brilliant
representation and preparation.
>
--- End Quote ---
Steady... ;D
Well I hadn't (and still haven't) done anything wrong... :)
Thank you for all your help and please continue your excellent
work helping other
motorists...
HTML https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji106.png
[/quote]
Your hard work should be a motivation for all the 99% who just
can't be derriered and pay up!
*****************************************************
Page 7 of 7
DIR Previous Page