An angled one-way sign did not clearly identify the road entered (2026)

Case 2250372722 / 2025-11-20 / Adjudicator Chez Cotton

Rushbrook Crescent

“For these reasons I find a contravention did not occur and the PCN has not been validly issued.”

Chez Cotton

The PCN concerned Rushbrook Crescent. Waltham Forest relied on CCTV, sign photographs and a traffic management order. The motorist accepted being on the road but explained that they had turned left into it, stopped and later travelled back towards the point where they had entered.

Chez Cotton accepted that a valid order existed, but considered whether the signs adequately informed this approach. The mouth of the road was described as vase-shaped. Its angle and curve meant that the motorist would not see the far-side sign appearing in the footage. The authority's site photographs also focused on that sign rather than the sign on the left.

The motorist supplied two photographs of the near-side sign. On the balance of probabilities, the adjudicator found that its blue arrow was directed more towards the adjoining road than clearly towards Rushbrook Crescent. The appeal was allowed on 20 November 2025 because the signing was not substantially compliant, clear and adequate for the left-turn approach taken.

This decision distinguishes having signs from placing them so that they identify the relevant road. A photograph showing a sign face from an unrelated position would not answer the same issue. The successful point was approach-specific orientation and visibility, not permission to travel back because the driver had stopped, and not the absence of a valid traffic order.

Source and case reference

Use case reference 2250372722 in the London Tribunals register to find the official decision. This commentary distinguishes the adjudicator's finding from a possible argument in a different case; previous tribunal decisions do not bind another adjudicator.