Vine Street: clear signs were proved and no order exemption applied (2026)

Case 225008873A / 2025-05-01 / Adjudicator Philippa Alderson

Vine Street

“I have considered whether any exemption contained in the relevant Order can be relied upon in this case, but find that there are none which are applicable.”

Philippa Alderson

The motorist disputed the clarity of the road markings, referred to poor weather and access to a destination, and questioned whether the camera was working correctly. Hillingdon relied on the recording, photographs, mapping, the PCN, legislation and correspondence.

Philippa Alderson found the recording clear and was satisfied that the camera was functioning. It showed the vehicle passing unambiguous buses-and-cycles-only signs, with a supporting carriageway marking. She also accepted the photographic evidence of advance warning. The appeal was refused on 1 May 2025.

The adjudicator separately considered exemptions in the relevant order and found none applicable. The circumstances described amounted to mitigation, which did not provide a basis for allowing the tribunal appeal. Destination access did not itself establish permission to use the route.

This decision contrasts with the two allowed Vine Street cases: here, the evidence did establish clear signs. A useful challenge must address the actual images and a specific permission or defect. Another driver's allowed appeal at the same street does not displace sufficient evidence in a different case.

Source and case reference

Use case reference 225008873A 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.