Vine Street: the site photographs did not explain the CCTV signs (2026)

Case 2250119618 / 2025-06-30 / Adjudicator Edward Houghton

Vine Street

“On the evidence I am unable to be satisfied that the prohibition relied on was correctly and clearly indicated and the Appeal is therefore allowed.”

Edward Houghton

The appeal concerned the clarity of the signs for a bus-only route at Vine Street. The CCTV showed an indistinct circular blue sign on one side of the carriageway, but its symbols and the wording on the plate beneath it could not be made out. A blue arrow appearing below it added an unexplained feature.

Hillingdon's site photographs did not resolve the problem. Edward Houghton found that they did not appear to show the signs visible in the recording and that the relationship between the photographed warning or zone signs and the CCTV location was unexplained. He allowed the appeal on 30 June 2025.

This was a failure to establish the particular signing through coherent evidence. The decision did not impose a universal requirement for two signs or hold that a particular plate was always required. Nor did it decide that warning signs alone could establish the restriction.

For a similar issue, compare the recording with each photograph and identify the sign, approach and location. Explain any mismatch rather than simply saying the images are unclear. A dated plan or matching photographs could answer the evidential problem that determined this appeal.

Source and case reference

Use case reference 2250119618 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.