Vine Street: the footage did not establish clear restriction signs (2026)

Case 2250190463 / 2025-08-15 / Adjudicator Andrew Harman

Vine Street

“I am not satisfied on this evidence that it was. This contravention has not therefore been proved.”

Andrew Harman

The motorist challenged a restricted-route PCN at Vine Street, arguing that sunlight affected the visibility of the signs and referring to Hillingdon's own recording. The issue was whether the evidence established adequate restriction signs for this passage.

Andrew Harman found that the regulatory signage could barely be seen in the footage. Hillingdon supplied photographs of advance-warning signs, but relied on the recording and stills from it to establish the clarity of the regulatory signs. On 15 August 2025, he allowed the appeal because that evidence did not prove the contravention.

The adjudicator did not make a general finding that sunlight invalidates a PCN, or that every sign at Vine Street is inadequate. The decisive point was the evidence Hillingdon had chosen to rely on for the restriction itself.

A comparable representation should identify the sign in the recording and explain what cannot be established from it. Photographs of advance warnings should not be confused with proof of the regulatory sign facing the actual approach. A clearer evidence pack may support a different result.

Source and case reference

Use case reference 2250190463 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.