Outdated photographs did not establish the signs on the driver's approach (2026)

Case 2250427416 / 2025-12-20 / Adjudicator Belinda Pearce

Bull Lane

“I am not, therefore, satisfied by the evidence in this Case; no contravention is proved.”

Belinda Pearce

The PCN concerned the restricted route at Bull Lane. Enfield provided CCTV, extracts from the traffic management order, a 2023 site plan and photographs, and further undated sign images. The motorist disputed the evidence and submitted supporting material.

Belinda Pearce found that the 2023 photographs did not match the signs visible in the contemporaneous footage. The recording showed the vehicle travelling towards the camera, but did not establish the restriction signs facing that approach. The undated photographs could not be correlated to the plan or recording. On 20 December 2025, the appeal was allowed because the contravention had not been proved.

The adjudicator also expressed concern that part of the representation had not been opened, but the decisive finding was the missing evidence of relevant signs. She did not need to decide the separate collateral argument. This was an assessment of that evidence pack, not a finding that every journey through Bull Lane was unenforceable.

For a comparable dispute, identify the approach, photograph dates and sign changes precisely. Show the difference between the signs the authority has documented and the signs relevant to the vehicle's journey. The companion refused example in this guide illustrates why a different, sufficient evidence pack can lead to a different result.

Source and case reference

Use case reference 2250427416 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.