The CCTV ended before the driveway explanation could be tested (2026)

Case 2250194668 / 2025-08-18 / Adjudicator Carl Teper

Blake Hall Road

“Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Authority has proved this contravention.”

Carl Teper

Redbridge alleged that the vehicle was in the mandatory cycle lane on Blake Hall Road. At the representation stage, the motorist explained that they were accessing a driveway at a property under construction and had waited for another vehicle to leave before reversing in.

The appeal expanded on that account, saying the vehicle was in the process of manoeuvring rather than remaining parked in the lane. Carl Teper found that the CCTV ended at the precise moment the vehicle appeared to stop. Without more footage, he could not test the explanation and was not satisfied that the authority had proved the contravention. The appeal was allowed on 18 August 2025.

This was an evidential finding, not a ruling that waiting in every cycle lane for a driveway to clear is permitted. The reasons do not establish the eventual manoeuvre or declare a particular access exemption proved. The missing sequence prevented the authority's allegation being established on the evidence supplied.

For a comparable dispute, identify the access point and the seconds missing from the recording. Provide the complete movement, destination evidence and applicable exception rather than simply saying that the stay was brief. An explanation that could be checked against footage is stronger than an assumption about what an incomplete clip must show.

Source and case reference

Use case reference 2250194668 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.