The elevated camera view did not establish a conspicuous sign from the driver's position (2026)

Case 2250488487 / 2025-10-20 / Adjudicator Martin Hoare

Salter's Hill

“The signage was not adequate in these particular circumstances.”

Martin Hoare

The PCN concerned the priority narrowing at Salter's Hill. The motorist said they were sixth in a moving queue and that two large vehicles obstructed their view. The authority's video showed the vehicle proceeding and the priority signage ahead.

Martin Hoare distinguished the elevated view of the enforcement camera from the view available inside the vehicle. He found that the high-sided vehicles concealed the signage and that opposing traffic was not visible until after the vehicle crossed the transverse line. The appeal was allowed on 20 October 2025 because the signage was inadequate in these particular circumstances.

This was not a general exemption for following a queue. The decisive finding concerned what the driver could see of the instruction, not a right to assume that every vehicle ahead had correctly given way. The companion refused decision, 2250424214, shows that an obstructed view of traffic can instead be a reason to wait.

A representation relying on visibility should identify the vehicle that obstructed the sign, its position and the relevant seconds of footage. Explain how the driver's eye-level view differed from the camera view, supported by approach evidence where available. Do not treat the camera's height alone as proof that the sign was hidden.

Source and case reference

Use case reference 2250488487 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.