Bath Road: a satnav explanation did not answer the recorded no-entry breach (2026)

Case 2250252571 / 2025-10-31 / Adjudicator Carl Teper

Bath Road

“Satellite navigation errors are not a defence to this or any moving traffic contravention.”

Carl Teper

Hillingdon alleged that the vehicle passed a no-entry sign in Bath Road. The driver did not deny the entry and explained that an unfamiliar route, reliance on satnav and an urgent vehicle problem had led to the wrong turn. Those were the driver's explanations, not findings that the restriction was unclear or an exception applied.

Carl Teper found that the CCTV confirmed passage beyond the sign. He accepted that the sign complied with TSRGD 2016 and adequately communicated the prohibition. Although the reasons mention reflectorised material, this decision does not establish that direct lighting is never required at a no-entry sign.

The appeal was refused on 31 October 2025. The adjudicator treated the matters raised as mitigation and found no defence or exemption. He explained that he could not cancel solely for mitigating circumstances.

For another Hillingdon Code 51 PCN, distinguish a navigation mistake from evidence that the sign could not adequately be seen before entry. A sign dispute needs the actual approach view and recording. A request for discretion should explain the circumstances to Hillingdon without presenting them as an established permission to enter.

Source and case reference

Use case reference 2250252571 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.