Bath Road: camera evidence showed clear signs on both sides of the entrance (2026)

Case 2250258465 / 2025-09-24 / Adjudicator Michael Burke

Bath Road

“I am satisfied the signage of restrictions was substantially compliant, clear and adequate.”

Michael Burke

The driver did not dispute passing the no-entry sign but described an unfamiliar and confusing road layout. Hillingdon relied on enforcement camera evidence. The supplied decision identifies the location as Bath Road, without establishing that every no-entry entrance on that road has the same arrangement.

Michael Burke found that the recording showed a no-entry sign on each side of the carriageway, reinforced by substantial islands. He concluded that the signs were substantially compliant, clear and adequate, and that the camera evidence showed the contravention.

The appeal was refused on 24 September 2025. The adjudicator found that the PCN had been properly issued and served and that no exemption had been established. He distinguished Hillingdon's discretion to cancel from the adjudicator's inability to allow an appeal solely on mitigation.

This was a finding about the evidence of that entrance, not a rule that two signs are always legally required. A different appeal should identify the particular obstruction, orientation or conflicting instruction visible on its own approach. Describing the layout as confusing, without evidence contradicting the council's recording, did not persuade the adjudicator here.

Source and case reference

Use case reference 2250258465 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.