The recording and signs established the temporary no-entry restriction (2026)

Case 2250438365 / 2025-12-31 / Adjudicator Lola Moses

Harrow Road / Oakington Manor Drive

“On the evidence, I am satisfied that the restriction was so indicated by the signs at the location and that the signage was adequate for a reasonably diligent motorist.”

Lola Moses

The Code 51J PCN concerned Harrow Road / Oakington Manor Drive. The motorist disputed the visibility of the no-entry sign in darkness and said the restriction was unexpected on a road previously used as a through route. Brent supplied CCTV and sign photographs and relied on its 2025 temporary prohibition of traffic and parking suspension order covering the works.

Lola Moses found that the vehicle had passed the no-entry sign into the restricted area. Article 4 prohibited entry into the identified areas during the works period. Article 5 made the restriction dependent on the times and extent indicated by traffic signs. The adjudicator accepted that the signs communicated that restriction adequately on the evidence before her.

The order contained exceptions including works vehicles, emergency services and specified bus or transport services. No evidence established that the vehicle qualified. The appeal was refused on 31 December 2025. The decision treated surprise and unfamiliarity as mitigation and explained that restoring a discounted payment opportunity was for the authority's discretion, not something the adjudicator could require.

This refusal does not prove that every sign arrangement at the junction was adequate. Case 2250440356 identified specific obscuration and conflicting instructions on its own evidence. Nor did this refusal establish a general rule that no-entry signs never need lighting: anyone raising a lighting defect must connect the actual sign, road conditions and applicable requirement, rather than relying only on the fact that it was dark.

Source and case reference

Use case reference 2250438365 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.