An obscured first sign and a late second sign did not give adequate warning (2026)

Case 2250440356 / 2025-12-23 / Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne

Harrow Road / Oakington Manor Drive

“The signage and markings are, in my judgement, confusing to the motorist.”

Sean Stanton-Dunne

The PCN concerned Harrow Road / Oakington Manor Drive. Brent's site images showed a low-level mobile no-entry sign on the left and a higher sign further along the road. The motorist argued that the layout did not give a clear opportunity to avoid the restriction.

Sean Stanton-Dunne found that a mobile camera enforcement sign obscured the first no-entry sign on the approach. The second was on a bend, not visible on the approach, and set into the single carriageway after the point where the driver could escape. The authority said a right turn was available, but a large Road Closed sign on fencing gave the impression that the road to the right was closed. A blue arrow instead directed traffic left into the restricted route.

The appeal was allowed on 23 December 2025 because the combined signs and markings were confusing and the restriction was communicated too late. The decision was not based merely on there being roadworks or on the absence of a second sign: there were two no-entry signs, but neither resolved the approach problem identified in the evidence.

For a similar dispute, show what each sign communicated before the entry and where an alternative route was still available. A route plan and dated approach photographs are more useful than a close-up of one sign. Case 2250438365 concerned the same named junction but produced a refusal on its own evidence, so this decision should not be presented as blanket cancellation of all PCNs there.

Source and case reference

Use case reference 2250440356 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.