Sidmouth Drive: the delivery claim did not identify qualifying premises (2026)

Case 2250265609 / 2025-09-30 / Adjudicator Herjinder Mann

Sidmouth Drive

“they have failed to provide the full address of the premises that they were delivering to”

Herjinder Mann

The appellant said the vehicle was delivering building materials to Sidmouth Drive and argued that disclosing third-party information was not possible. Hillingdon supplied CCTV of entry and relied on the restriction signs.

Herjinder Mann found that the CCTV and clear entrance signs established the contravention. The claimed delivery did not establish a ground because its full address was missing, preventing a check that the premises fell within the restricted section. The appeal was refused on 30 September 2025.

A delivery somewhere on the same named road does not necessarily qualify for access to its restricted section. Identify the actual destination and relevant delivery record when submitting evidence to the council or tribunal. This decision did not find that every delivery is prohibited; it explains why this unsupported destination could not establish the claimed ground.

Source and case reference

Use case reference 2250265609 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.