Angel Lane: the restriction sign came too late to avoid entry safely (2026)

Case 225029773A / 2025-11-19 / Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne

Angel Lane

“Signage must be displayed so that it can be clearly seen in time for the driver to safely take evasive action and I am not satisfied that such is the case at this location.”

Sean Stanton-Dunne

The appeal disputed the signs for Angel Lane's goods-vehicle weight restriction. The prohibition sign stood beside speed and one-way signs beyond the junction entrance. Detailed submissions challenged whether it could be seen before a driver committed to the road.

Sean Stanton-Dunne noted that Hillingdon had not answered those submissions and that there was no evidence of advance warning. The sign's position carried a real risk of being noticed only after entry. The footage also showed a road too narrow for a prohibited vehicle to turn around safely. The appeal was allowed on 19 November 2025 because the signage was not shown to give adequate time for safe evasive action.

An approach photograph and the last available alternative route matter more than a close-up of the sign alone. This decision does not establish that all Angel Lane PCNs are invalid or that every restriction legally requires an advance sign. Compare the actual approach, sign position and evidence for your journey.

Source and case reference

Use case reference 225029773A 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.