Zone entry signs did not resolve misleading conditions at the parking position (2026)
Case 2250289629 / 2025-09-09 / Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Deptford High Street
Sean Stanton-Dunne accepted that the restricted-zone entrances were signed but found the overall information inadequate where the vehicle stood. The apparent parking strip and distant repeater sign mattered together.
“I am not satisfied on balance that the signage was adequate.”
Sean Stanton-Dunne, case 2250289629
The allegation concerned waiting and loading restrictions in a restricted parking zone. The adjudicator accepted the authority's evidence that the junction entry points were correctly signed. The dispute concerned what the driver encountered at the actual parking position.
The driver's representative described a repeater sign approximately 203 feet away, with a junction between it and the vehicle. The authority did not dispute that distance. Signs were visible on the opposite side, while the vehicle stood on a tiled strip differentiated from the walkway and resembling a parking place.
Sean Stanton-Dunne considered those features together and was not satisfied that the restriction was adequately conveyed. The appeal did not succeed simply because there were no yellow lines or because every vehicle must have a sign immediately beside it.
Comparable evidence should connect the parking position, zone entry, intervening junction and repeater signs. Show why the overall street scene was misleading rather than relying on one cropped image of an absent or distant sign.
Source and case reference
Search for 2250289629 in the London Tribunals register to read the decision. This case explains how the adjudicator assessed its evidence; another appeal depends on its own facts and applicable restriction.
Find the official decision