The appellant entered a specific location where it was restricted to pedestrians and specific classes of vehicles.
The appellant raised two points within their appeal.
Appeal point 1: The appellant claimed the vehicle did not enter the restricted zone.
Appeal point 2: Inadequate signage.
WHY WAS IT ALLOWED?
Appeal point 1 was disregarded by the adjudicator. The CCTV footage that was reviewed clearly showed the vehicle entering the restricted zone.
However Appeal point 2 was the winning one.
The actual sign in question, was a folding in and out one. This enables the restriction to be hidden during times of the year when the restriction is not in force.
The photographs showed the right hand panel of the folding sign was not flush (in line) with the left hand panel. When the appellants vehicle was approaching the sign at an angle from the road, due to it not being flush, the restriction sign was obscured (blocked).
Based on this the adjudicator was not satisfied the signage was adequate to inform road users, particularly road users approaching the restriction from the road the appellants vehicle was approaching from.
Therefore the contravention could not be proved.