I received 3 similar PCNs and successfully appealed Interestingly when I appealed to Camden, the appeals were processed by 3 different staff and one allowed my appeal and 2 rejected my appeals. I escalated to PATAS who allowed my appeals due to inadequate signage for the restriction The adjudicator decided that: "With regard to the signage however I refer to the Traffic Signs Manual 2008. Paragraph 15-7 which illustrates the signage recommended for a contra-flow bus lane. Diagram 960 signs should be positioned at the entrance to the lane 'located at the beginning of the road and after every junction'. The diagram 15-7 indicates 2 signs, one on the left hand side and the other on the central refuge. It is difficult to distinguish between diagram 15-7 and the design of the junction in this case. There is a Diagram 960 sign on the left hand side but that is some distance beyond the entrance to the road. Although compliance with the Signs Manual is not compulsory it is made clear (paragraph 1.1) that failure may lead to enforcement difficulties. I am satisfied in this case that the signage referred to above is not adequate and in those circumstances this Penalty Charge Notice was not properly issued. These appeals are therefore allowed without further consideration of the points made by the Appellant in relation to the Traffic Management Order." I also contested that as local buses could not lawfully travel eastbound in the lane it could not constitute using a route restricted to certain vehicles (local buses only). As the adjudicator allowed the appeal on the matter of signage he did not go on to consider the route point! Finally, I also established that Camden did not have a valid certification for the camera location