Even the Met Police Can't Turn Right: What a Prohibited Turn Appeal Teaches Every Driver

Imagine you are following someone and the road ahead forces a choice: break off, or make a turn the signs say you cannot make. For one Metropolitan Police officer on surveillance duty, that choice ended in a penalty charge notice (PCN) in Kingston upon Thames. When the Met appealed, the tribunal refused.

It would be easy to read this as a quirky story about the police being fined. It is more useful than that. The case shows a distinction that catches out ordinary drivers all the time: the difference between an exemption and mitigation. Understanding it can save you wasted effort when you decide how to challenge a ticket.

This article is general commentary on a published tribunal decision. It is not legal advice.

The case: who, what and where

The appeal was brought by the Metropolitan Police as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, as the enforcement authority, had issued a PCN for "failing to comply with a prohibited turn sign". In plain terms, a sign told drivers they could not turn in a particular direction, and the vehicle did so anyway.

What makes the case unusual is that there was no dispute about the basic facts. The Met did not claim the sign was missing, hidden or confusing. They did not say the vehicle had been mistaken for another or that the turn never happened. They accepted that their officer made the prohibited right turn.

The arguments

The Met's case

The Met's explanation was operational. The officer was on surveillance duty and needed to turn right to keep following the subject of the surveillance. Seen from the driver's seat, the argument has some human appeal. If you are doing a legitimate job and the alternative is to lose the person you are following, the turn looks necessary.

The council's case

Kingston did not argue with that account. According to the adjudicator, the council did not challenge the Met's version of events. Their position was much simpler: there is no exemption for this situation. The sign applied, the turn was made, and nothing in the rules excused it.

So the tribunal was not asked to decide who was telling the truth. It was asked a narrower question: even if everything the Met says is true, does the law allow the PCN to be cancelled?

The decision

The adjudicator refused the appeal. The reasoning was brief:

• The Met's account amounted "only to mitigation".
• The council may cancel a PCN as a matter of its own discretion.
• Adjudicators have no power to direct cancellation because of mitigating circumstances.
• Having considered the evidence, the adjudicator was satisfied that the contravention occurred, that the PCN was properly issued and served, and that no exemption applied.

The penalty therefore stood.

The legal reasoning in plain English

Two different questions

Parking and traffic tribunals work in two stages of thinking.

Stage one: did the legal contravention happen, and was the process followed correctly? This is the tribunal's territory. Adjudicators look at things such as whether the contravention occurred, whether the signs and markings were adequate, whether the PCN was issued and served properly, and whether the penalty amount was right. If the council cannot prove the contravention, or got the paperwork wrong, the appeal can succeed.

Stage two: even if the ticket is valid, should the council be merciful? This is a matter for the council's own judgement, and the tribunal's role here is limited. The adjudicator in this case said so directly.

The Met's argument sat entirely in stage two. It explained why the officer did what he did. It did not say the contravention had not occurred.

Exemption versus mitigation

This is the heart of the case.

• An exemption is a legal reason the restriction does not apply to you. Examples might include a restriction that applies only to certain vehicle types, or a traffic order that specifically carves out particular users. If an exemption applies, there is no contravention at all.
• Mitigation is a reason why you should be let off even though the restriction did apply. It is about circumstances, motives and fairness. Examples include an emergency, a medical problem, a breakdown, a bad day or, as here, a work assignment.

Mitigation can be genuinely sympathetic and still be legally irrelevant at the tribunal. The adjudicator accepted that the Met's explanation was not challenged, and it still could not carry the appeal. The council was under no legal obligation to accept it either.

Why status didn't change the outcome

You might expect a police appellant to receive special treatment. The decision shows the opposite: the tribunal applied the same test it would apply to anyone. The question was whether a recognised exemption applied to this turn, and the adjudicator found none did.

It is worth being careful about what the case does and does not say. It does not say the police are never exempt from traffic restrictions, because some traffic orders contain specific exceptions. Those depend on the exact wording of the order in question. The decision simply records that, on the facts and the evidence put forward, the adjudicator was not satisfied that any exemption applied. For a broader look at how exemptions for emergency services work in principle, see our explainer on UK emergency vehicle exemptions.

The role of council discretion

The adjudicator's reference to the council's discretion is easy to skim past, but it matters. Councils are not obliged to cancel a ticket even when a driver has a sympathetic story, and equally they are allowed to cancel one. Many councils have policies for exercising that discretion, and the stages at which they will consider it, such as informal challenges and formal representations, are worth knowing about. In some tribunal decisions adjudicators go further and ask the council to look again at a case, but they cannot order it to cancel on mitigation grounds alone.

For more on how that stage works, our guide to formal representations for PCNs is a useful companion.

Lessons for drivers

1. Know which type of argument you are making

Before you appeal, ask yourself honestly: am I saying the contravention did not happen or the process was flawed, or am I saying it did happen but I had a good reason? The first can win at tribunal. The second is mitigation, and its natural home is a polite approach to the council, which holds the discretion. Mixing the two up can waste time.

2. Admitting the facts narrows your options

The Met accepted the turn was made. That was probably realistic, but it also removed any chance of a factual defence. Drivers considering an appeal should think about whether there is a genuine argument about signage, the traffic order, or procedure before they concede the basics. It is not about being evasive. It is about being clear on what your real grounds are. Our overview of prohibited turn penalties explains what these signs mean and what may be worth checking.

3. A good reason is not the same as a legal defence

"I had to" and "I was allowed to" are different statements. Urgency, work pressure, an unfamiliar road, a satnav instruction or being in the wrong lane can all explain a turn. None of them, on their own, amounts to an exemption. This theme runs through many decisions on turn bans, and our guide to PCN code 36 and no left turn violations covers related ground.

4. Use the stages of the process properly

Councils generally have more room for discretion at the earlier stages of the PCN process. Mitigation is usually best raised early, clearly and with supporting evidence, rather than saved for a tribunal that cannot act on it. If you are unsure what the stages are, our guide to informal PCN appeals is a good starting point.

5. Where the stakes are real, get proper advice

For a single PCN, the sums are usually modest. But if you are a business, a fleet operator or someone facing repeated notices, it can be worth seeking professional advice or consulting the official tribunal guidance. The tribunal's own published materials explain the grounds of appeal and what adjudicators can and cannot do.

The bigger picture: fairness versus rules

Some readers will feel the outcome is harsh. If the Met's account is accurate, the officer was doing a legitimate job. Others will say the rule is the rule: a prohibited turn sign exists for a reason, such as protecting a junction, and a tribunal cannot start creating informal exceptions every time someone has a sensible-sounding purpose.

The decision reflects a system that deliberately separates legal liability from compassion. The tribunal decides whether the council has proved its case and followed the rules. The council, using its own judgement, decides whether to show leniency. Each does a different job.

That is also why the decision says so little about the merits of surveillance work. It was not a verdict on the officer's judgement. It was a finding that the contravention occurred, the PCN was properly issued and served, and no exemption applied.

Key takeaway

A good reason is not a legal defence. If the restriction applied and no exemption covers you, the tribunal cannot cancel the PCN because your circumstances were sympathetic. Mitigation is for the council to weigh, so work out early whether you have a real legal ground of appeal or a plea for mercy, and put each in front of the right decision-maker.