DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 121037--------------------------------------------------
Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: Europlus
Date: June 7, 2026, 4:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good evening all,
I've tried a search for similar cases but can't find a similar
case.
I've just received a postal PCN, dated 03/06/2026, for an
alleged contravention on 07/03/2026. There are tiny photos on
the PCN, but when looking at the online pictures I can't see any
signs that prevent the manoeuvre at the junction (the name of
which isn't actually referenced in the PCN - it just says Maple
Street).
The circumstances are that the approach to the junction,
according to the evidence provided, has a one-way arrow at the
entrance to the crossroads. The car is seen driving in the
correct direction for the arrow but then turning left at the
junction into a two-way road. The determination that the
crossroads leads to a two-way road is based on the photos which
show a pedestrian warning painted on the road saying "Look Both
Ways" and what appears to be a cycle box with a solid line which
goes halfway across the road in the opposite direction.
I genuinely don't understand what the contravention is for, as
there are no additional signs saying no left turn and, having
had a look in the (online) Highway Code, the only references I
can find for a one-way sign suggests there are two distinct
types - The circular "Ahead Only" sign and the rectangular
"One-way Traffic" sign, and it is the rectangular one at this
junction.
I think I have reasonable grounds to make representations on
this, but wondered if I could please get some help with the
wording, so it doesn't get rejected for a poor argument?
Here are links to the PCN and a better image of the one-way sign
PCN -
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/jkIhgjB#UOqTm1E
One-way sign -
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/jkIhgjB#5PpCAQd
#Post#: 121051--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 7, 2026, 6:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We've seen this location before, and Camden, to their
everlasting shame, have failed to do anything to correct the
signage as indicated by the London Tribunals adjudicator
Have you looked at the London Tribunals Statutory Register ? The
last succesful case here, (2250671632) are your exact
circumstances: -
--- Quote ---
> Decision Date
> Adjudicator
> Appeal decision
> Direction
>
> Reasons
> The Penalty Charge Notice in this case was issued for the
contravention of failing to comply with a one-way restriction.
>
> The Authority has provided a copy of a set of regulations from
1964 which state that Maple Street is a one-way way street, and
traffic must only proceed in the direction south-west to
north-east.
>
> The video evidence shows that Mr Elahi turned left at the
junction.
>
> Firstly I find that this junction actually marks the end of
Maple Street. Vehicles continuing straight over the junction
will enter University Street, which as far as I know is not
covered by the 1964 Regulations. I also find that the
restriction contained in the 1964 regulations would not prevent
a driver turning left or right off Maple Street. The only
prohibition is on driving down Maple Street the wrong way,
north-east to south-west.
>
> I therefore find that Mr Elahi has not breached the one-way
restriction listed in the 1964 regulations, because when he
entered the junction, he was exiting Maple Street with its one
way restriction.
>
> It seems clear that the Authority actually intended to issue a
penalty charge notice for a contravention of failing to comply
with a directional arrow sign. If there is a prohibition on
turning left or right at this junction, I have not seen a copy
of the Traffic Management Order which brings the restriction
into force.
>
> Assuming that such an Order does exist, the question would
still remain as to whether the restriction has been adequately
signed.
>
> The Authority points out that there are in fact two signs at
the junction. There is small round blue circle with a straight
ahead arrow mounted on the traffic light head, and a rectangular
sign mounted just before the junction indicating a one-way
street.
>
> I find that these two signs have different meanings. The small
round sign is a sign 606, which according to the Traffic Signs
Manual Chapter 3 should be used where an authority wishes to
indicate that vehicles can only proceed in one direction through
a junction. However, the rectangular sign mounted on the pole at
the junction is a sign 652, indicating a one-way street. Drivers
proceeding down a one-way street are not prohibited from turning
left or right off the street.
>
> Since I find that the two signs mounted at the junction have
different meanings, I find that any restriction which might
exist at this junction (assuming a valid traffic management
order exists bringing it into effect) has not been adequately
signed, as the combination of the two signs creates an ambiguous
impression.
>
> In those circumstances, I find that no contravention occurred,
and I allow this appeal.
--- End Quote ---
Also see 2250470539
The main point to make is that you have a good case, but like
all London councils, Camden will refuse your reps. They game the
system like this because they know that after a refusal, and a
re-offer of the discount, well over 95% of people just cough-up.
Revenues from penalties are now well over £600 million per year
in London, and probably £700 million by now. Hardly conducive to
councils applying unbiased rulings on representations !
The inevitable refusal, means that you would have to stand your
ground and take them to London Tribunals where you'd get an
ubiased decision, but must risk the full PCN penalty.
#Post#: 121070--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: Europlus
Date: June 8, 2026, 4:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much for recognising the similarity between these
cases!
I will submit representations (after sharing the draft here for
approval) and would be willing to stand my ground at tribunal.
In addition to the representations, which may be processed by a
team that are instructed, or encouraged, to reject in the hope
of a submission, is there any value in also writing to the
leader of the council to make them aware of the previous
decisions and likelihood that they would lose at a hearing? Are
there any consequences for the council if they pursue a claim
that has previously been overturned?
I note the income this generates, especially if a lot of the
process is simply automated and of little cost to the councils,
but it's so frustrating - because the car is leased, I also get
an invoice from the leasing company, though they will refund if/
when the penalty is overturned.
#Post#: 121088--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: Europlus
Date: June 8, 2026, 5:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I will complete the online representations form but found this
template where I have drafted the content I would submit, and
potentially send this or something very similar to the Leader of
Camden council... I would also be intrigued to know how many
tickets have been issued on Maple St for this same, erroneously
alleged contravention and how much that has raised, both in
total and since the council have clearly been told they should
be doing this.
08/06/2026
Camden Council
Dear Sir or Madam,
PCN number: [insert reference number beginning with the letter
prefix of the authority]
Vehicle registration number: HX23XWB
I am writing to make formal representations regarding the PCN
above. This letter is in addition to my completed
representations form, which has been submitted online. I am
making representations due to the following reasons:
•
procedures for the 'Traffic Regulation Order' as the Penalty
Charge Notice in this case was issued for the contravention of
failing to comply with a one-way restriction. The video and
photographic evidence, submitted by the council, clearly shows
that my vehicle had not breached the one-way restriction listed
in the 1964 regulations, because the vehicle is not shown to
travel in the opposite direction to the arrow, that is to say
the wrong way in a one-way street.
•
submission is that prescribed by Diagram 652 at Item 5 in Part 4
of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Directions 2016 as indicating one way traffic. It is not that
prescribed by Diagram 606 at Item 1 in Part 2 of Schedule 3, as
indicating ‘vehicular traffic must proceed in the direction
indicated by the arrow’. This circular sign is not shown in the
council’s evidence. The signs are different and both, and their
meanings, are illustrated in the current edition of the Official
Highway Code.
•
been two similar cases, dating from August and October 2025,
where the PCN has been appealed to the London Tribunal and both
appeals have been allowed and the PCN cancelled (References
2250671632 and 2250470539). The basis of these successful
appeals was that the restriction contained in the 1964
regulations would not prevent a driver turning left or right off
Maple Street. The only prohibition is on driving down Maple
Street the wrong way, north-east to south-west and making
findings of fact on the basis of the evidence actually produced
by the parties and applying relevant law.
Yours faithfully,
(I would attach the photos from the council’s CCTV but don’t
think there is any more I need to include?)
#Post#: 121114--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 8, 2026, 7:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please tell us what name and address is on the PCN.
If yours is a leased car and they hold the V5C Registration
Certificate, they receive the PCN, and you, as the lessee, have
no role in enforcement unless the lease company submit
representations naming you as the lessee on the contravention
date. The council then cancel the first PCN and issue a second
to the details supplied.
#Post#: 121118--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: Europlus
Date: June 8, 2026, 7:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good afternoon, and thank you
I can confirm my details are on the PCN and I suspect you are
correct that this is a second issue based on the leasing company
handing my details over.
As the council must have gone to DVLA to get the registered
owner details, of the leasing company, are they in breach of any
GDPR rules if they (should) know this is a flawed PCN? Surely,
if the tribunal have told them there is no breach for this kind
of alleged offence, they should stop the process of chasing with
a view to 'gaming' citizens and harvesting income that is not
enforceable?
#Post#: 121119--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 8, 2026, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, it is part of the legal process for transfer of liability
for a PCN, and quite normal. A lot of people with hire and lease
cars can never appeal a PCN at the adjudicators, because their
hir/lease company just cough-up and off-charge, with the usual
"kiss-up-the-ass" admin fee. You are lucky !
#Post#: 121129--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: Europlus
Date: June 8, 2026, 8:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Lucky, is exactly how I felt when I opened the envelope!
I do know what you mean though, and have had that before where a
hire company have paid for a ticket on private land and just
sent me an increased bill!
Do you have a view on my proposal for the representations? One
of the tribunal notes does say there may be a small circular
sign there too, but one of the appeals dismisses that as it
isn't shown in the evidence pics, and the other successful
appeal mentions it but says having both signs makes it
ambiguous. I don't refer to that in my reps, as it doesn't seem
relevant and may cast some doubt... but the reported/ alleged
offence is failing to adhere to a one-way sign, and I definitely
didn't do that, as their own footage shows
#Post#: 121131--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 8, 2026, 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would base your reps on the latest London Tribunals case that
I found as it matches your circumstances exactly.
#Post#: 121141--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: Europlus
Date: June 8, 2026, 9:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you,
That's what I've tried to do in an earlier post. Does that look
ok?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page