DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 124150--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: Europlus
Date: July 9, 2026, 1:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Stamfordman,
It is ridiculous that they keep pursuing the same flawed PCNs,
in the hope that a) drivers will give up and pay or b) that they
happen to find an adjudicator who accepts their argument.
I have written back to Camden to ask for the case references for
the 19 appeals where they have won the case and sent on the
details you've shared so they can be used as evidence in my
appeal
#Post#: 124793--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: Europlus
Date: July 15, 2026, 9:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
FYI update:
I've heard back from the council and they have confirmed that
all 9,562 PCNs referenced in an earlier post all relate to the
same alleged contravention at the same junction. At £80 each
(could be less or more in many cases) that is over £750,000!!
They also provided an update on more cases that were taken to
appeal and won by the motorist - with another 17 not being
contested by the council (after putting the driver/ owner
through months of anguish):
PCN Outcome
CU7170588A No longer the owner
CU72179487 contravention that the EA submit occurred is not that
stated on the face of the PCN.
CU72350804 Car cloned
CU72514435 A contravention may well have occurred in this case,
but it was not that stated on the PCN
CU71786021 I do not find the contravention alleged on the face
of the Penalty Charge Notice did occur
CU72212775 The PCN was issued for the wrong alleged
contravention
CU72732334 The two signs at the junction have different meanings
- creates an ambiguous impression.
CU72846774 The signage is ambiguous and misleading. I therefore
find that no contravention occurred
On balance, it seems the adjudicators agree that the signs are
misleading and, in any event the alleged One-way contravention
on the PCN is wrong.
#Post#: 124852--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 15, 2026, 3:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The simple answer is their website which contains many wrong
grounds. If you want my assistance, PM me please.
This not a DIY appeal as there are various issues involved:
signage; hire agreement and all necessary factors of proof; plus
their website.
#Post#: 124853--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 15, 2026, 3:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Europlus link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
I actually observed the first case hearing. And this one whilst
shaking my head in disbelief to what I was witnessing:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ry7VsGfOXbGHvryjTS7alIYDxQLDZo70/view
#Post#: 124855--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 15, 2026, 4:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The PCN was issued under the LLA&TFL Act 2003 which provides:
4)The grounds referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above [regarding
representations] are—
...........
(d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—
(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from
that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and
(ii)the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability
acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge
notice issued in respect of the vehicle during the currency of
the hiring agreement;
....
9)In this paragraph, “vehicle hiring agreement” and
“vehicle-hire firm” have the same meanings as in section 66 of
the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (Hired vehicles).
The law:
7)This section [of the Road Traffic Offenders Act] applies to a
hiring agreement under the terms of which the vehicle concerned
is let to the hirer for a fixed period of less than six months
So, is your leasing agreement for 'a fixed period of less than
six months'?
If not, then you may argue that, irrespective of the minutiae of
the events, you MAY NOT be considered to be the person liable
for the penalty.
It is the council's burden to show that you may be held to be
the liable person.
IMO, not a snowball's chance in hell.
If they accepted reps from the leasing company to the effect
that they are a vehicle hire company etc, then this is b******s
and irrespective of who did what, when, with what signs etc.
etc. ....you may not as a matter of law be held liable for any
penalty arising therefrom.
Please get back to this fundamental issue.
#Post#: 124858--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: Europlus
Date: July 15, 2026, 5:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> The PCN was issued under the LLA&TFL Act 2003 which provides:
>
> 4)The grounds referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above
[regarding representations] are—
>
> ...........
> (d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—
>
> (i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from
that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and
>
> (ii)the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability
acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge
notice issued in respect of the vehicle during the currency of
the hiring agreement;
>
> ....
>
>
> 9)In this paragraph, “vehicle hiring agreement” and
“vehicle-hire firm” have the same meanings as in section 66 of
the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (Hired vehicles).
>
>
> The law:
>
> 7)This section [of the Road Traffic Offenders Act] applies to
a hiring agreement under the terms of which the vehicle
concerned is let to the hirer for a fixed period of less than
six months
>
> So, is your leasing agreement for 'a fixed period of less than
six months'?
>
> If not, then you may argue that, irrespective of the minutiae
of the events, you MAY NOT be considered to be the person liable
for the penalty.
>
> It is the council's burden to show that you may be held to be
the liable person.
>
> IMO, not a snowball's chance in hell.
>
> If they accepted reps from the leasing company to the effect
that they are a vehicle hire company etc, then this is b******s
and irrespective of who did what, when, with what signs etc.
etc. ....you may not as a matter of law be held liable for any
penalty arising therefrom.
>
> Please get back to this fundamental issue.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you both for your guidance.
As you might imagine, I refer to the car as a lease vehicle
rather than a hire car, with the lease being in the name of a
limited company for a period of 3 years. I appreciate this is a
major flaw in this, and likely many more cases that have been
brought by councils, but it feels like the pure conflict between
the contravention they describe in their notice of rejection and
website and the contravention detailed on the PCN is easier to
prove?
#Post#: 124859--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 15, 2026, 5:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have messaged the OP.
#Post#: 124862--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 15, 2026, 5:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Adjudicator Harman seems to have forgotten allowing an earlier
case or the facts have changed.
-----------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
within 28 days.
Reasons
vehicle failed to comply with a one-way restriction. It is not,
as the appellant contends on appeal, that the vehicle performed
a prohibited left turn. Signage as shown in the images provided
by the appellant, taken from the council's online footage of the
incident, directs motorists to proceed ahead down this one-way
street. This is a mandatory direction, and the motorist is
required to comply with it. On the footage the vehicle turns
left, it thus not complying with that direction. This
contravention has occurred. The appeal is refused.
#Post#: 124863--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: Europlus
Date: July 15, 2026, 6:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just "How?"
Turning left off that street is not failing to comply with a
one-way street sign.
The contravention that Camden council quoted on the rejection of
my representations is "West End Project Prescribed Route Traffic
Order 2020 No. 26/2 orders further manages the banned turns at
the signals"
Whereas a 29J relates to going the wrong way up a one-way street
#Post#: 126132--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden, Maple Street - Failing to Comply with a one-way
restriction
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 28, 2026, 9:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking
Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and
Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
This Penalty Charge Notice was issued for failing to comply with
a one-way restriction.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at this
location in Maple Street, as shown in the closed-circuit
television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The vehicle is shown to turn left at the junction.
It appears that Maple Street is a one-way street on either side
of the junction, but traffic crosses it in either direction at
the junction.
The sign beyond the automatic traffic signal is that prescribed
by Diagram 652 at Item 5 in Part 4 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 ('TSRGD2016') as
indicating one way traffic.
However, the sign on the automatic traffic signal, shown in the
site images produced by the Enforcement Authority, is that
prescribed by Diagram 606 at Item 1 in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to
the TSRGD2016 as indicating the requirement that 'vehicular
traffic must proceed in the direction indicated by the arrow'.
In its case summary the Enforcement Authority states, "this
one-way restriction signage is in place as vehicles are not
permitted to turn either left or right onto Tottenham Court Road
but can only continue in their direction of travel across
Tottenham Court Road into University Street." This is the
requirement of the Diagram 606 sign.
The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making
findings of fact on the basis of the evidence actually produced
by the parties and applying relevant law.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, it would
appear that the contravention that the Enforcement Authority
submit occurred is not that stated on the face of the Penalty
Charge Notice.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page