DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 110525--------------------------------------------------
PCN-Camden-Failing to comply with a one-way restriction
DIR By: allondon
Date: February 20, 2026, 1:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good afternoon,
Here are the imgpile links:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/6nbFJ4N_md.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/6nbFJ4N_md.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/7LMRTxb_md.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/7LMRTxb_md.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/L7EhdNs_xs.mp4
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/L7EhdNs_xs.mp4
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/cTnL5Ds_md.png
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/cTnL5Ds_md.png
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/HHzWNtZ_md.png
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/HHzWNtZ_md.png
I was driving my partner's car from the hospital at night.
The PCN states "Failing to comply with a one-way restriction"
and from the evidence I could not work out what I had done
wrong.
To start with - there is no mentioning of the exact location. I
assumed the junction of Maple Street and Tottenham Court Road as
the probable location due to the traffic lights in the pictures.
The car was going to the right direction (eastbound) on the
one-way Maple street and there is no prohibition to turn left
visible in the evidence.
Google Street View does show an Ahead Only sign outside of the
images area, but it is dated 2024.
I'm prepared to accept being wrong, but from the evidence I
don't see where and how this specific contravention took place.
Any advice appreciated.
#Post#: 110527--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN-Camden-Failing to comply with a one-way restriction
DIR By: davidmcn
Date: February 20, 2026, 2:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There is a one-way sign visible in the video (different from the
signage in 2024) - I'm not sure whether that alone is sufficient
but it does suggest the restriction still applies.
#Post#: 110530--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN-Camden-Failing to comply with a one-way restriction
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 20, 2026, 2:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you please download and post the video, or post a zoomable
photo of the front of the PCN, so we can look at it on the
Camden website.
Sorry, found it !!
#Post#: 110531--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN-Camden-Failing to comply with a one-way restriction
DIR By: allondon
Date: February 20, 2026, 2:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The blue rectangular sign with white arrow in the evidence is
informational and only confirms that the car was moving in the
allowed direction on Maple Street. It does not place a
restriction by itself in my understanding of the Highway Code.
#Post#: 110532--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN-Camden-Failing to comply with a one-way restriction
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 20, 2026, 2:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The white arrow on blue background is mandatory, and at the
junction with Tottenham Court Road, the arrow is shown on GSV
Oct 2024, on the traffic lights array both sides: -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/9SGnDqAGwrwFGxWE9
same in 2023, so I suspect those are still there. I suspect they
have put that extra sign in because their camera cannot see the
traffic light signal.
#Post#: 110537--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN-Camden-Failing to comply with a one-way restriction
DIR By: allondon
Date: February 20, 2026, 3:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If the round sign is still there - I don't have a leg to stand
on, but shouldn't this be a different contravention? "A one-way
restriction" implies driving against the traffic.
#Post#: 110548--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN-Camden-Failing to comply with a one-way restriction
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 20, 2026, 6:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You may have a point there.I would expect the contravention
description to read, "failing to comply with a directional
sign". (or similar). See here, (diagram 606): -
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made
Note the description - "Vehicular traffic must proceed in the
direction indicated by the arrow". So it is a mandatory, not
advisory sign.
#Post#: 110560--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN-Camden-Failing to comply with a one-way restriction
DIR By: allondon
Date: February 21, 2026, 4:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the round sign - if it has not been replaced by the
rectangular one in the evidence - is mandatory. Different
contravention, but now it is getting clearer. Thank you.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1