Free Traffic Legal Advice

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: -

Decision Date   28 May 2026
Adjudicator   Mackenzie Robinson
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

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.

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.

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:

•   The traffic rules are wrong. The council didn't follow proper 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.

•   The rectangular sign clearly visible in the council’s evidence 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.

•   The council are aware of this misrepresentation, as there have 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?)

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?

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

Thank you,
That's what I've tried to do in an earlier post. Does that look ok?

It is a lease car, but the lease company have passed on my details and the PCN has come to me

Quote from: Europlus on Today at 05:02:19 pm

It is a lease car, but the lease company have passed on my details and the PCN has come to me

Ah, I think I get your point now. Are you questioning the time taken to send me the PCN? That hadn't occurred to me, but as it is a lease car, I expect there are grounds to send the PCN later?

The lease company have 28 days to respond to the PCN, then, when the council accept their reps cancel the PCN, which will take some days, they then have 28 days to serve a second PCN.