Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Europlus on June 07, 2026, 10:42:19 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
-
Adjudicator Harman seems to have forgotten allowing an earlier case or the facts have changed.
-----------
Case reference 2260127882
Appellant xxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Camden
VRM LA23HDV
PCN Details
PCN CU7319662A
Contravention date 14 Dec 2025
Contravention time 22:03:00
Contravention location Maple Street
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Failing to comply with a one-way restriction
Referral date -
Decision Date 14 Jul 2026
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons The contravention alleged on the PCN is that this 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.
-
I have messaged the OP.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
I actually observed the first case hearing. And this one whilst shaking my head in disbelief to what I was witnessing:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ry7VsGfOXbGHvryjTS7alIYDxQLDZo70/view
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Another case, and Camden was there so i'd say there is potential for costs.
-------------
Case reference 225060980A
Appellant xxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Camden
VRM WV20KNG
PCN Details
PCN CU72514435
Contravention date 10 Oct 2025
Contravention time 22:11:00
Contravention location MAPLE STREET
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Failing to comply with a one-way restriction
Referral date -
Decision Date 21 Apr 2026
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The appellant, and Mrs Houghton, for the council, attended the hearing of this appeal today on the Microsoft Teams video conferencing platform.
The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this vehicle failed to comply with a one-way restriction.
On the council's online footage of the incident, the vehicle turned left at this junction in contravention, on the council's case as put at the hearing, of the direction to proceed ahead in accordance with signage posted prior to it.
Had the PCN been issued for a failure to proceed in the direction shown by an arrow on a blue sign then the contravention may well have been made out, but it was not.
A contravention may well have occurred in this case, but it was not that stated on the PCN, and I was accordingly satisfied that it had not occurred.
The appeal was allowed.
-
Good morning all,
As predicted, my Reps have been rejected so I am about to submit an appeal to the tribunal. I have 28 days from 30 June so will take some time to prepare it properly.
When I submitted my Reps, I also sent in a CEO complaint - specifically addressed to Mr J Rowney - but apparently it was just passed on to the traffic team, in which I asked about the number of tickets at this junction, for this offence. I've subsequently asked for some clarifications because they said there have been 9,562 PCNs at this junction of which 65 have been appealed and over 70% of those appeals have been won (by driver), cancelled for some other reason or are yet to be heard (lumping "cancelled" and "yet to be heard" skews the figures, but that's how it was presented).
I've also asked, as prompted by the most recent appeal, if there is a valid traffic management order which prohibits a left turn at this junction. I am hoping to have a response to that, and my complaint follow-up, before I submit my appeal.
I also had a response to the point about delayed issue of the PCN. The reason given, with dates (I'll check with leasing company) was:
Contravention occurred on 7/3/26
Original PCN issued 11/3/26
Response to PCN (from leasing co) 15/5/26
Transferred to me on 2/6/26
PCN issued to me 9/6/26
I'll keep you posted, but any suggestions would be welcomed.
Thanks :)
-
Thanks all for your help and guidance. I've now submitted my Reps, slightly amended from my draft above so I could make reference to the 88 day delay between alleged contravention and PCN issue (albeit it via the leasing company in the first instance).
I'll be back with an update but given that a) I didn't fail to comply with a one-way restriction and b) the excessive notice delay, I can only expect an early positive outcome - barring any devilment on behalf of the issuing council... in which case it will be appealed
Don't expect them to roll over and cancel because they won't. London councils ruthlessly game the system to maximise their income by refusing all reps however valid they are. Basically, people are ignorant of parking and traffic law detail, so if reps are refused, >95% of people then just cough-up to get the discount. People are also terrified of going to adjudication, thinking it will cost them a packet of money, whereas the maximum amount possible is the full PCN penalty, there being no other costs whatsoever.
-
Thanks all for your help and guidance. I've now submitted my Reps, slightly amended from my draft above so I could make reference to the 88 day delay between alleged contravention and PCN issue (albeit it via the leasing company in the first instance).
I'll be back with an update but given that a) I didn't fail to comply with a one-way restriction and b) the excessive notice delay, I can only expect an early positive outcome - barring any devilment on behalf of the issuing council... in which case it will be appealed
-
I gave you the arithmetic, but forgot to mention that the council's second 28 days is from the date of cancellation of the first PCN. So I think you do have a second string to your representations bow of "PCN served out of time". The council will then have to explain their tardiness in serving the second PCN. It's not a slam-dunk argument, though, just another hoop for them to jump through !
I always say make the bug***s do at least some work !!
-
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.
[/quote]
So, The Lease company would have had until 4 April to respond, and assuming, generously that the council needed the 28 days to turn around a new PCN, they would have had to start the new PCN on the 6 May, so would it be fair to assume 32 days of the info sitting around in the council offices is reasonable?
If we assume 7 days is reasonable, the council should have reissued a new PCN to me on the 9 May (or 11th as it was a Saturday) and not almost a month later (88 days after the event)
-
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.
-
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?
-
It is a lease car, but the lease company have passed on my details and the PCN has come to me
-
The contravention is 7 March 2026, the PCN is 3 June 2026. Is it a lease car?
(https://i.ibb.co/NdDZy61h/cam-ezgif-com-video-to-gif-converter.gif)
-
Thank you,
That's what I've tried to do in an earlier post. Does that look ok?
-
I would base your reps on the latest London Tribunals case that I found as it matches your circumstances exactly.
-
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
-
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 !
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 - https://imgpile.com/p/jkIhgjB#UOqTm1E
One-way sign - https://imgpile.com/p/jkIhgjB#5PpCAQd