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
-
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