Free Traffic Legal Advice

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?
 

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.

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

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

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

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?)