Here is the log file sent to me by Camden council for 26.12.2008. That junction is a cash cow and I hope it helps in your case. http://www.4shared.com/file/120650130/b5ede6b7/Camden_log_file_261208.html

Same here. My original PCN did not mention this credit card surcharge. It said that I could pay by phone by credit card and I would assume that this was for the penalty charge amount only. I'll never know whether my original representations carried any weight!

Victory! From PATAS: Adjudicator’s Decision The Adjudicator, having considered this appeal on the basis of written evidence from the Appellant and written evidence from the Authority, has allowed the appeal on the grounds that the penalty exceeded the relevant amount. The reasons for the Adjudicator’s decision are attached. The Adjudicator directs the Authority to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. Adjudicator s Reasons In their Notice of Rejection, the Authority state that if payment of the Penalty Charge Notice is made by credit card ‘a credit card administration fee of 1.3% covering the council’s costs for processing the payment will be added to the amount that is being paid’. For the reasons set out in the case of London General Transport Services Limited -v- London Borough of Camden (PATAS 2090198127) I found that that there is no authority to require payment of more that the- statutory penalty charge. Considering everything before me carefully, I find that in seeking payment of more than the penalty charge, the Authority the penalty exceeded the amount the authority are empowered to charge. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed. Henry Michael Greenslade Adjudicator appointed under Section 73(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 acting in exercise of powers conferred by Paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. Hooray! Success by a new and unexpected technical reason but no mention of my main defence - a non-compliant PCN. Justice works in mysterious ways..... Many thanks for all the interesting and helpful comments on this thread.

The appeal application was received by PATAS at the end of March and was due for listing for decision one month later. The decision was due to be notified to me by post. Nothing heard back yet. Although it is tempting to demand a decision, Camden have not asked for any money since, so I will just sit tight.

Thanks Richard. In actual fact my specific offence (320) was committed 9 times in that time span observed on camera 229. Perhaps more time should be invested in prevention rather than 'cure' by fine. Looking at the video which was included in the package, my daughter turned left and went 15 yards into the 'illegal access' road before reversing into a parking spot. I fear that there is nothing else that I can do at this stage (out of time with appeals/further info). The Camden information is voluminous and impressive. I do hope the adjudicator does not fall for it!

SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ORDER AND CASE SUMMARY This contravention is covered under The Camden and City of Westminster (Prescribed Routes) (No.1) Traffic Order 1985, Article 20 where traffic travelling along the northwest to southeast arm of Shaftesbury Avenue, northwest of its junction with the south-west to north-east arm of Shaftesbury Avenue can only do so in a south-eastward direction across the junction. The London Borough of Camden is authorized to carry out enforcement of this legislation under Schedule I of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act (LLA) 2003. The camera operative observed the vehicle at 16:41 on xxxxxxxxxx failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign. The arrow is located on the traffic lights and follows the form of diagram 606 in the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002. The sign instructs all traffic to proceed straight ahead. Site report photographs enclosed under Section H shows the location of the sign. The appellant’s vehicle is seen to make left turn on to the southwest to northeast arm of Shaftesbury Avenue. A Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued on 02/01/2009 by first class post. The appellant submits their appeal on the grounds that the penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. The appellant made formal representations against the PCN stating the PCN does not conform to the LLA 2003 nor did it advise them of our legal position. The representations were rejected on the basis of the CCTV footage. The appellant now submits their appeal stating their points were not fully addressed within their letter. The council is satisfied the PCN conforms with the requirements of Part II Section 4 (8) of the LLA 2003, as follows, (8) A penalty charge notice under this section must— (a) state— (i) the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle; (ii) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable; (iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; (iv) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion; (v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable; (vi) the amount of the increased charge; (vii) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and (viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph I of Schedule 1 to this Act; and (b) specify the form in which any such representations are to be made. The council is satisfied the representation procedures are clearly explained on the PCN. In addition the council takes into account any postal delays with the service of the PCN and receipt of representations when processing representations or payments against the PCN. The appellant also makes reference that although they are the owner of the vehicle they were not the driver at the time of the contravention. They believe the statement on the PCN that instructs the owner not to pass the PCN to the driver obstructs their ability to formulate an appeal. The council advise that representations can be made by ‘the person on whom a penalty charge notice has been served.’ This is in accordance with LLA 2003 Schedule I Section 1)1). The council does not believe this dissuades the owner from allowing the driver to send in a written statement. The council will only respond to the owner when responding to representations as they are ultimately responsible for payment, as the appellant acknowledges. The appellant makes reference to the Notice of Rejection not fully addressing their points. The council is satisfied the contents confirmed that the PCN complied with the relevant legislation and we are satisfied this is the case. We acknowledge the correspondence officer used the description of ‘registered owner’. Although this is an error and not a legal definition we do not believe it confuses the appellant as to who is being addressed. The council notes the appellant claims the CCTV footage was not included in the Notice of Rejection. The council expects a high level of customer service and apologizes if this was not fulfilled. Accordingly, if the appeal is refused then we will reinstate the discount period. The penalty charge is set to the amount set by the London Councils and agreed by the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State. The council remain satisfied that the PCN was issued and served correctly and we do not believe that there were sufficient grounds to have withdrawn the PCN. We do not believe that the appellant has provided adequate grounds for appeal and submit that the appeal should fail. I confirm the contents of the case file which the Appellant has not yet seen have been sent to them by First Class Post on the date shown below. Ian Vail Adjudications Officer 21/04/2009

4 days before the PATAS adjudication comes the evidence from Camden for driving (moving traffic) appeal. A stash of documents was received. I have copied their summary below. In addition, I received 10 pages of the GLC Traffic Management Order (1985 No. 281) which describes the junction of the alleged offence and the associated traffic restrictions, more colour pictures and a site plan, and the authorising officer statement showing 15 offences (including my case) captured digitally between 16.04 and 17.39hrs. I love the way the operator zooms in on the number plate as soon as the car turns left (Gotcha)! Potentially, 15 x £60 in 95 minutes is nice income for the council. What is amazing is the fact that Camden council refuse to look at page 24 of LLA and TfL Act 2003 “The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the PCN in question is served”. Will the adjudicator look it up? Is this the evidence I need to win this case? Any last minute advice or submissions before the hearing on 27.04.09? Help please!! The hearing for your appeal is due to take place shortly. In preparation for the hearing, we have prepared a full case file for the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) Adjudicator. I have selected items from this file that you will not have seen before, and enclose copies for your reference. Please note that I have not sent you a complete duplicate file, as you will already have a number of the documents (such as your correspondence with our PCN Processing team). I trust that the enclosed documents will be of interest to you. Because we have both sent our evidence to the PATAS, the appeal now rests in their hands. So, if you have any further evidence or arguments that you want the Adjudicator to take into account before deciding your appeal, you should send it directly to the PATAS. Any such additional material is automatically copied to us by the PATAS so you do not need to send us a copy. If you have received a Charge Certificate from us after submitting your appeal to the PATAS I can confirm that it has been cancelled and you may ignore it. If your appeal is refused and no payment is made within the timeframe specified by the PATAS then we may issue you with another Charge Certificate.

Will this be sufficient to have the PCN thrown out? It is unfair to bump the fine up to £120 simply because I am appealing (largely because Camden have not properly addressed the representations in my initial letter). Parking and Traffic Appeals Service PO Box 279 Chertsey Surrey KT16 6BU 26th March 2009 Dear Sirs, Formal Appeal against PCN xxxxxxxxxx (Camden Council) I have enclosed the PCN dated 02/01/2009, my letter of representations to Camden Council dated 10/01/2009, the notice of rejection of representations dated 16th March 2009 from Mr Sturrock, and the notice of appeal for PATAS. The notice of rejection failed to properly address 3 fundamental points raised in my letter. Most importantly, Mr Sturrock ignored the fact that the issued PCN was non-compliant and therefore unenforceable. In his 3rd paragraph, he says “ that it clearly refers to the date on which the notice is served”. It does not. It refers only to the “date of this notice” (02/01/2009). The date that the PCN was served was the actual date of receipt by me (04/01/2009). Hence it did not comply “with all the relevant legislation”, particularly the legal reference set out in my original letter. I have been denied the opportunity of seeing the video footage of the alleged contravention. It remains inaccessible on the website address quoted on the PCN. Mr Sturrock failed to enclose a VHS copy of the CCTV footage with his rejection letter. I should point out a small error in my original letter of 10/01/2009 in which I am signed as the registered owner. I am of course the registered keeper of the vehicle, with the assumption by Camden Council that I am also the owner. Technically the term ‘registered owner’ has no legal meaning yet this phrase is used twice in the rejection letter. Yours faithfully,

Just for interest, I see that Google Street View (on Google maps) has been launched and is much better than Seety in picture quality. Looking at the site of the contravention you can distinguish the road sign that says Shaftesbury avenue even though Google's overlay says Bloomsbury Street!

To RichardM: Good thought! Unfortunately that small road just south of New Oxford street which appears to be an extension of Bloomsbury street is in fact Shaftesbury avenue as well! Shaftesbury avenue is street-signed on 2 sides of that triangle ie both in the one way street as in my link (#107) and the road to the left (in front of Subway). All part of Camden's artistry. My daughter checked this point carefully on going back to the scene of the offence. Strange that no map of London makes this clear.

Well spotted Pat! The vehicle registration document V5 talks about a registered keeper but at the top of the PCN it says"....Only the owner of the vehicle can make representations.........So I guess the name and address obtained from the DVLA on the PCN refers to the keeper. Can I use this to my advantage in some way?

RichardM, I think the contravention details are correct. It was Shaftesbury avenue as shown in the link below, and the traffic light has a green arrow as well as a straight ahead blue sign below. 4shared.com - photo sharing - download image Contravention1.jpg as provided by Camden council. So they have the "offence" clearly defined and watertight. So, the only way forward is to consider: 1. The date on which the notice was served rather than the date of the notice. "What they're not taking into account is that, for there to be any case for you to appeal, they must have issued an enforcement notice that complies (fully) with Part 1(2)". Spot on Spunkmonkey! 2. The failure to produce video evidence (website access to the video still does not work). 3. Less powerful: driver v registered owner ability to make representations = prejudicial. Keep the ideas coming!

Finally, and after a reminder letter from me, Camden Council wrote back as follows: “Penalty Charge Notice Date Issued Location of Contravention Vehicle Registration PCN Processing London Borough of Camden P0 Box No. 20217 London NW1 9GH Tel 020 7974 4646 Fax 020 7974 4610 camden.gov.uk 16th March 2009 NOTICE OF REJECTION OF REPRESENTATIONS AGAINST PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE - The London Local Authorities Acts 1990 - 2003 Thank you for your representations received on 09/03/09 (no, it was 12.01.09). We issued the Penalty Charge Notice as your vehicle was seen Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign (proceeding in the wrong direction). Following my investigation I have decided to formally reject your representations for the reasons detailed below. I have reviewed the full CCTV footage and your vehicle can clearly be seen executing a prohibited left turn despite the blue signs directing traffic straight ahead. Please also find enclosed a closer image of the signage at this junction, which I am satisfied is clear, and a VHS copy of the CCTV footage. Not enclosed Same photos reproduced here as in original PCN I am satisfied that due procedure was followed in the issue of the notice and that it complies with all of the relevant legislation and that it clearly refers to the date on which the notice is served. The registered owner may allow another party to make representations on their behalf as long as it is submitted with a signed statement from the registered owner. I have considered the comments that you have made in accordance with the requirements of schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities Act 1990 - 2003 and for the reasons outlined above I am satisfied that a contravention did occur. We will accept the discount rate of £60 if received within 14 days from the date of this letter. After this period the charge will revert to £120 and this amount will apply to any further correspondence or an appeal to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service. Details of how to pay Here… If you do not accept this decision you can submit an appeal to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service by following the instructions on the accompanying leaflet that forms part of this Notice Of Rejection. An appeal must be submitted before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which you receive this letter. An appeal submitted after the end of the 28-day period may be considered at the adjudicator’s discretion if it can be shown that there is good reason why it could not have been submitted earlier. An independent adjudicator will consider your appeal based on the evidence provided by both sides before making a final decision. Any evidence that we supply will also be sent to you before your appeal is heard. You should be aware that the adjudicator can award costs in favour of either party if it is deemed that a party has acted in a vexatious, frivolous or wholly unreasonable manner. if you would like to speak to someone about the appeals process you may contact the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service on 0207 747 4700. It is important that you either pay the penalty or submit an appeal before the end of the 28-day period. Failure to do so may result in a Charge Certificate being issued and the penalty charge being increased by 50% to £180. If the increased charge is not paid within a further 14 days we may apply to the county court to recover the charge as if it were a debt payable under a county court order and this may result in bailiffs being used. Yours sincerely” They have completely ignored the points raised in my original letter. They are obsessed with whether the contravention occurred or not, rather than the legalities of a non-valid PCN. The next step is the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service with postal decision. Can any of you learned guys offer any more advice, please?

This is a copy of the letter that I sent to Camden PCN processing together with their initial reply. Why might they want to see the CCTV footage which is irrelevant to my appeal? Dear Sirs, I am appealing against the fine you issued on xxxxx in a Penalty Charge Notice reference xxxxxxxxx because it is non-compliant. You did not inform me correctly of the period in which I may make representations. The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003: SCHEDULE 1 Penalty charge notices etc. under section 4 (penalty charges for road traffic contraventions) of this Act, Paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 3 clearly states that the deadline is 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice was served. That is the actual date I received it (on xxxxxxxx), not the date of the Notice (yyyyyyy = 2 days earlier). This is prejudicial, as you have defined a shorter period than defined in the Act. You have been untruthful about my rights. You quote on the PCN “Do not pass this to the driver. Only the owner of the vehicle can make representations against issuing of the PCN”. How can Camden council possibly know of the individual circumstances in this case? In fact, anyone may make representations on my behalf with my permission. The owner is only liable for payment of any resultant penalty. A recipient of such a PCN may not have been the driver (as in my case), and in my view, you obstruct my ability to formulate an appeal by appearing to suggest I may not consult the driver about the circumstances or elect them to make representations. This is also prejudicial. It may have been useful and constructive to have seen camera evidence of the alleged offence on the website address quoted on the PCN. This did not work as the site reported an error when given the correct input details (at least for the duration from the receipt of this PCN to the date of this appeal letter) and the ongoing failure of the internet system was confirmed when I phoned 020 7974 4646. This PCN does not comply with the law and you have failed to fully advise me of your legal position. It is technically invalid and unenforceable. I would be grateful if the Penalty Charge is cancelled. Reply: Thank you for your representations received on xxxxxxxx. I am currently investigating your case, but have requested to view the full CCTV footage in order to make a decision on the validity of the Penalty Charge Notice. As soon as this information becomes available, I will consider all aspects of the case, and inform you in writing of my findings. I apologise for this delay. The case is on hold and the charges will not increase during this time. Yours sincerely Correspondence Officer

What a brilliant team commenting on this case! The lateral thinking and enthusiasm has been inspiring! I have now drafted my representations (ghastly word) ready to send off to Camden council and when I have heard back, I will post the letter and response on this thread. PCN non-compliance should win the day rather than offence semantics. Many thanks thus far to all contributors. I suspect that I will receive the standard reply quoting the wrong statute, refuting my claim. Then the fun starts......

Here is an interesting link taken from seety - home looking back at the site of offence:seety - home and here are the traffic lights in question: seety - home I have looked up and down the street but seety's resolution is not good enough to read street signs It's fun going for walkabout! My daughter seemed certain that the road south of Bloomsbury street was identified by a road sign saying Shaftesbury Avenue. edit note: I have just seen the pictures taken by my daughter this evening. They confirm that the street in question is definitely Shaftesbury avenue and that the green traffic light has an upright arrow, and the blue background with white upright arrow light is round and roughly the same size and mounted below the green traffic light.

Absolutely right. I could not find a way of placing the marker exactly over the junction!

Update. The offence occurred in Shaftesbury avenue that is the southern extension of Bloomsbury street, south of New Oxford Street. My daughter took the next left at crossroads into a road also known as Shaftesbury avenue, also 2-way. Link: Google Maps At that junction, there was no road sign plate of any kind. Instead the green of the traffic light displayed a straight ahead arrow, and below that was a similar sized but blue light (traffic light-like) which also displayed a straight ahead arrow. There was also a straight ahead arrow painted on the road. I cannot see the point or advantage of these traffic directions…. Interesting that my contravention was described as “Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign rather than a blue light (which I cannot find in the TSRGD).

These forums are a great roller coaster ride! You go up with the thoughts that the PCN is defensible and then down as the learned brains shoot down the mitigating factors. Fair-Parking (#35 and 39) hints that “This PCN was issued under RTA 1991 and thus appears to be outside the council's terms of reference and authority.” This is shot down by Patdavies in #40. Ting (#45) suggests: a) They fail to inform you of the period in which you may make representations. For this particular legislation LLA &TFL Act 2003 the deaedline for this is '28 days beginning with the date on which the notice is erved' ( the date you received it). They have failed to tell you that. This is prejudicial since you may believe, as they say, that the deadline is the same 28 period that they described which is 'beginning with date of this notice' (a shorter period). Spunkymonkey (#68) points out that the 28 day period is clearly defined. So how important is the difference between the 28 days starting on the “Date of this notice” as opposed to 28 days starting on the date that the PCN was received (in my case 1 day later). I cannot see that this adds much weight to the defence. NBeee (#70) how would you actually put this point in a letter to Camden, and what section of law statute would you quote? b) A recipient of such a PCN may not have been the driver. In my view, they obstruct your ability to formulate an appeal by appearing to suggest you may not consult the driver about the circumstances or elect them to make representations. In my opinion this is prejudicial. One could argue that it is reasonable for the registered owner to canvass all the evidence and present it as one voice to the Council. How would NBeeee phrase the ‘prejudicial’ response? Would anyone modify the letter that Cocorans1 wrote to the council (thread 174358 #1) to improve the thrust? Did my daughter actually commit an offence? I have asked her to take a picture of the blue sign. PCN says “Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign (proceeding in the wrong direction) in Shaftesbury Avenue WC2” I am not sure exactly where the offence occurred (daughter will advise) but the reference to Shaftesbury avenue I guess is a rough reminder location. An inaccurate location description probably does not negate that an offence did occur as per video evidence. Fair-parking (#41) says not a council matter. Patdavies (#52) says yes, it is an offence Iamma (#53 ) says no offence Patdavies (#56 ) says ahead means ahead only. No contest. So, should the offence itself be kept out of representations or is there any mileage in pursuing this point? Sorry to be so rambling and repetitive. Absolute legal precision seems to be the key for successful representations, so any further thoughts on exact wording in a suitable letter?

Have there been any developments with this case? I received an identical form for exactly the same offence at the same junction! My daughter was driving, oblivious to the “ahead only sign” and turned left into a two-way street. And the web link to the video does not work. The general advice appears to concentrate on the technicalities of the PCN wording (which does not follow the Road Traffic Act 1991, London Local authorities Acts 1990 to 2003): Point out that the 28 day reference to representations is not clearly defined. The payment is clearly defined (“The penalty charge of £120 must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice”). The period for representations is not so clearly defined (“We may disregard any representations received after the expiry of the 28-day period”). Then there is the bit about “only the owner can make representations…” which is of course prejudicial. Are these 2 points the basis of my “technical” appeal (representations) for this type of case? Would this carry enough weight? Has anyone had any success with this approach? Are there any other factors that should be included? Is my “traffic offence” a police matter or a council matter and can the council actually enforce a fine (there have been so many edits in this thread, with a lot of information removed, I guess)? I was concerned to see that Corcoran1’s appeal using the above resources was rejected by the council in thread 174358. Is this going to adjudication?