Morning:
10°c
Motorist's victory over £1m traffic spy camera
David Williams, Motoring Editor16 Oct 2007
A driver has successfully challenged a notorious traffic camera that is estimated to issue £1 million a year in fines.
The Evening Standard has reported how thousands of motorists have been fined £120 each for making an illegal right turn in Theobald Street, Holborn.
The drivers followed a "left-turn" sign out of Boswell Street into Theobald Street but then almost immediately turned right into Drake Street, unaware the manoeuvre is illegal and they had been trapped by the Camden council camera.
When they received their fines in the post, some simply paid up while others appealed unsuccessfully to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service.
But now one man has successfully appealed after he compiled a dossier of evidence, including photographs, explaining how drivers like him were being unfairly trapped. IT specialist Matt Briggs was caught at the junction on a family day out and decided to protest.
The 36-year-old from Wandsworth argued he had followed the turn-left sign correctly and after driving a short distance along Theobald Street he made a "perfectly legal" right turn into Drake Street.
His dossier featured photographs of numerous vehicles, including ambulances and black cabs, doing exactly the same thing.
"It's a total scam," said Mr Briggs. "I discovered that between 4pm and 7pm on the day I was done, 26 other vehicles were penalised. The signs are totally misleading."
At appeal, Camden failed to appear. The adjudicator sided with Mr Briggs, saying he had offered "compelling mitigation".
The adjudicator gave the council 14 days to provide evidence supporting the fine but it failed to respond.
"They knew they didn't have a leg to stand on," said Mr Briggs. "They decided to bow out quietly without admitting liability. They knew that if they appeared at the hearing and lost, they would have to close down the cameras and stop fining people. They lost by default and the cameras are still running."
Engineer Mac McCullagh, whose daughter was fined at the same location, today called the camera operation a "con".
In her case, it took a prolonged letter writing campaign before the council finally backed down.
Mr McCullagh said: "Camden's attitude is to bully people by refusing to back down until the last possible moment in the hope they pay up. No wonder - they must be making thousands of pounds a day from this operation."
Camden said today that while it had lost 20 cases at appeal, it had won 91.
"The sign is there to make the road safer, not to raise revenue," said a spokesman, adding that one adjudicator pronounced the signing "clear and unambiguous".
"Our signs are constantly under review to make sure they are clear," he said.
But Mr Briggs said: "The sheer volume of drivers getting it wrong at this junction, including professional drivers, shows that the signing is unclear.
"It would require only the smallest adjustments by Camden - perhaps an additional 'no right-turn' sign or by extending the traffic island in the middle of the road. Why have they failed to do this? Because they want the money."
Reader views (17)
Well done Matt, truely outstanding and worth the effort. David thanks for reporting this "scam".
Now to the point... I've just had a PCN for the same "offence" in Boswell Street. Can anyone help me find evidence to claim another victory for the people. Like Mark, I've checked the Patas and LMAG files but cannot find any references.
Making your information available would make it increasing difficult for the councils to prey upon us and may, Heaven forbid, change their minds on putting up extra signage like no U turns etc...
- Allen Chan, London, 06/12/2008 10:12
Report abuse
Could Matt provide details of when his case came to appeal and what the compelling mitigation was? I've been stung in the same place but PATAS have been unable to trace any details of this verdict. The London Motorists' Action Group and other sources haven't thrown up any helpful precedents.
- Mark, London, 08/01/2008 13:50
Report abuse
So great article by David Williams, nice to have someone punting for the little man. Nice victory for me.
1. point I would like to make on Camdens response "The sign is there to make the road safer, not to raise revenue," said a spokesman, adding that one adjudicator pronounced the signing "clear and unambiguous".
1. I agree the signs are there for safety because the sign that Camden are reffering to is a Blue No right turn sign and it is there because to turn right would allow drivers to turn into the one way part of Theobolds Street and as such has no bearing on drivers leaving the junction and THEN turning right.
2. If it was really about safety, Camden would extend the island and stop users doing this instead of watching them Endanger their lives and then fining them for the trouble.
3. The fact an adjudicator announced the signage as "Clear and unambiguous" makes no difference because it is Clear and unambiguous in what it is there to do which is stop drivers going down a one way street for which drivers are not being fined or infact doing and additionally an adjudicator from the same organisation told me and Camden that I offered offered "compelling mitigation" and what I did is no different to everyone else who is doing it.
- Matt Briggs, London, 26/10/2007 10:10
Report abuse
Surely all the council need to do is put up a central reservation in Theobold Street so you cannot turn right in to Drake Street. Problem solved eh? Plus, it will cost less than £1m so the spare change can be given back to the poor innocent drivers who were misled by the road markings and signs.
- Ben Faulkner, London, 17/10/2007 09:08
Report abuse
Do voters in England have the option of putting local initiatives on the ballot? If traffic cameras became as common here in the US, we would be voting to outlaw them.
- Al, Lowell, Ma. USA, 16/10/2007 23:03
Report abuse
Is it not time for the Central Government to centalise the rules and regulations regarding parking and traffic offences instead of allowing each Local Authority or Council to decide how much and in which way they penalise 'innocent' drivers, soley for the purpose of revenue? Mr. Brown, show some leadership and tackle this problem.
- George, London, UK, 16/10/2007 22:02
Report abuse
In 5 years of driving a van in and around London the only PCN I have had was issued by Camden Council. Money grabbers, oh I could rant.
- Stephen Ash, Ringwood, Hants., 16/10/2007 19:54
Report abuse
Since labour came to power they have enabled these powers for police and councils alike to unfairly penalise peoples living and insurance costs in no other country in the world does this happen.
- Paul Connolly, Potters Bar Herts, 16/10/2007 18:58
Report abuse
I think its about time the law and the public take a closer look at this unfair deals, which is being used by all Boroughs across London to raise fund for these Boroughs.
In addition, it will be nice to know every driver can have access to the mappings (on paper - akin to the London underground mini map) which clearly marks out where these so called " illegal turns/ stop".
Oh by the way, they should also pay interest on wrong penalty charges applied and then refunded, at least it stands to reason that if you are to pay extra if you do not pay in time, you might as well be refunded if your money has been "held" unfairly by these rip off councils!
- Olumide Gbalajobi, United Kingdom, 16/10/2007 17:40
Report abuse
If the signs are there to make the road safer and not to raise revenue, then why don't they put only the signs but not cameras? Ultimately we are paying for these cameras and they should ask us if we want them!
And surely not to be used against us!
- Ella, London, 16/10/2007 15:25
Report abuse
I was spotted unloading my car on a single yellow line by a CCTV camera in Theobolds Road and sent a ticket for illegal parking. I appealed and eventually Camden backed down. This must be bad for local businesses.
One thing in Camden's favour is that they reset the clock if you appeal. In Islington you have to play a game of double or quits - the fine doubles before you can appeal agianst it.
- Nigel, London, 16/10/2007 14:36
Report abuse
I recently challanged an appeal when road work signs near York Way, Camden (Eurostar new terminal)directed me into a restricted area.
I went to Camden's own website and discovered a notice from contracts to carry out work in that area for the week when I was caught, which would have meant diversions.
I cut and paste it into my appeal and won!
Challange every ticket/fine with as much evidence as you can get.
- Rosemary Hensman, Wanstead, London, 16/10/2007 14:19
Report abuse
The attitude of the council stinks and helps destroy community spirit. It adds to the feeling that it's us against them rather than we're all one community. It adds to the social decline that sees more people put their feet on seats, flick fag butts on the ground, play their mp3 players loudly on buses etc. A council should be promoting the very opposite and make more people feel connected.
- Hobbs, London, UK, 16/10/2007 12:55
Report abuse
Camden Council should be required to write to every motorist who has been wrongly punished and refund all fines collected as well as issuing an apology.
- Lionel Sinclair, Acton, 16/10/2007 12:26
Report abuse
I live by Boswell Street and am dismayed at the number of times my friends and relatives have been stung this way - the signing should be more clear, it's just a nifty way of the Council making money from innocent visitors to the area.
- Mukith, Holborn, London, 16/10/2007 11:55
Report abuse
I really hate myself at times but the Council is dead right in this case but as someone said another sign at the start of the island would stop all this but raise no revenue. No brainer really.
- Ayliff A Mcnab, Orihuela Costa, Spain, 16/10/2007 11:50
Report abuse
I had my son in the nearby hospital for a week and going back and forth clocked up tens of fines. I paid the first few thinking I had made a mistake but then went back and appealed a whole batch of them. I was succesful with most of them. Fight on!
- Marco, London, 16/10/2007 10:06
Report abuse
