Redbridge, 47j, Stopped in Bus Stop or Stand

Hi

I am an old user from the pepipoo days and have not used a car for several years. I'm glad things are still going strong, though on a different site.

I received the PCN attached. I sent an initial representation that was very close to the text below (sorry I cant confirm it was exactly the same). I received the rejection letter attached. I include the images and video used by Redbridge.

Essentially, I pulled over on the narrow George Lane and realised there was nowhere to stop or park and quickly moved out of the bus stop. The delay in moving was as much about fiddling with the gear change to find reverse (a toggle on the steering wheel), as any sense of waiting or stopping. It's a new car to me and I haven't driven it a great deal (owned for 3mths at time of PCN).

I have been on holiday for the past 4 weeks so the final date to pay the 'discounted' rate is TODAY. I dont wish to, but would if the minds here suggest I have little chance of winning this case on appeal.








Link to video...

Link to Streetmap...

As ever, any help or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.


"I make representations on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.

The CCTV footage relied upon by the Council does not show my vehicle stopping for the purpose prohibited by the restriction. Rather, it shows my vehicle engaged in one continuous driving manoeuvre.

At approximately 16:21:32 my vehicle is still moving. At around 16:21:35 there is only a momentary pause before the vehicle immediately begins reversing. This brief pause was solely incidental to carrying out a safe reversing manoeuvre and was not a stop for the purposes of waiting, parking, picking up or setting down passengers, or any other prohibited activity.

At no point did I leave the vehicle, switch off the engine, wait at the location, or use the bus stop for any purpose. The vehicle remained under my control throughout and the manoeuvre was continuous.

Furthermore, the CCTV evidence appears to end before the manoeuvre is completed and does not show my vehicle leaving the restricted area. The Council has therefore relied on an incomplete sequence of events which does not fairly or accurately represent what occurred. I request that the Council reviews the complete, unedited CCTV recording from the moment my vehicle first appears until it has fully left the location.

In light of the above, the evidence does not establish that the alleged contravention occurred. The footage shows a continuous manoeuvre rather than a vehicle stopping at a restricted bus stop or stand.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

Should the Council be minded not to cancel the PCN, please treat this representation as a request for the complete unedited CCTV footage and a full explanation of how the Council considers the evidence demonstrates that the vehicle was "stopped", rather than momentarily pausing as part of a continuous manoeuvre."

images and video link sorted... apologies

2nd August is deadline for the reduced amount. I would check the website regularly to see if this coincided with what the NOR says. Like many councils service and delivery are not the same. Neither is the deemed date of service  which is
20th July in your case.

Yes, thank you @Hippocrates. A few more days left. I see that 'served' is date of letter +2 working days.

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-47j-stopped-on-a-restricted-bus-stop-or-stand-high-st-e11

If anything from the reps in the above can be of help...

Ah yes how could I forget?

Given the positioning of the signs used in this (quite long) bus stop, am I better focussing on the single manoeuvre, or perhaps on a 'just reading the sign' argument?

Thank you @Hippocrates. I will use the guidance on signage in my submission but there are enough differences in the cases to make it a weaker argument. Seems like I will need to throw it all against the wall and hope something sticks.

Post draft first please.

I have received a date for my appeal... in 7 month's time. Is this the current standard?

Regarding the appeal, I used the 'will rely on correspondence...' boilerplate. Presumably, I can add further information closer to the date of the appeal? I set out the basic argument that I was still engaged in a manoeuvre in my original representation, but did not expand on the reason it took several seconds. That is, that I was checking the sign, which is not legible on the entry to the restricted area. Am I OK to introduce this argument when I expand on the appeal, and will it be given proper consideration? Thanks.