@Iaali2 you'll have to put the video on a CD or a DVD and send it to the council in the post together with the following representation:
Dear London Borough of Newham,
I rely on my informal representations in the first instance.
I further challenge liability on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur owing to the signs being obscured by foliage. At the time of the alleged contravention the regulatory sign for the bay was obscured by branches and leaves, it is obvious from the enclosed video that the council has since attended to prune the foliage.
If the council has gone as far as pruning the vegetation then the council must have accepted there was a need to do this, as it is hard to imagine the council would spend scarce public funds on anything unless it is absolutely necessary.
If you are minded to reject this representation, please would you provide the logs of any maintenance carried out at this location since the data of the alleged contravention.
Yours faithfully,
You probably want to send this by special delivery to ensure it gets there on time.
Draft reps:
Dear London Borough of Newham,
In Andrew David Rush v London Borough of Southwark (2120562288, 5 January 2013) the tribunal held that:
"I see that the allegation in the Penalty Charge Notice is the standardised and rather complex wording of a "12" allegation. It consists of 36 words and encompasses the possibility of application to three different types of parking location and four different ways in which a contravention might occur.
The reason for this standardisation relates to how the Mayor of London authorises rates of penalty.
However this does not exempt the local authority from the legal necessity of giving to the Appellant an adequate description of why the claim to penalty is being made: he must be able to make an informed decision as to whether to pay the discount rate or dispute the PCN.
The PCN did not, in my judgement, adequately explain to Mr Rush that his displayed voucher was not valid in a permit bay.
I regard this as a procedural impropriety and I allow the appeal."
This was followed in Natalie van Dijk v London Borough of Islington (2150275729, 23 September 2015), and the same circumstances apply in this case: the wording on the penalty charge notice does not adequately particularise the alleged wrongdoing, and for that reason the notice should be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
Send the representation online and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.
The traffic order is The Newham (Forest Gate) (Parking Places) (Special Parking Area) (No. 1) Order 2002 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/158LXdv1yNx1JzmPQ07lgUMx7fK-1_3tq/view) but I'll need to check if there are any relevant amendments for this road, and also if there is an amendment to deal with the switch from pay & display machines to pay by phone (absent such an amendment it's hard to see how they could enforce at this location).