Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: anonymous on June 13, 2025, 04:10:32 pm
-
Ok sorted. Enjoyed our chat.
-
I'll PM you later. I am free that day.
-
Do you want representation?
Apologies I have been away for a few days after a hospital visit gone bad. Yes please that would be really appreciated. Ordinarily I wouldn't mind giving it a go, but I really don't understand the reasonings, let alone how to argue them.
-
Do you want representation?
-
The hearing has been scheduled for 13th November.
This should be interesting but I am a bit nervous as to what I should say
-
Moving traffic. Yes. Add all relevant arguments.
-
I say Tribunal time.
I have logged on thee tribunal site to appeal.
(https://i.ibb.co/G3tT4yY1/Screenshot-2025-07-07-133028.png) (https://ibb.co/7NR4dPMT)
For this one I assume I have to put in moving traffic (including junction box) contravention
(https://i.ibb.co/GvBNjXhM/Screenshot-2025-07-07-133122.png) (https://ibb.co/jvBsFdpw)
and for this one I The contravention alleged by the authority on the penalty charge notice did not occur.
For the reasoning, I will apply what H C Anderson provided:
1. It is restricted to term-time only: then the council need to obtain the SoS's authorisation to a non-prescribed sign. But they haven't, because the only prescribed sign is every week, term time or not.
2. The restriction isn't term time only, which is what's conveyed by the advance sign. In which case IMO the signage fails the LATOR test because in combination those in the know might be tempted to drive into the area outside 'term time' but still be breaching the traffic order's prohibition.
Should I also add that there was no warning signs on the way to the road to be safe?
-
I say Tribunal time.
-
According to GSV there's an advisory sign only yards before Khartoum, between Opex Fashions and Khartoum.
Personally, I would focus on the non-prescribed white on blue sign shown in GSV and the video: School streets - Restricted Access Term time only.
No such permitted sign.
1. It is restricted to term-time only: then the council need to obtain the SoS's authorisation to a non-prescribed sign. But they haven't, because the only prescribed sign is every week, term time or not.
2. The restriction isn't term time only, which is what's conveyed by the advance sign. In which case IMO the signage fails the LATOR test because in combination those in the know might be tempted to drive into the area outside 'term time' but still be breaching the traffic order's prohibition.
In either case, IMO you have strong grounds for appeal.
Apologies I have been quite busy with personal matters and as such forgot about this. Luckily I am still within the time limit.
So I should appeal and write the above as is?
-
According to GSV there's an advisory sign only yards before Khartoum, between Opex Fashions and Khartoum.
Personally, I would focus on the non-prescribed white on blue sign shown in GSV and the video: School streets - Restricted Access Term time only.
No such permitted sign.
1. It is restricted to term-time only: then the council need to obtain the SoS's authorisation to a non-prescribed sign. But they haven't, because the only prescribed sign is every week, term time or not.
2. The restriction isn't term time only, which is what's conveyed by the advance sign. In which case IMO the signage fails the LATOR test because in combination those in the know might be tempted to drive into the area outside 'term time' but still be breaching the traffic order's prohibition.
In either case, IMO you have strong grounds for appeal.
-
Hi,
they have rejected the representations.
(https://i.ibb.co/ZRN13gxL/1.png) (https://ibb.co/ZRN13gxL)
(https://i.ibb.co/d49dygmR/2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/d49dygmR)
(https://i.ibb.co/218GrhLr/3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/218GrhLr)
The image they have posted of the advance warning signage prior to Khartoum Road on page 2 is only visible if coming from the opposite direction of which the vehicle travelled. I have not had a chance to go see for myself if there was advanced signage in the direction that the vehicle travelled.
I have attached a crudely edited diagram which is helpful to myself in visualising it.
(https://i.ibb.co/CpN5yh3J/Untitled.png) (https://ibb.co/CpN5yh3J)
The vehicles route is represented by the black line. The red x represents roughly where the advanced sign they indicated is. It is visible if travelling FROM Khartoum road, the opposite direction of what the vehicle travelled.
-
Please keep screenshots of the webpage.
-
Dear Redbridge
1. Your own video shows completely unreadable signage. I refer you to case 2250006928 in this regard. The right hand sign has not been properly maintained as it should under LATOR.
2. The placement of the signage is unfit for purpose as it is easily missed.
3. Upon checking the blue plate, this is not a prescribed sign as it is most definitely proscribed (disallowed) by the TSRGD 2016. I refer you to cases 2250121336 and 224043551A in this regard.
Considering the above, please cancel the PCN.
No contravention
Thank you. I have submitted the challenge.
-
No contravention
-
Hi, I want to contest, but if anyone can suggest to me the right option to select when challenging as I wrote above I would be grateful.
Would it be There was no contravention of an order, failure to comply with an order or failure to comply with an indication on a sign or do I select Other grounds?
-
Dear Redbridge
1. Your own video shows completely unreadable signage. I refer you to case 2250006928 in this regard. The right hand sign has not been properly maintained as it should under LATOR.
2. The placement of the signage is unfit for purpose as it is easily missed.
3. Upon checking the blue plate, this is not a prescribed sign as it is most definitely proscribed (disallowed) by the TSRGD 2016. I refer you to cases 2250121336 and 224043551A in this regard.
Considering the above, please cancel the PCN.
Thank you so much for taking the time out of your holiday to respond.
I am assuming that when contesting, I select the option that says There was no contravention of an order, failure to comply with an order or failure to comply with an indication on a sign. or do I select Other grounds?
(https://i.ibb.co/Kp14MbLc/Screenshot-2025-06-16-102640.png) (https://ibb.co/rRW8CFcK)
-
Dear Redbridge
1. Your own video shows completely unreadable signage. I refer you to case 2250006928 in this regard. The right hand sign has not been properly maintained as it should under LATOR.
2. The placement of the signage is unfit for purpose as it is easily missed.
3. Upon checking the blue plate, this is not a prescribed sign as it is most definitely proscribed (disallowed) by the TSRGD 2016. I refer you to cases 2250121336 and 224043551A in this regard.
Considering the above, please cancel the PCN.
-
I am on holiday at present but the blue plate is unlawful. Back with a draft and cases tomorrow.
-
I cannot see the PCN clearly and need to be able to check dates.
Very important On what date did TEC revoke the order for recovery and Charge certificate?
Apologies, my phones camera isnt the best. Hopefully this is clearer.
(https://i.ibb.co/4w472cHJ/PXL-20250613-150420471.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ymgXpDrV)
I would have to find their letter but the TEC letter that revoked the order was dated around 21st of May
-
I cannot see the PCN clearly and need to be able to check dates.
Very important On what date did TEC revoke the order for recovery and Charge certificate?
-
Hi Everyone. We received a ticket from the Borough of Redbridge for failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (camera enforcement) at 14:32 on the 24/01/25. Initially we did not receive the PCN through the post so had to go through the TEC. Redbridge have now reissued the PCN that we have now received.
The footage shows the driver entering at 14.32, 2 minutes past the enforcement time. However the driver was not aware that it was a pedestrian zone. The driver entered the road by turning left. The sign closest to them was angled away it seems from the footage, and the sign on the other side of the road was covered, as shown in the images and video supplied by Redbridge. It seems the sign closest to them was still a bit covered by residue as seen. Is there a way this can be challenged?
There is also a video on there, but apologies I do not know how to grab it.
PCN
(https://i.ibb.co/4w472cHJ/PXL-20250613-150420471.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ymgXpDrV)
(https://i.ibb.co/S4QpZYn3/Screenshot-2025-06-13-160521.png) (https://ibb.co/nN3SKdcL)
Images grabbed from redbridge
(https://i.ibb.co/1Ywgv096/Map-Image-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0pd7Dnft)
(https://i.ibb.co/rKTDKS9N/MapImage.jpg) (https://ibb.co/GfBzfLmN)
Google Street View (shows uncovered signage)
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Khartoum+Rd,+Ilford/@51.5482454,0.0760006,3a,90y,274.82h,90.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGsaFg0dLWasT6abDpVpWzQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-0.6742574019789629%26panoid%3DGsaFg0dLWasT6abDpVpWzQ%26yaw%3D274.82317109058056!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x47d8a66647b48631:0xaacaaa67e7312d9d!8m2!3d51.5481064!4d0.0747963!16s%2Fg%2F1tf2x1gz?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxMC4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D(https://i.ibb.co/4w472cHJ/PXL-20250613-150420471.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ymgXpDrV)