Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Paulc156 on November 15, 2025, 06:09:51 pm
-
Filed.
-
Yes. I'll PM you later.
Sorted.
-
Their response is wrong.
Hi Hippocrates. Would you be able to act as my authorised representative?
Grounds of appeal? etc
Thanks.
-
Their response is wrong.
-
Further images...
https://imgpile.com/p/8jvGiRI
https://imgpile.com/p/UpMKPxd
-
So do I.
Hi. Today I got a Notice of Rejection of Representation related to my entering a 'school street' as noted in this thread. I've included the response and Notice of Appeal form below. Are you able to assist me with this? If so how should I respond? Thank you in advance.
https://imgpile.com/p/UpMKPxd
-
Representations made online today. As suggested, I used Hippocrates 'missing information' argument. I await the inevetible rejection by Rebridge.
Keep us posted.
-
So do I.
-
Representations made online today. As suggested, I used Hippocrates 'missing information' argument. I await the inevetible rejection by Rebridge.
-
Yes to both. Always personal.
Cheers.
-
Yes to both. Always personal.
-
I acted in both cases.
I thought that it might be yourself. I am inclined to appeal but I'm wondering about 2 things.
1. For the initial LBof Redbridge appeal do I simply lift the argument you made on the link regards missing information/conjunctive/ subjunctive etc?
2. Assuming Redbridge reject it would you be willing to help me with the tribunal itself... where I'm assuming a personally delivered argument would likely get more traction than a written one? Or do you think it makes no difference?
Thanks for the links provided on here they have been very enlightening.
-
I acted in both cases.
-
I will draft later.
Hi.Ive read a bit more around here with particular emphasis on the argument made by Hippocrates on the PCN 'missing information' grounds for appeal.
I'll admit to finding it all a bit heavy going but I have found two separate and recent tribunal decisions where PCNs were cancelled seemingly on these grounds,(missing or confusing information on PCN). I'll include links to those 2 tribunal judgements below.
The confusion is that whilst both appeals were successful the reasons given by each tribunal were quite different!
I will obviously have to decide in next couple of days (within the 14 day period as per PCN) whether to pay the reduced charge or appeal but will beed some help in drafting the appeal to the L.B.of Redbridge in the first instance and then assuming rejection, to the tribunal.
Do I simply lift the argument from the link you have provided?
Any help is much appreciated.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:e299d7d0-35f3-4a1d-b783-7238669b8650
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:53a5414a-ac41-4a6d-9662-3fae3f439946
-
I will draft later.
-
I see they have changed the blue plate. However, look at the first link in my profile as I say that the PCN is invalid due to missing information.
Thanks for the response. I will read your link a second time but have to admit my own knowledge of English grammar isn't up to scratch! I think you're basically suggesting their own text is confusing or contradictory? For clarity I'm just including here the reverse side of the PCN I didn't post earlier along with the photos and video that LBof Redbridge have on their record of the incident. Is there any precedent (has it been tested?) for this particular defence?
https://imgpile.com/p/WlgnK3c
-
Have you read and digested my post yet?
-
The absolutely absurd height of these signs must surely make them questionable, but the only way you'll find out is to take them to London Tribunals, pint out they are way outside a motorists normal view. Councils really shouldn't be allowed to get away with stuff like this, but they do, because most people just cough-up to get the discount.
I believe there are recommendations on sign height in the manual for road signs, but it's an awfully big document to trawl through.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made
I had a quick look and like you say its a big document! I will try and nail down the pertinent information later on today when I have a bit more time. Thanks
-
I see they have changed the blue plate. However, look at the first link in my profile as I say that the PCN is invalid due to missing information.
-
The absolutely absurd height of these signs must surely make them questionable, but the only way you'll find out is to take them to London Tribunals, pint out they are way outside a motorists normal view. Councils really shouldn't be allowed to get away with stuff like this, but they do, because most people just cough-up to get the discount.
I believe there are recommendations on sign height in the manual for road signs, but it's an awfully big document to trawl through.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made
-
Just today I received a PCN in post for entering a pedestrian zone in Sydney Road Barkingside. Completely flummoxed me as the signage is quite high up and I had been parked right alongside the said road and the signs and was more focused on the heavy traffic and pedestrians crossing etc when I turned into Sydney Rd from the High St🤦🏻
I've read a post on here on same issue and location, that was successfully appealed by poster shah123. Other appeals have been successful apparently too. shah123 appeal was a success noted only last week on here. But it seemed to hinge on the signage.
It looks like the blue sign that was visible when shah123 received his PCN back in Feb has been altered. It previously read: 'School Streets Restricted Access Term Time Only'...Sign now reads a truncated version: 'School Streets Restricted Access'. I'm presuming LB Redbridge have made the alteration in the light of the above noted successful appeals.
So I wonder if there is any longer a realistic chance of getting this overturned? Thankyou.
https://imgpile.com/p/EjHE9Fl
https://imgpile.com/p/gOSqEns