Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: NTIAEP on November 27, 2025, 12:17:25 pm

Title: Re: Redbridge / 53j-FailingToComplyWithRestrictionsOnVehiclesEnteringAPedestrianZone / Uphall Rd IG1
Post by: Hippocrates on July 06, 2026, 11:20:36 am

Quote from: tincombe on July 06, 2026, 09:11:37 am

So do I because the adjudicator, correctly IMO, dealt with the issue of liability first. Maybe one day authorities will realise that they may not just pay lip service to the 'Owner Liability' regs. But I won't be holding my breath.

She did so because I brought it up first to get the hearing concluded asap. I did not want to go on about "collateral crap" for ages.

Title: Re: Redbridge / 53j-FailingToComplyWithRestrictionsOnVehiclesEnteringAPedestrianZone / Uphall Rd IG1
Post by: tincombe on July 06, 2026, 09:11:37 am

So do I because the adjudicator, correctly IMO, dealt with the issue of liability first. Maybe one day authorities will realise that they may not just pay lip service to the 'Owner Liability' regs. But I won't be holding my breath.

Title: Re: Redbridge / 53j-FailingToComplyWithRestrictionsOnVehiclesEnteringAPedestrianZone / Uphall Rd IG1
Post by: roythebus on July 06, 2026, 01:08:16 am

I like it.:)

Title: Re: Redbridge / 53j-FailingToComplyWithRestrictionsOnVehiclesEnteringAPedestrianZone / Uphall Rd IG1
Post by: cp8759 on July 05, 2026, 11:39:33 pm

Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nBHzi_uniq1sU7aj-d00nkCRcGmAJ4WA/view).

Title: Re: Redbridge / 53j-FailingToComplyWithRestrictionsOnVehiclesEnteringAPedestrianZone / Uphall Rd IG1
Post by: Hippocrates on July 05, 2026, 10:18:21 pm

If Garry's toe met Sally's mouth......

Efkaristo e parakalo file mou.

Thanks you and please my friend.

Title: Re: Redbridge / 53j-FailingToComplyWithRestrictionsOnVehiclesEnteringAPedestrianZone / Uphall Rd IG1
Post by: NTIAEP on July 05, 2026, 09:17:58 pm

@Hippocrates - afgaristo!!

Title: Re: Redbridge / 53j-FailingToComplyWithRestrictionsOnVehiclesEnteringAPedestrianZone / Uphall Rd IG1
Post by: Hippocrates on July 04, 2026, 11:53:41 am

2260001818  ;D Seemples: no lessor signature on hire agreement (plus no letter of acceptance to the lessor before the new PCN was issued).

Title: Re: Redbridge / 53j-FailingToComplyWithRestrictionsOnVehiclesEnteringAPedestrianZone / Uphall Rd IG1
Post by: Hippocrates on June 13, 2026, 09:23:41 pm

On it.

Title: Re: Redbridge / 53j-FailingToComplyWithRestrictionsOnVehiclesEnteringAPedestrianZone / Uphall Rd IG1
Post by: Hippocrates on January 02, 2026, 09:42:17 pm

What did they say?

Title: Re: Redbridge / 53j-FailingToComplyWithRestrictionsOnVehiclesEnteringAPedestrianZone / Uphall Rd IG1
Post by: NTIAEP on January 02, 2026, 08:21:43 pm

As expected, Redbridge rejected my reps.....so London Tribunals hearing in the pipeline.

Title: Re: Redbridge / 53j-FailingToComplyWithRestrictionsOnVehiclesEnteringAPedestrianZone / Uphall Rd IG1
Post by: Hippocrates on November 27, 2025, 04:06:16 pm

I like it.

Title: Redbridge / 53j-FailingToComplyWithRestrictionsOnVehiclesEnteringAPedestrianZone / Uphall Rd IG1
Post by: NTIAEP on November 27, 2025, 12:17:25 pm

Salutations to all from me.

and "When it rains...it pours!!!" springs to mind.

Have received another PCN, this time for the above-mentioned alleged contravention.  Details are:

PCN (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nx65qfyf5kwxdcqkt4u20/20251118_MF17VHY_PCN-AF21017637_Uphall-Lane_20251021.pdf?rlkey=908sl06695uuyio82xrw1f0u8&st=kkpes0ia&dl=0)

CCTV footage (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/b55i44v2mbmhoroskwzyn/AF21017637_video.mp4?rlkey=j4tjswt31luimojovti8fjbwd&st=b7aqd0c7&dl=0)

GSV (https://maps.app.goo.gl/iPuKGbk77d7BDzHDA)


Will be submitting initial reps along the following lines:

1) using @Hippocrates argument of missing mandatory language pertaining to "...Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of...."
2) tree foliage on the nearside along with height of the signs did not give a clear and unrestricted view of the said signs;
3) no advance warning signs with the enforced times, just the following (see pic) (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/173o3am82az9cinxq0eb2/AF21017637_current-advance-warning-signs.jpg?rlkey=k0ln9lmm8hphcjok2z4w6pmw5&st=06qmsusm&dl=0).  Is this a valid [regulatory] argument?

Can't use the "Term-time only" get-out clause anymore as most (not all!!) have been taped over.

Thoughts/opinions please before I shoot it off to Redbridge council.

Regards - NTIAEP