Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - JOJO1209

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
The authority has now responded and uploaded its evidence. I will post it shortly for your comments and advice.

Video or telephone hearing which is the preferred option to choose?

Thanks

2
@Stamfordman
@tincombe

Appeal registered on the TPT website to meet the deadline.
I stated that the appeal details would be provided later and am now updating it with the write-up provided.
Thank you both very much for your help - much appreciated.

3
@stamfordman

You must register the appeal right now with the tribunal. That's all that matters at this point.

Okay thanks.
I am going to do that now.

Please can you provide me with a couple of sentences or paragraphs to log in the TPT website.
Thank you.

4
@stamfordman
@tincombe



In the NOR, the council refers to signage stating "Except for loading by goods vehicles 5pm - 10pm". It also refers to yellow signs within the High Street stating that it is a Restricted Zone operating "At Any Time".

However, there were no such signs in the immediate vicinity of where I was parked. The council has not included any photographs showing signage close to my vehicle, despite referring to it in the NOR.

The High Street appears to be very poorly signed for such a lengthy road. There are entry signs on Bachelor Road, but these are surrounded by numerous shop signs and other street furniture. There are also no road markings on the High Street itself to remind motorists of any restriction.

In addition, the entry signs referred to in the NOR do not appear to be visible to approaching drivers from the direction I travelled. The signs are positioned on the far side of the junction and face away from approaching traffic.

I will try to upload the photographs I took earlier. If there are any specific locations, signs, approaches, or views that would assist in assessing the adequacy of the signage and preparing my TPT appeal, please let me know and I will go back to the High Street and take whatever additional photographs are needed.

I am going to register the appeal today to protect the deadline. I would be grateful for any assistance with drafting the TPT submission or just a few paragraphs or sentences to put on the TPT website and update it later once we have reviewed the additional photos pictures or more information.


Thank you.

5
Just checked it on Medway website. The pictures & details are there PCN showing at £70.
See link below

https://payment.medway.gov.uk/public/Pcn/lookup

Maybe just double check the PCN and Car Reg.

Also there is a link to the PCN in the original post of this thread posted 19th April 2026.

6
Update

Apologies for the delayed update.

I have been away and was unable to collect my post.

I have now received the Notice of Rejection, and my representations have been rejected. The rejection letter is dated 18th May 2026; I believe the deadline for lodging an appeal with the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) is either Wednesday 17 June or Thursday 18 June 2026. Could someone please confirm the correct deadline?

I would like to proceed with an appeal to the Tribunal and would appreciate assistance with drafting my submission.

I have attached a link :
My original representations/appeal - https://ibb.co/jk0pXzC0
The Notice of Rejection - https://ibb.co/Qvj7jKCH
Could members please review the documents and advise:

What grounds of appeal I should rely on before the Tribunal;

Whether there are any additional grounds or arguments that I can include; and

Any points in the rejection letter that may be challenged.

Many thanks for any help and advice.

8
@stamfordman

Thank you.
Sorry for the delay in posting this.
I intend to send something today before midnight before the amount increases to £105.
Is there anything else you think I can add to the representation?
What do you think about the other points that I raised.
Thanks

9
Medway- Chatham High Stret - CC01- Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
Loading Exemption & CEO Conduct and any other– Grounds to Challenge this PCN.

Link to photos & Postal PCN

https://ibb.co/album/bszcDX


I would appreciate advice on whether I have grounds to challenge a PCN issued by Medway Council.
Background
On 19/03/2026, I parked in order to load large and heavy items I had just purchased from Primark in Chatham. These included:
13 thick bulky long dresses
Packed in a very large IKEA bag & a large pink Lidl shopping bag.
Due to the size, weight, and awkward nature of the items, I needed to park as close as possible. Even then, the walk back to my car was approximately 6 -7 minutes, and longer due to mobility issues.
I have a receipt timed at 17:56.
Timeline
PCN observation time: 18:02:31 – 18:04
I was returning to my vehicle while carrying the big heavy bags when I saw the CEO standing next to my car.
I informed the CEO I was loading and showed him the bags but he ignored me a said he has already issued the PCN but to there was no PCN affixed to my car no did he have one ready to hand over. He was still taking pictures and was trying to start printing it
He stood by the passenger door, preventing me from loading until I asked him to move.
When I began opening the door, he moved in front of my car instead to prevent me from driving away.
At this point:
The PCN had not yet been printed or served.
The CEO stated he had “already issued the ticket,” but it was clearly not complete.
CEO Conduct
The situation escalated as follows:
The CEO stood in front of my vehicle, preventing me from leaving.
He was shouting and behaving in an aggressive and intimidating manner.
He began taking photos of me while I was in the driver’s seat.
I felt forced to reverse to avoid hitting him, as he blocked my path forward.
This created a dangerous situation, as my visibility was compromised while trying to manoeuvre safely. I felt panicked, intimidated, and fearful.
Postal PCN
A postal PCN dated 20/03/2026 was later received.
The council’s website shows only an image of my car driving away.
Grounds for Challenge (Please advise)
1. Loading Exemption
I was actively loading heavy, bulky goods.
The timing supports this:
Purchase: 17:56
Observation: 18:02–18:04
The activity was continuous and necessary.
2. Duration
I was parked only as long as necessary to collect and load the items.
3. PCN Service (Regulation 10)
The CEO had not completed or served the PCN when I returned.
The situation suggests I was not prevented from being served, but rather the CEO had not finished issuing it.
Does this invalidate the use of a postal PCN?
4. Mobility Issues
I have ongoing mobility problems and medical evidence (orthopaedic referral, physiotherapy).
This necessitated parking as close as possible.
5. CEO Behaviour
Aggressive, intimidating, and confrontational.
Obstructed me from loading and leaving.
Created a hazardous situation by standing in front of my vehicle.
6. Procedural Impropriety – Service Period
The PCN states that Medway Council allows “an additional 3 working days” for service.
However, legislation states service is deemed 2 working days after posting.
Is this discrepancy a procedural impropriety?
7. Discount Period Issue
On 6th April, the PCN showed £35 (discounted).
On 7th April, it showed £70.
This appears to be before the 14-day discount period expired.
Does this amount to unfair or unlawful enforcement?
8. Additional Grounds?
Are there any further arguments I may have missed?
Deadline Question
I calculate the 28-day deadline for appeal as 20 April 2026.
Is this correct?
Can the experts review and advise on the strength of this  case—particularly around loading exemption and postal PCN validity and any other grounds that I may have missed or not aware of
—I would be very grateful.

10
The High Court has quashed six permanent Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) schemes in Croydon after a judge ruled they were unlawfully introduced, with the court finding they were partly used to help address the borough’s severe financial difficulties.

Full article:
https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/croydon-ltns-ruled-unlawful-high-33539749

This is a very interesting development and could be a bit of a breather for local residents and drivers.

It may come as welcome news for people who were caught out by the restrictions, as well as for locals and commuters who relied on these roads to avoid the already very busy main routes.

It will be interesting to see whether other councils could face similar legal challenges.

I’ve also heard that it might be possible to claim back fines that were issued under these schemes, although I’m not sure how accurate that is. If anyone has more information on this, it would be good to hear.

11
@Incandescent


Thank You for this useful information about the discount being reoffered if the formal challenge is rejected after receiving the NTO.

Very wise Words indeed.

Appreciated

12
@H C Anderson
@stamfordman
@cp8759
@Incandescent
@404BrainNotFound

Urgent advice needed

Please could I have some urgent advice.

Sorry for the late post. Had difficulty uploading the council rejection letters so that it is clear and legible
The new ( 2nd rejection letter to my informal challenges) states that I have until 20 January 2026 to pay the reduced amount of £80.

Seeking advice on prospects at tribunal vs paying discount (£80) – PCN CR49091397
Sorry for the late posting, I’d appreciate some guidance on whether it’s worth continuing to tribunal or paying the discounted amount today. The discount (£80) is significant and expires end of today (20/01/26)or else I will have to pay £160 if I lose or pay if I wait for the NTO and appeal and lose.

Timeline:
•   1st informal challenge → rejected ( Link to challenge and rejection letter)
•   https://ibb.co/wrMPf7DN
•   https://ibb.co/jZjxRM5j

•   Updated informal challenge → rejected( Link to challenge and rejection letter)
•   https://ibb.co/TxTtwj8M
•   https://ibb.co/KcYKWf6M


•   Discount re-offered until today 20th January 2026.


In the council’s rejection letter dated 5 January 2026, they now state that I was parked outside Nos. 31–33 Church Street and rely on a photograph to support this. However, they argue that the precise location (door number / lamp post / exact position) is irrelevant as long as the street name is correct.
My concern is that this would only be correct if the entire stretch were a single bay. In this case, there are two distinct loading bays, separated by double yellow lines, serving:
•   Nos. 27–33, and
•   Nos. 35–41
The bays are not contiguous and are subject to separate restrictions. The PCN originally alleged parking outside No. 35, which relates to a different bay.
Questions:
1.   Is the authority correct in saying that the precise location (door number / bay location) is irrelevant in these circumstances, where there are two separate bays on the same street?
2.   The council admits that the CEO photograph of the restriction signage / timeplate is blurred, but dismisses this by saying photographic evidence is not a statutory requirement.
o   Is that correct in practice?
o   As an ordinary motorist, if the signage image is blurred and the PCN wording does not specify the class of vehicle the bay is restricted to, how is one supposed to understand the alleged contravention from the face of the PCN?
3.   Are there any other procedural or evidential issues anyone can spot from the rejection letter or facts?
Ultimately, I need help deciding:
•   Whether to pay the £80 today, or
•   Continue to the Notice to Owner and tribunal
What are my realistic chances of success at tribunal based on this?
Also, if I wait for the NTO, is the discount typically re-offered, or should I assume it will be gone?
Any expert insight would be much appreciated.


13

@H C Anderson 
@stamfordman 
@cp8759 
@Incandescent
@404BrainNotFound

Urgent advice needed

Please could I have some urgent advice.
The rejection letter states that I have until 5 January 2026 to pay the reduced amount of £80.
For background, please see my previous post:
Reply #17 on: December 18, 2025, 01:40:55 pm for full details and a copy of the rejection letter.
The council’s initial rejection is dated 17 December 2025.
I then sent a further challenge around 20 December 2025, raising the issue of the wrong location. I have not yet received any response to this additional challenge, which I assume may be due to the Christmas and New Year holiday period.
My questions are:
Are they likely to consider and respond to this additional challenge about the wrong location?
Are they under any obligation to place the PCN on hold while they review and respond to the additional challenge?
Will the discounted amount be reoffered, given that both my initial challenge and the additional challenge were submitted while the PCN was still at the discounted rate?
I am worried about losing the option to pay the discounted amount if they do not respond to my additional challenge before today.
I am therefore in a dilemma as to whether:
to pay the discounted amount, which expires today (5 January 2026) according to the rejection letter dated 17 December 2025, or
to wait and see if they respond to my additional challenge.
Also:
What are the realistic chances of success if this goes all the way to the tribunal?
Would I be able to get help from the expert forum members in drafting my tribunal representations if needed?
Many thanks in advance for your time and help.

14
@H C Andersen
@stamfordman
@CP1857


Advice Needed: Croydon Council PCN Rejection

Croydon Council has rejected my informal challenge. I’ve posted the full details and their rejection letter in my earlier post here: Reply #17 December 18, 2025, 01:40:55 pm

https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?action=post;topic=8956.15;last_msg=103008#:~:text=%C2%AB%C2%A0on%3A%20December%2018,Insert%20Quote



Could I please ask for your expert eyes on my case? I’d really appreciate your thoughts:

Many thanks in advance for any advice—it’s a great help.

15
Seeking advice: informal rejection and issues pictorial evidence provided by Council.

I need some advice regarding the informal rejection I received by email yesterday. The experts may identify issues  with the rejection letter.

Link below to the original letter emailed yesterday.


https://ibb.co/jZjxRM5j

They have dismissed the issue of the missing suffice that it is for administrative purposes;  ineffect denied that the PCN has insufficient information describing the contractrvention for the motorist to understand the contravention. The PCN
needs to identify, whether by wording or images, that the class of vehicle
for which the bay is designated is goods vehicles only.


Also, I noticed a few issues with the evidence attached to the letter:
*  The title of the council's picture on Page 4  labelled “outside No35,” is showing Nos. 29 A & B ( The Lyca Shop) which is incorrect. I have attached the link to the council 's picture which is on page 4 of the rejection letter below.

https://ibb.co/FbBmw5W0

Current GSV showing  Nos. 27 - 35 No.s Church Street including the two bays and the double yellow line separating the two bays.

https://ibb.co/nsHg6T1S
https://ibb.co/jP8LZvYw
https://ibb.co/7J895YM7

https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.373493,-0.102113,209.18h,-27.39p,1.91z,vgv-lCaS5L74BhJqM5FtIw


See attached link

https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.373442,-0.1024,94h,10.39p,2.7z,2w_QXUVANf3u6y4OQL9l5Q

Link below to the Files with all the pictures including the PCN and The Authorities evidence/ pictures.

https://ibb.co/7J895YM7
https://ibb.co/nsHg6T1S
https://ibb.co/jP8LZvYw
https://ibb.co/jZjxRM5j
https://ibb.co/FbBmw5W0
https://ibb.co/mFYSNpCF
https://ibb.co/CpSqrdGp
https://ibb.co/gCS2Hy9
https://ibb.co/sJDbxy0X
https://ibb.co/7N0t3Hzj
https://ibb.co/BKcK5nLZ
https://ibb.co/Q3sKGV9P
https://ibb.co/21ScSKDr
https://ibb.co/fVjh9sQS
https://ibb.co/84SgGDF1
https://ibb.co/214VRjKr
https://ibb.co/DgGZdHYy

 Any advice or help would be appreciated.

Any advice on how to proceed?

Thanks in advance.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8