3. Messages

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 - cesur

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Greenwich - St Johns Park, Vanbrugh Park - Code 52M - Failure to Comply with a Prohibition of certain types of vehic
« on: April 28, 2026, 10:13:40 am »
Quote from: Incandescent on April 22, 2026, 12:43:52 pm
Quote from: cesur on April 22, 2026, 11:09:02 am
Quote from: Incandescent on April 22, 2026, 10:59:55 am
As per the rules for this forum, please post all sides of the PCN, only redacting name and address,

All three pages of the PCN was added to the Google Photos Album shared as "Evidence" which should have read as Evidence and PCN pages maybe.
Ah, sorry, missed that !  Video shows you driving with no hesitation past the sidn. Did you not see it or maybe didn't understand what it meant ?
One possibly winning appeal argument is the statement of the contravention - "........prohibition of certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles)" I believe there was a win at London Tribunals because the specific vehicles prohibited are not shown. The "(motor vehicles)" being not sufficiently precise on the nature of the restriction. But of course you'd have to risk the full PCN penalty to get a ruling at London Tribunals.

I think the driver may have thought they were within allowed times, or not aware of the restriction (sign didn't grab their attention).
The sign shows a motorbike and a car.

2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Greenwich - St Johns Park, Vanbrugh Park - Code 52M - Failure to Comply with a Prohibition of certain types of vehic
« on: April 22, 2026, 11:09:02 am »
Quote from: Incandescent on April 22, 2026, 10:59:55 am
As per the rules for this forum, please post all sides of the PCN, only redacting name and address,

All three pages of the PCN was added to the Google Photos Album shared as "Evidence" which should have read as Evidence and PCN pages maybe.

3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Greenwich - St Johns Park, Vanbrugh Park - Code 52M - Failure to Comply with a Prohibition of certain types of vehicle
« on: April 21, 2026, 11:28:11 pm »
Got a PCN as we drove through a prohibited road at a restricted time (just 8 mins before it is free to drive!) in Greenwich.

GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/dcjPmLzAuMcUXufm8

Evidence and PCN pages: https://photos.app.goo.gl/FAJ1fZZusoqisXj68

Any opinion on this PCN?

@Hippocrates, do we have any confidence on "date of service of this notice" statement to contest?

4
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« on: February 17, 2026, 11:37:37 am »
Quote from: cp8759 on February 17, 2026, 10:36:25 am
Outcome.

Thanks @cp8759!

5
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Crook Log Junction Avenue Road/Bexley, Yellow box
« on: January 02, 2026, 08:00:51 pm »
Received notice of rejection. added it here https://photos.app.goo.gl/KB1SqwYVyY27LbiP9

6
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: PEEL HOUSE SERVICE ROAD JW KENLEY ROAD MORDEN -> A no entry restriction PCN
« on: December 07, 2025, 04:42:19 pm »
Quote from: cesur on December 06, 2025, 02:31:55 pm
Does the "date of service" Vs "date of notice " difference make the PCN invalid @Hippocrates ?

Actually, after having a careful look, this appears to be having the same defect with others where "date of service" was mentioned rather than "date of notice".
I would recommend appealing with below: (copied Hippocrates's message from another topic)

Quote

This PCN fails to contain mandatory information at Part 2 Para. 4(8 )(v)
provided at:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28
day period, an increased charge may be payable

This in turn refers to (iii)

(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

The following statement does not clarify this:

If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations
before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date
of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable.

In light of the above, I ask that the PCN be cancelled.

7
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: PEEL HOUSE SERVICE ROAD JW KENLEY ROAD MORDEN -> A no entry restriction PCN
« on: December 06, 2025, 02:31:55 pm »
Does the "date of service" Vs "date of notice " difference make the PCN invalid @Hippocrates ?

8
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Crook Log Junction Avenue Road/Bexley, Yellow box
« on: November 29, 2025, 09:22:27 am »
Thanks @Hippocrates, That's a valid point. I appealed with that statement.

9
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Crook Log Junction Avenue Road/Bexley, Yellow box
« on: November 25, 2025, 11:21:01 am »
@Hippocrates, Last time I asked, you said Bexley fixed the issues on wording, does it apply all PCNs including yellow junction boxes?

10
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Crook Log Junction Avenue Road/Bexley, Yellow box
« on: November 23, 2025, 04:34:55 pm »
Hi all,

We managed to receive a yellow box PCN from Bexley council.
Sharing letter and evidence below: https://photos.app.goo.gl/KB1SqwYVyY27LbiP9

Can anyone hint how this can be appealed, any satisfactory grounds?

Thanks

11
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« on: September 04, 2025, 04:39:00 pm »
The Council responded while I was away with a letter dated August 12, 2025.
Looking for advice to appeal to adjudicators.




12
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« on: July 18, 2025, 11:48:15 am »
Amended as per your suggestion:

Quote
I write in response to the Notice to Keeper issued in respect of the above PCN.

I make this representation on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.

Footway parking is a permitted activity on Hall Place Crescent, evidenced by the presence of multiple marked parking bays which are painted partially on the footway. The existence of such bays necessarily implies that a resolution under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 has been passed to allow footway parking on this road. The question is therefore not whether footway parking is prohibited on Hall Place Crescent in general, but whether any such resolution applies selectively and whether the council can demonstrate that the location where my vehicle was parked falls outside the terms of the resolution.

If the council believes that I contravened the terms of a footway parking resolution that permits parking only in specific areas, it is incumbent on the council to produce a copy of that resolution and to show precisely how it applies to the road in question, including any maps or diagrams referred to in it.

Unless and until the council provides evidence of such a resolution and shows how the location in question falls outside its scope, I contend that the contravention did not occur. It is not for the keeper to prove the existence or content of a traffic resolution; the burden of proof lies squarely with the enforcement authority.

In light of the above, I respectfully request that this PCN be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

13
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« on: July 18, 2025, 12:54:42 am »
I have drafted below:

Quote
I write in response to the Notice to Keeper issued in respect of the above PCN.

I respectfully submit that the alleged contravention did not occur. Footway parking is clearly permitted on Hall Place Crescent, as evidenced by the marked parking bays that are painted partially on the footway. There are no signs or markings in the vicinity indicating that footway parking is restricted only to the marked bays, nor is there any signage indicating a general prohibition on footway parking on this road.

In areas where footway parking is generally prohibited, but selectively permitted by resolution, the council must ensure that the effect of the resolution is clearly conveyed through signage, in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD). The absence of such signage in this location leads to a legitimate expectation that footway parking is permitted throughout the road, and not confined strictly to the painted bays.

If the council believes a contravention has occurred, I request that you provide, as part of your response to this representation, a copy of the footway parking resolution under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, which governs footway parking on this road. It is for the council to demonstrate the legal basis for any restriction, and to show that this restriction was clearly and lawfully conveyed to motorists at the location.

Given the apparent absence of any signage, and the existence of marked bays that imply permission to park partially on the footway, I believe it was entirely reasonable to conclude that footway parking is permitted along this street.

In light of the above, I respectfully request that this PCN be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

14
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« on: July 14, 2025, 11:33:45 pm »
I am wondering if I should raise a separate SAR about the footpath resolution or request when submitting the appeal?

15
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« on: July 03, 2025, 04:41:14 pm »
Should we ask the authority about the resolution, @cp8759 ?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4