1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge - 50u Prohibited Turn
« on: November 25, 2025, 08:45:52 pm »
Could you link the tribunal case which was rejected and any others pertaining to this location please.
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.
Pages: [1] 2
2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge - 50u Prohibited Turn
« on: November 24, 2025, 03:42:58 pm »
@LondonTraveller84 You're right and I'm delaying my reps to mine as I'm sure that I want to be fighting this at tribunal raising the points you mentioned as per forum advice (delaying reps until around the 25th day where they should be busy sending a charge certificate)
As for pre-signage, it makes sense for this junction. Where a side road enters into a main road and the main road has some sort of restriction on it for x amount of yards/miles/metres... there must be a first sign indicating it. This is the case for this No U-turn zone, with the first sign being at Paddypower and for the opposite way being near Wellesley Road traffic lights. Any repeater signs are to be taken as first-time signs if the main sign was unable to be seen, as in this case. Our case is that drivers are unable to clearly see those repeater signs on both sides due to the angle, height and A-pillar's of cars blocking view of it when turning left and the immediate attention paid to traffic coming from the right as well as the pedestrian crossing. Especially when you previously didn't know about the restriction. To be honest, since this ticket, I have been paying attention to the restriction and only not doing a U-turn due to foreknowledge. Not due to the signs, and obviously now, just by experience... it is easier to see because you've been caught out once.
Near where I live, there is a road known as Browning Road, E12 and there is a bridge which is a no cars/bikes zone except for buses, taxis and permit holders. There are 2 signs, one nearside and offside AND there is a pre-sign warning of the bridge restriction on Rectory Road. Despite that sign existing, a tribunal was won because the tree slightly covered the sign and it was unclear/slightly invisible for those coming from Chesterford Road (Y-junction with Rectory Road). Surely the same can apply here, especially when both roads are fairly busy and high volume of pedestrians almost at any time of the day...
As for pre-signage, it makes sense for this junction. Where a side road enters into a main road and the main road has some sort of restriction on it for x amount of yards/miles/metres... there must be a first sign indicating it. This is the case for this No U-turn zone, with the first sign being at Paddypower and for the opposite way being near Wellesley Road traffic lights. Any repeater signs are to be taken as first-time signs if the main sign was unable to be seen, as in this case. Our case is that drivers are unable to clearly see those repeater signs on both sides due to the angle, height and A-pillar's of cars blocking view of it when turning left and the immediate attention paid to traffic coming from the right as well as the pedestrian crossing. Especially when you previously didn't know about the restriction. To be honest, since this ticket, I have been paying attention to the restriction and only not doing a U-turn due to foreknowledge. Not due to the signs, and obviously now, just by experience... it is easier to see because you've been caught out once.
Near where I live, there is a road known as Browning Road, E12 and there is a bridge which is a no cars/bikes zone except for buses, taxis and permit holders. There are 2 signs, one nearside and offside AND there is a pre-sign warning of the bridge restriction on Rectory Road. Despite that sign existing, a tribunal was won because the tree slightly covered the sign and it was unclear/slightly invisible for those coming from Chesterford Road (Y-junction with Rectory Road). Surely the same can apply here, especially when both roads are fairly busy and high volume of pedestrians almost at any time of the day...
3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Newham – Code 52M, Browning Road E12 (North Side) – Poor sign visibility (PCN PN77444424)
« on: November 19, 2025, 04:15:35 am »
Did you end up paying it or in the process of appealing it?
4
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge - 53j Perrymans Farm Road - Failing to comply with a pedestrian zone restriction
« on: November 19, 2025, 04:01:17 am »
Just thought I'd mention here since it's relevant. I've driven past a few school zones in Redbridge and the 'term-time only' text on the blue information signs under the healthy school street zone signage have been redacted/taped over. So the loophole for future cases may just be gone.
5
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge - 50u Prohibited Turn
« on: November 05, 2025, 08:35:34 pm »
Hello people. Just received this same PCN in the post, same location same alleged contravention: 50u - u-turn. Will make my own thread in the coming days but just raising a few points as I'm fairly local to the area.
- As seen on the GSV when comparing dates, this no U-turn signage is fairly new. Never was there for many years whilst the no-left-turn has always been there. I always did this specific manoeuvre as there was, up until now, nothing prohibiting it. Clearly this is a response to those doing what we do however, surely there has to be clear and adequate signage for THOSE coming from York Road. This is because, well people live off York Road, AND there exists Mill Road which is a common rat route into the North West Ilford/Cranbook area (IG1 3XX) The start of the No-U-Turn zone is indicated with a sign adjacent to Paddypower (before York Rd when travelling northbound on A123 - Cranbook Road). There is no indication that we are in this no-u-turn zone if we have not driven through Cranbook Road before/in the journey. This leads into my next point
- You are unable to see the sign and be aware of the U-turn prohibition due to almost every car's A-pillar blocking view of that sign when driving right underneath it letalone turning right. It is also placed on the off-side rather than the near side. There are also no advance warning signs like there are with school streets and no left/right turns (precisely what the junction with York Road and Cranbook Road is). Surely, it should be mandatory to have a bigger 'white' square sign like we see in many other high-revenue junctions detailing the specific prohibitions entailing to this junction.
- As seen on the GSV when comparing dates, this no U-turn signage is fairly new. Never was there for many years whilst the no-left-turn has always been there. I always did this specific manoeuvre as there was, up until now, nothing prohibiting it. Clearly this is a response to those doing what we do however, surely there has to be clear and adequate signage for THOSE coming from York Road. This is because, well people live off York Road, AND there exists Mill Road which is a common rat route into the North West Ilford/Cranbook area (IG1 3XX) The start of the No-U-Turn zone is indicated with a sign adjacent to Paddypower (before York Rd when travelling northbound on A123 - Cranbook Road). There is no indication that we are in this no-u-turn zone if we have not driven through Cranbook Road before/in the journey. This leads into my next point
- You are unable to see the sign and be aware of the U-turn prohibition due to almost every car's A-pillar blocking view of that sign when driving right underneath it letalone turning right. It is also placed on the off-side rather than the near side. There are also no advance warning signs like there are with school streets and no left/right turns (precisely what the junction with York Road and Cranbook Road is). Surely, it should be mandatory to have a bigger 'white' square sign like we see in many other high-revenue junctions detailing the specific prohibitions entailing to this junction.
6
Private parking tickets / Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
« on: August 20, 2025, 02:58:06 pm »
Familiar with this exact same situation regarding a friend of mine at the exact same place, Bow, where they have nefarious cameras in front of the bay. And all of this was the driver driving into a disabled bay for 1 minute to just conveniently pick up a small item from their other friend. Realised his mistake, and drove out afterwards. Obviously did not breach the 10-minute waiting time you have to decide whether you want to enter into a contract by remaining in the car park.
To date, he tried to do a transfer of liability, and appealed it. For the transfer, they asked for driving licence/proof of insurance LOL even though the RK wasn't the driver. They are at no legal liberty to ask for that, and God forbid, their company encounters a data leak. They rejected the appeal, even when proof of disability was given due to disabled passenger in the rear.
This was 9 months ago... they have only bothered to send Debt Recovery Plus letters semi-recently to my friend and they've stopped for now, according to them. Take that as you will.
MET Parking, a disgusting company.
To date, he tried to do a transfer of liability, and appealed it. For the transfer, they asked for driving licence/proof of insurance LOL even though the RK wasn't the driver. They are at no legal liberty to ask for that, and God forbid, their company encounters a data leak. They rejected the appeal, even when proof of disability was given due to disabled passenger in the rear.
This was 9 months ago... they have only bothered to send Debt Recovery Plus letters semi-recently to my friend and they've stopped for now, according to them. Take that as you will.
MET Parking, a disgusting company.
7
The Flame Pit / Re: Was pulled over for speeding
« on: April 04, 2025, 05:56:51 pm »
If the police didn't submit, whilst pulled over, a traffic offence report and sent that off to Sidcup DA15 0BQ (Met Police Camera and Prosecution Centre)... then really and truly it was just a warning. I've been pulled over after doing some speeds at night, and they said 'letter's in the post, don't ignore it' and as far as I'm aware, that is just an empty threat.
Don't quote me on this, this is just my experience. Also, if they did send a TOR, they have 6 months to issue you a NIP to your address otherwise it's unenforceable.
Don't quote me on this, this is just my experience. Also, if they did send a TOR, they have 6 months to issue you a NIP to your address otherwise it's unenforceable.
8
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Newham, London - Code 40 parked in a disabled badge holder only bay - East Avenue E12
« on: November 01, 2024, 05:25:12 pm »
Please view pages 10 and 28/30 of the attached document which outlines cancellation procedures for those dealing with PCN's, to find their policy regarding 'picking up and setting down' i.e assisted boarding. Page 28 goes in depth in terms of the policy. I understand that the document is old, however I cannot find a more recent and similar document. It is also found specifically in the 'PCN spreadsheet' on the FTLA website. In that document named newhamparkingpolicyprocedures, nothing is stated about picking up and setting down, however the period of observation is mentioned required for code 40 is.
In the second attachment, please view subtitles: 4.4 - Observation Policy on page 36 and the corresponding Appendix C. As far as I'm aware, that document is the latest edition I can find after searching 'Newham parking policy' on Google, it being the first result
I must also state that in the Civil Enforcement Officers handbook document issued by London Councils (publicly available document), for code 40, it states that an observation period is required, with A (picking up and setting down being an exemption, no mention of requirement of valid BB) being an exemption.
As for the latter you've mentioned, the person I was picking up is elderly, disabled and had that specific incontinence. As far as I'm aware, that does sufficiently meet the conditions for assisted boarding and I have provided hard evidence to the council to prove that. He does have a blue badge but he forgot it at home, and the council will not accept pictures of it as it was not in the vehicle at the time of alleged contravention.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
In the second attachment, please view subtitles: 4.4 - Observation Policy on page 36 and the corresponding Appendix C. As far as I'm aware, that document is the latest edition I can find after searching 'Newham parking policy' on Google, it being the first result
I must also state that in the Civil Enforcement Officers handbook document issued by London Councils (publicly available document), for code 40, it states that an observation period is required, with A (picking up and setting down being an exemption, no mention of requirement of valid BB) being an exemption.
As for the latter you've mentioned, the person I was picking up is elderly, disabled and had that specific incontinence. As far as I'm aware, that does sufficiently meet the conditions for assisted boarding and I have provided hard evidence to the council to prove that. He does have a blue badge but he forgot it at home, and the council will not accept pictures of it as it was not in the vehicle at the time of alleged contravention.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
9
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Newham, London - Code 40 parked in a disabled badge holder only bay - East Avenue E12
« on: November 01, 2024, 03:56:53 pm »
Well, after supplying hard evidence in the form of a medical fit note issued by the GP of the elderly person which clearly stated he had diarrhea on the day of the alleged contravention, as well as further evidence showing that Newham's policy with observation periods/assisted boarding meant that my PCN should be cancelled... I have received this (lazy) notice of rejection.
I explained it correctly and made valid points, included the original PCN slip which showed 0 minutes observation time as well as what the standard observation time for code 40 etc...
The 1st point they mention is just lazy and absolutely factually incorrect. Newham's own policy state that picking up/setting down or assisted boarding can be done ANYWHERE except for bus stops, school keep-clears, pedestrian zig-zag markings and footway parking. There is no mention of disabled bays (whether they be for residents or for public use). This exemption applies for up to 2 minutes, and if longer than hard evidence must be supplied (I did so). No mention of the requirement for a valid disabled badge is found in the document/policy nor is it even hinted at, whether the assisted boarding took place in a disabled bay or anywhere else except the aforementioned.
The 2nd point is also false, as the serious offences they refer to are the one's mentioned above. Also, the serious offences which do not require an observation period and are subject to immediate enforcement are clearly distinguished in Appendix C of newhamparkingpolicyprocedures.pdf i.e those with 0 minutes and 'on-street'. An example of this which I did not mentioned above, is parking adjacent to a dropped footway i.e blocking a driveway. Surely my alleged offence under code 40 is not serious, as it has a observation time of 2 minutes. If it was serious, it would be stated as 0 minutes accordingly and then that point/paragraph would make sense.
I have a feeling that they did not even bother with looking at my evidence and just skimmed over what I wrote in my formal appeal. Also, they are offering me a discount at the rejection of formal representation stage, which is not normal from them. Would this win at the Tribunals or should I just pay to secure the discount, even though I am fully of the belief that I did NOT commit any contravention due to exemption.
It has got me starting to wonder why they are so biased in their judgement of appeals at these early stages.
I explained it correctly and made valid points, included the original PCN slip which showed 0 minutes observation time as well as what the standard observation time for code 40 etc...
The 1st point they mention is just lazy and absolutely factually incorrect. Newham's own policy state that picking up/setting down or assisted boarding can be done ANYWHERE except for bus stops, school keep-clears, pedestrian zig-zag markings and footway parking. There is no mention of disabled bays (whether they be for residents or for public use). This exemption applies for up to 2 minutes, and if longer than hard evidence must be supplied (I did so). No mention of the requirement for a valid disabled badge is found in the document/policy nor is it even hinted at, whether the assisted boarding took place in a disabled bay or anywhere else except the aforementioned.
The 2nd point is also false, as the serious offences they refer to are the one's mentioned above. Also, the serious offences which do not require an observation period and are subject to immediate enforcement are clearly distinguished in Appendix C of newhamparkingpolicyprocedures.pdf i.e those with 0 minutes and 'on-street'. An example of this which I did not mentioned above, is parking adjacent to a dropped footway i.e blocking a driveway. Surely my alleged offence under code 40 is not serious, as it has a observation time of 2 minutes. If it was serious, it would be stated as 0 minutes accordingly and then that point/paragraph would make sense.
I have a feeling that they did not even bother with looking at my evidence and just skimmed over what I wrote in my formal appeal. Also, they are offering me a discount at the rejection of formal representation stage, which is not normal from them. Would this win at the Tribunals or should I just pay to secure the discount, even though I am fully of the belief that I did NOT commit any contravention due to exemption.
It has got me starting to wonder why they are so biased in their judgement of appeals at these early stages.
10
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Newham, London - Code 40 parked in a disabled badge holder only bay - East Avenue E12
« on: October 14, 2024, 05:34:45 pm »
I have received the NtO. I have posted it via Imgur, please view if need be. I will by today, submit formal reps under the first ground for appeal: 'The contravention didn't occur' as I am arguing under the exemption: 'Assisted boarding' and also CEO Error
I also have obtained a fit note from the GP of the person I had picked up on that day, stating that he had diarrhea which necessitated him needing a pick-uo from the mosque. He has also written, by hand, a witness statement for me on that day which he has signed. As far as 'hard evidence' goes, I think in my opinion that is suitable enough (see previous, fob off rejection letter)
Also, CEO gave incorrect observation time contrary to Newham policy (which is 2 minutes), so I will mention that point in there too. I really don't want to go to Tribunals, as I got one ticket that is at that stage and quite frankly, it is super long-winded. I will attempt to refute their fob off letter precisely, as they did state they require hard evidence, which I have got.
Hopefully this is the end of it. If there is any other 'hard evidence' types that I have not considered to authenticate my circumstances, please let me know.
Any helpful advice regarding, including potentially a draft of formal reps given my previous replies in this thread would be hugely appreciated
I also have obtained a fit note from the GP of the person I had picked up on that day, stating that he had diarrhea which necessitated him needing a pick-uo from the mosque. He has also written, by hand, a witness statement for me on that day which he has signed. As far as 'hard evidence' goes, I think in my opinion that is suitable enough (see previous, fob off rejection letter)
Also, CEO gave incorrect observation time contrary to Newham policy (which is 2 minutes), so I will mention that point in there too. I really don't want to go to Tribunals, as I got one ticket that is at that stage and quite frankly, it is super long-winded. I will attempt to refute their fob off letter precisely, as they did state they require hard evidence, which I have got.
Hopefully this is the end of it. If there is any other 'hard evidence' types that I have not considered to authenticate my circumstances, please let me know.
Any helpful advice regarding, including potentially a draft of formal reps given my previous replies in this thread would be hugely appreciated
11
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Newham, London - Code 40 parked in a disabled badge holder only bay - East Avenue E12
« on: September 12, 2024, 02:48:50 pm »
So, in terms of assisted boarding and that only, what hard evidence would be suitable? I don't think I can get a note from the imam as he wasn't involved. However, I can definitely get medical evidence to prove that he needed help with boarding, and I had to leave my car parked for 2 minutes to do so. The question is, what medical evidence would be suitable as it isn't clear... he did have diarrhea that day. Don't know if that is excusable.
Would a sick note be sufficient, or what about a witness statement signed by the person I was picking up, my dad's friend...
It's very hard to think of 'hard evidence' that they would require.
Either way, the CEO didn't observe my car for the 2 minutes that I was gone to assist him in boarding. I mentioned assisted boarding without evidence as I didn't think it would be needed, and wasn't clear on what exact evidence was needed to prove my version of events. But I want to mainly try appeal from the technicality of incorrect observation time, as if the CEO observed as per Newham policy, I would have made clear my circumstances to him and I wouldn't have got the ticket in the first place.
Would a sick note be sufficient, or what about a witness statement signed by the person I was picking up, my dad's friend...
It's very hard to think of 'hard evidence' that they would require.
Either way, the CEO didn't observe my car for the 2 minutes that I was gone to assist him in boarding. I mentioned assisted boarding without evidence as I didn't think it would be needed, and wasn't clear on what exact evidence was needed to prove my version of events. But I want to mainly try appeal from the technicality of incorrect observation time, as if the CEO observed as per Newham policy, I would have made clear my circumstances to him and I wouldn't have got the ticket in the first place.
12
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Newham, London - Code 40 parked in a disabled badge holder only bay - East Avenue E12
« on: September 11, 2024, 07:43:52 pm »
Well since I didn't park in contravention and there was also a clear and obvious CEO Error on the PCN that they don't want to acknowledge, I don't want to pay. I'll happily pay if I was liable and at fault.
13
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: 34j - Being in a bus lane - Romford Road E12 Newham
« on: September 11, 2024, 07:23:52 pm »
LOL. I get your frustration sc2509, I live in Manor Park myself and know that the Romford Road, eastbound towards ilford Bus Lanes are 4pm-7pm. Yet in the rejection letter, M Hussain (same person who replied to one of my PCN's with a generic crappy response) said the bus lane is 24h, 7d a week. Basically implies he didn't read anything and just rejected it without good reason...
We should be able to formally complain against some of these customer service agents at Newham Council. Terrible
We should be able to formally complain against some of these customer service agents at Newham Council. Terrible
14
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Newham, London - Code 40 parked in a disabled badge holder only bay - East Avenue E12
« on: September 11, 2024, 07:02:06 pm »
Here is the rejection letter, it failed to attach!
Here is the link for it: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:de335904-b551-4351-b229-70cf3e793332
Here is the link for it: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:de335904-b551-4351-b229-70cf3e793332
15
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Newham, London - Code 40 parked in a disabled badge holder only bay - East Avenue E12
« on: September 11, 2024, 06:59:17 pm »
UPDATE: I got a rejection letter from Newham Council, and the person behind my appeal barely bothered to read my appeal in detail as she mentions this (probably an automated/ready-made copypasta paragraph. Please advise on next steps, and whether or not I will still have the opportunity to pay the discounted rate, even after a potential formal representation rejection.
What kind of hard evidence would I need to supply to prove my circumstances, as the guidance she gave and the guidance of the council is VERY vague??? Also, my legitimate point about the incorrect observation time was not even acknowledged. She even said (highlighted) that the CEO didn't note any exempt activity during their observation... I wonder why that is lol. The CEO gave 0 minutes observation time, which is against Newham's own policy for disabled non-resident bays (2 minutes).
I am thinking of appealing formally, when the notice to owner comes, under 'The contravention did not occur' reason. Is that suitable? [ Guests cannot view attachments ]
What kind of hard evidence would I need to supply to prove my circumstances, as the guidance she gave and the guidance of the council is VERY vague??? Also, my legitimate point about the incorrect observation time was not even acknowledged. She even said (highlighted) that the CEO didn't note any exempt activity during their observation... I wonder why that is lol. The CEO gave 0 minutes observation time, which is against Newham's own policy for disabled non-resident bays (2 minutes).
I am thinking of appealing formally, when the notice to owner comes, under 'The contravention did not occur' reason. Is that suitable? [ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Pages: [1] 2