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 - Unhappyprince9

Pages: [1]
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge - PCN - 53J Gants Hill Crescent - Failing to comply with a pedestrian zone restriction
« on: November 02, 2025, 09:01:32 am »
I actually have no idea but I'm guessing addressing to company secretary is incorrect?  ???  ???

2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge - PCN - 53J Gants Hill Crescent - Failing to comply with a pedestrian zone restriction
« on: November 02, 2025, 08:32:04 am »
I am the registered keeper on the log book.

3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge - PCN - 53J Gants Hill Crescent - Failing to comply with a pedestrian zone restriction
« on: November 01, 2025, 06:56:23 pm »
Quote from: Incandescent on November 01, 2025, 05:52:31 pm
I don't think I have ever seen a more disgraceful letter than this one in my whole time advising on PCNs. They are just a disgusting and evil set of people.

It is quite extraordinary and I'm grateful they considered all the horrible evidence and the circumstances I contend with. Which is so kind of them and softens the blow of this twisted response  ;D


4
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge - PCN - 53J Gants Hill Crescent - Failing to comply with a pedestrian zone restriction
« on: November 01, 2025, 06:52:16 pm »
Quote from: H C Andersen on November 01, 2025, 05:49:41 pm
IMO, your circumstances go to mitigation only which an adjudicator could not consider.

If you drive, then you're deemed competent to understand and comply with traffic signs.

IMO, if you were to take this further then as a minimum you would need to obtain written support from competent persons/bodies regarding your claim as regards your son's issue with alighting when you aren't present.

As regards the signs, does anyone know what the actual prohibition is in this street? The council's position is that this is as per the sign and is 'actively enforced during term time'.

IMO, this is unlawful.

If the order states 52 weeks per year then officers are required by law to enforce such a restriction. It does NOT lie with officers or members to interfere with the law.

So, is it a 'term-time' only restriction in law i.e. in an order, or not?

OP, and judging by the addressee on the NOR, there's a backstory here. Who is 'the Company Secretary'?

Are you, as in you by name, actually the registered keeper. If so, then 'The Company Secretary', which indicates a corporate body and not private individual,  cannot be you IMO, although you may be authorised. Pl clarify who's who so that should this go to appeal this is conducted by a competent person.

I must say that the odd numbers in St Andrews Road have more than their fair share of entries in the Companies House registers!

 ;D  ;D  ;D

Thank you for your reply.

Exactly, as there is no option for mitigation and again it would purely be advisory. So do I accept the £80 charge or do I fight ahead to prove their obvious lack of compassion when dealing with the most vulnerable by relying on a contravention has occrued.

Yep, I can get a letter regarding his issues about leaving transport.There was plenty of evidence for my son. As well as photos of what happens when things go wrong. The photos are pretty graphic.

With regards to myself, there was a lot of evidence explaining how my disability and medication impact me.

It is on lease so that might be why.

The case for the emergency is conclusive but I feel I will stall fall foul.

As I said I haven't come across an appeal of this kind.

I understand their argument but from a moral standpoint I don't think I can walk away.

5
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge - PCN - 53J Gants Hill Crescent - Failing to comply with a pedestrian zone restriction
« on: November 01, 2025, 01:43:15 pm »
Thank you for your response. Please see below

https://drive.google.com/file/d/104sCnIXuWJjEBj1JBgpy8SXJDVDj1iRV/view?usp=drivesdk

I was hesitant when I got the rejection letter. But then I wanted to have a look at the legal side in detail. Which lead me to an issue with the signs. I never argued this as I genuinely felt that the proof I provided was sufficient. I've never used that route before nor have I ever recieved this ticket. It just seems this is strict liability. I'm also aware that Redbridge do not have to cancel the ticket even if the Tribunal agree with the circumstances.

I am still trying to find a case from the tribunals where a situation is similar to mine.

I don't really see an option at the moment as can't find any case law to support me.

Your advice is invaluable as I think it would be best to pay it and raise the issue separately.

6
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge - PCN - 53J Gants Hill Crescent - Failing to comply with a pedestrian zone restriction
« on: November 01, 2025, 06:26:49 am »
Apologies. Have made this public now.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/191o4wuMOnOZOWx93AdKE0Yr1M2HiKClT/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pCO0TSp-vgaLh6LIMV-geitp9SglS834/view?usp=drivesdk

Below are the two files which explain the nature of the emergency. My representation was purely based on this until I found this forum.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vgWSNH10JPX0Si6YzU6IDfqUgNTMooDl/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/139TuNk1pjTjE7e3llP1ArrDSlxiNPzNq/view?usp=drivesdk

Below is a video I made today of the route.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WkOK36WixcOzoOh20LCV9ox9lSVVg5L7/view?usp=drivesdk

Thank you for your help as yesterday by the end my brain was fried with the legality of the sign, I just signed out!

7
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Redbridge - PCN - 53J Gants Hill Crescent - Failing to comply with a pedestrian zone restriction
« on: October 31, 2025, 03:21:32 pm »
Hi All. Hope you are all well. Just wanted to say this work is fantastic. It is an absolute shame that majority of people will not fight after the appeal is rejected. Redbridge Council know exactly what they are doing.

1. Appeal was refused
2. Unfortunately there is nothing on Google Maps as not up to date.
3. Will upload photos.

My Intial appeal was based on a genuine emergency for which there was plenty of evidence. As I have never used this road ever!

After intense research I realised about "term time". However on the video evidence I couldn't see it. I went today and saw that they have indeed covered "term time" on all the blue signs.

I have plenty of points with regards fettering discretion, Also how the signs are usually folded by other London Boroughs during term time. Also all the recent cases to support this. On their website no mention of emergencies unlike other Boroughs ie Waltham Forest. There isn't any warning sign except the main sign. Lastly the blue sign cannot be legally enforceble as not approved. "School streets restricted access" is still ambiguous as to what streets exactly. The sign in general is still confusing and how is anyone suppose to make sense of this when driving - worse when I am in an emergency. Lastly there video evidence shows - that once I have entered I slow down as I was trying to figure out what it said - as mentioned I was in an emergency.

My problem is that they have covered "term time only" on the blue sign. But in explaining the contravention in their rejection - they say "this is strictly enforced during term time"???

How has removing term time text made a difference when you have put it in the letter?

I just wanted to confirm if I can still Cite procedural impropriety as the letter mentions term time but this has been removed from the sign?

Hopefully these links work. It is for the video and PCNs.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/191o4wuMOnOZOWx93AdKE0Yr1M2HiKClT/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pCO0TSp-vgaLh6LIMV-geitp9SglS834/view?usp=drivesdk

Pages: [1]