Free Traffic Legal Advice

Barred from attending council meetings.

If you think Southwark is bad, try and attend a Redbridge council meeting.  Bar the public gallery, full of incompetent lackeys, all towing the same line.  'Tis very incestuous.

Hello folks!

Redbridge
AF49953922
SAF17A

PCN (redacted)

CCTV Footage

GSV

My proposed reps to Redbridge are:

/////////////////////////////
1) the alleged contravention of ‘34j – Being in A Bus Lane’ did not occur due to the following:
  a) The exact locus of the alleged contravention is not stated in the PCN;
  b) a Bus Lane only becomes effective/enforceable where the white solid line starts;
  c) I put to you strict proof that the vehicle encroached beyond the solid white line as let alone ‘de minimis’, the vehicle alleged didn’t even pass beyond the section where  the white solid line begins. If anything, the vehicle began to reverse prior to that and was only delayed by and due to safety concerns of other vehicles passing behind it; and
  d) full and extended CCTV footage rather than a misleading shortened clip (as is the usual ploy of Redbridge parking enforcement CCTV operators), would corroborate the above.

2) in light of the above, cancel the PCN;

3) be forewarned that should you not cancel this PCN, I will be taking this matter to tribunal and making a request for costs.
/////////////////////////////

Feedback/thoughts welcome.

Thanks - NTIAEP

For these types of alleged contraventions, is there a visible demarcation line that must be [wholly/partially] crossed? and/or will the corresponding TMO refer to e.g. double-yellow lines?

LBR rejected my initial reps (see NoR here)

As foreseen above, off to tribunal we go....again!  Might as well pitch a virtual tent within their meeting rooms.

Unless advised to the contrary, can't also use @Hippocrates argument (see here) as that pertains to PCNs issued under the 'London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003', whereas this PCN was issued under 'Traffic Management Act 2004' and doesn't contain the same language.  Whether or not it should is another matter.

Yes just read it. They have removed all the plates now which is a strong point.

  Not round the corner from me they haven't.  And on some of these signs, the blue matching tape/film which was used to cover up "term-time only" has mysteriously disappeared, exposing and displaying the phrase once again.


I've just skimmed the Evidence Pack and (unless I've missed it), whilst LBR rely upon and refer to it explicitly in the 1st paragraph on pg6, the TMO itself makes no reference to the term "Term-Time only" or its related sign.  Why the sign then? As it only leads to confusion as term-time is not 24/7, 365 days of the year, which the TMO implies.

The TMO also makes numerous reference to Column 5 of the Schedule.....which doesn't exist??

Representations made online today. As suggested, I used Hippocrates 'missing information' argument. I await the inevetible rejection by Rebridge.

Keep us posted.

True…and fair enough. But then again, we are talking about Redbridge and I have successfully used the later reps on a prior occasion to have the PCN cancelled, rather than having to go to tribunal.

Cheers.

Shouldn't need to rely upon the missing mandatory language as mentioned by @Hippocrates in the post above.  Will leave that arrow in our quiver for another Redbridge PCN (School Streets) that I've received and will start a new thread accordingly.

From the council's own CCTV footage, at the point of entry the car ahead was  here with the feasible assumption that its rear was where there is a change in texture/colour of the road surface (you can see a line in the image).  FYI - there's also a white arrow marking spray-painted on the kerb.

....and so I plodded off to the site of the alleged contravention and took the following pics:

picture of full measuring tape ,

surface change at 353cm and

white arrow at 369cm

The official measurements from Toyota for this vehicle (see page 18) shows a wheelbase of 251cm with a front overhang of 81cm. A combined total of 332cm and more than enough space to have cleared the other side of the YJB.


Why oh why oh why? !!!!