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 - Ahmedyali

Pages: [1] 2
1
Private parking tickets / Re: NPM PCN – No e-Permit – Woodgrange Road E7 (13–15) – Notice to Keeper
« on: January 15, 2026, 03:01:50 pm »
Quick update: NPM have now rejected my keeper appeal.

They rely on the same points as in the earlier Woodgrange Road case, asserting that the driver “automatically entered into a contract” by remaining on site, that a consideration period is not free parking, and that failure to read the T&Cs is “a choice”. They also assert keeper liability in the absence of a nominated driver and invite an IAS appeal.

Key facts remain unchanged:

Same location: Woodgrange Road, 13–15, E7

Alleged time on site: ~2 minutes 43 seconds

CCTV stills show the driver leaving the vehicle and returning within ~2.5 minutes before exiting

No admission as to what the driver was doing during that time

Rejection letter uploaded here (redacted):

https://ibb.co/NdLw73zb
https://ibb.co/DDZmSgNr
https://ibb.co/nhgpvv0

Given the similarity to the earlier thread, am I right in thinking the sensible next step is to skip IAS, ignore debt collector letters, and wait for a compliant Letter of Claim?

Grateful for confirmation and any advice.

2
Private parking tickets / NPM PCN – No e-Permit – Woodgrange Road E7 (13–15) – Notice to Keeper
« on: January 05, 2026, 05:27:17 pm »
Hi all,

I’m looking for advice regarding a private parking charge from National Parking Management (NPM).

Here are my pictures from their "evidence" as well as the Notice to Keeper Parking Charge:

Notice to Keeper and stills from camera

I’ve read the forum guide and have also reviewed an existing FTLA thread relating to the same location, which appears very similar to my own case:

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/13-15-woodgrange-road-e7-vehicle-not-pre-authorised-(no-e-permit)/30/

Background

Parking company: National Parking Management (NPM)

Location: Woodgrange Road, 13–15, London E7

Alleged contravention: Vehicle not pre-authorised (no e-permit)

Contravention date: 23 December 2025

Alleged time on site: 21:08:18 to 21:11:01 (approximately 2 minutes 43 seconds)

Notice received: Postal Notice to Keeper

Date of sending: 30 December 2025

Amount demanded: £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days)

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.
I am not identifying the driver.

Short duration / CCTV stills

The Notice to Keeper relies on CCTV still images. These images show the driver exiting the vehicle and then returning to it within approximately 2.5 minutes, after which the vehicle leaves the site.

I cannot say with certainty what the driver was doing during that brief period. It may have been to check signage, or it may not – I simply do not know and do not wish to speculate. The only fact I can state is that the vehicle was on site for less than 3 minutes before leaving.

Signage

From what I have seen, signage at this location refers to vehicles needing to be registered with a valid NPM e-permit. I have not yet fully assessed the signage or whether it clearly explains how a driver could obtain such a permit. I will try to obtain photos of the signage and add a Google Street View link if helpful.

Current position

No appeal has yet been submitted

I have not contacted NPM beyond receipt of the Notice to Keeper

I have not yet assessed whether the Notice to Keeper fully complies with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

Advice sought

I would welcome guidance on:

Whether the recommended next step is to submit a simple keeper appeal to NPM

Whether, given NPM are IPC members, there is any value in using the IAS, or whether it is better avoided

Whether any obvious issues stand out at this stage, particularly given the very short duration alleged

I have uploaded fully redacted copies of the Notice to Keeper (all pages) showing dates and times only:

https://ibb.co/album/20rrBX

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Given this appears to be the same location and very similar circumstances, I’d welcome any views from b789 or DWMB2 if they have time.

3
Private parking tickets / Re: 13-15 Woodgrange road, E7 - Vehicle not pre-authorised (no-e-Permit)
« on: January 05, 2026, 05:01:28 pm »
Samir, did you get a reply? You never updated us on your case. I am in the same position, I want to know if it's worth appealing, or what the court said.

4
Private parking tickets / Re: national parking management ltd
« on: January 05, 2026, 04:47:38 pm »
I'm in the same position I was there less than 3 minutes and they've given me £100 fine.

5
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Newham – Code 52M, Browning Road E12 (North Side) – Poor sign visibility (PCN PN77444424)
« on: October 09, 2025, 01:59:05 am »
I’ve just come across a new tribunal decision that seems to match my situation almost exactly.

London Tribunals case reference 2240583131 (Malgorzata Dorota Czernik v London Borough of Newham) — Browning Road (North Side), decided 13 February 2025 — was allowed on the grounds that the signage wasn’t adequately visible to drivers approaching from Rectory Road.

Here’s the full case record on the London Tribunals site:
👉 https://londontribunals.org.uk/ords/pwslive/f?p=14952:70::INITIALISE::70:P70_CAS_REFNO,P70_PCN_REFNO,P70_RETURN_PAGE,P70_AST_CODE:1661501,3061690,60,APPEAL&cs=3-r43pjP3QxkUWcbM-GzgSu4escT-pzdygkjipgH7Q7o-2sO1wkTx2ohjXgdqhisJGbeeAdMtVsFMqbtzw-ujQA#content

The adjudicator (Cordelia Fantinic) accepted that:

> “The restriction signs are positioned on either side of Browning Road but are not visible to a driver approaching from Rectory Road, as they are too close to the junction and angled away from the line of sight.”



She also noted that the warning sign on Rectory Road is on the right-hand side of the carriageway and could easily be missed by a driver turning left from Chesterford Road — which is exactly the same situation I described in my case.

My approach and line of sight are identical to what’s described in that appeal. I’ve attached my own council video (https://streamable.com/9hzo21) and side-angle photo of the signs (https://i.postimg.cc/dVktGtqJ/1-FMA-MYL-10313.webp) which clearly show how the signs are facing oncoming traffic and not visible from my lane.

Would you say this tribunal decision is strong and compelling evidence to rely on in my formal representation? It feels like a mirror of my case, right down to the approach route and the sign angles.

6
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Newham – Code 52M, Browning Road E12 (North Side) – Poor sign visibility (PCN PN77444424)
« on: October 07, 2025, 12:34:26 pm »
Hi all,

I’ve received a Moving Traffic Penalty Charge Notice from London Borough of Newham for allegedly “Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles)” — contravention code 52M.

Details:

PCN number: PN77444424

Vehicle Reg: EA12 NHZ

Contravention date/time: 27/09/2025 at 07:50

Location: Browning Road E12 (North Side)

Webcode: 193AT741

Front of PCN:
https://postimg.cc/gallery/k7SZxXq

Council video:
https://streamable.com/9hzo21

Side-angle photo of the signage:
https://i.postimg.cc/dVktGtqJ/1-FMA-MYL-10313.webp

My account of what happened

I was driving along Browning Road (North Side) early in the morning.
The signage for the restriction is facing the oncoming traffic, making it extremely difficult to see from my approach angle. By the time the signs become visible, it’s already too late to turn off safely without stopping abruptly or causing an obstruction.

From my dash-level view (see video), you can see the restricted-vehicle signs are placed side-on, not in a direct line of sight for drivers coming from my direction. The council’s camera angle also exaggerates visibility compared to what a driver actually sees.

The side-view photo above clearly shows how the signs are angled — they face traffic coming from the opposite side, not towards vehicles from my lane.

Supporting reference

There’s an article about this exact location highlighting confusion and poor signage placement:
https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/east-london-street-council-made-27244595

The article confirms that many motorists have been caught out because of how unclear and misleading the restriction signage is.

What I’m hoping for

Please could someone help me check:

1) Whether the signage at this location complies with the legal placement and visibility requirements for a motor vehicle restriction.

2) If there’s a known history of successful appeals for this location (Browning Road E12 North Side).

3) Any previous tribunal cases or template representations I could refer to.

Thanks very much for your time.
Ahmedyali

7
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: TfL - Clapton - 46: Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway), Red route and PCN issued via camera opera
« on: July 17, 2025, 11:57:40 pm »
Bumping this for help

8
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / TfL - Clapton - 46: Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway), Red route and PCN issued via camera operator
« on: July 15, 2025, 04:43:17 pm »
Hi all,

I've received a PCN from TfL for stopping where prohibited on a red route (Code 46), enforced via CCTV.

I've linked all images of the PCN and accompanying papers (> imgur LINK <). I'm still within the representation period and would appreciate any advice on how best to approach the following:

Location: Outside 93–95A Upper Clapton Road, E5
Date and time of alleged contravention: 07/07/2025 at 08:53
Enforcement method: CCTV
Date of PCN: 14 July 2025

I'm aware that earlier cases (e.g. Commercial Plant Services Ltd v TfL) challenged the use of postal PCNs for red route contraventions, but I understand this may have changed following the High Court decision in [2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin).

Could anyone clarify the current position?

Can the CCTV enforcement method still be challenged in Code 46 cases like mine?

If not, are there updated or alternative grounds I should consider (e.g. signage, loading activity, exemptions)?

I read cp8759’s comment that there are newer appeal points that work better (final post in this thread: link) – could anyone explain what those are and if they apply in my case?

I also checked Google Street View and can see that the signage at that location clearly states loading is only permitted between 10am and 4pm. Since I stopped at 08:53, I was outside the permitted hours.

Thanks in advance for your help.

9
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge, Code 82, Parked after the expiry of paid for time, Station Road Chadwell Heath (Car Park 19)
« on: April 03, 2024, 12:26:31 pm »
Good news. Got cancelled :) Thanks for the help!

10
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge, Code 82, Parked after the expiry of paid for time, Station Road Chadwell Heath (Car Park 19)
« on: March 15, 2024, 05:32:35 pm »
Hi sorry should have clarified, I redacted for the purposes of posting online, but will include real names as addressed on NTO and my legal name as wife is transferring authority

Quote from: H C Andersen on March 15, 2024, 05:01:01 pm

Wife'f legal name ??

This might just be your choice of words and that no substantive difference exists, however, for the avoidance of doubt..

The name and address to be used are those in the NTO because these are registered keeper's.

11
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge, Code 82, Parked after the expiry of paid for time, Station Road Chadwell Heath (Car Park 19)
« on: March 15, 2024, 04:44:31 pm »
Quote from: cp8759 on March 12, 2024, 06:07:07 pm
@Ahmedyali the formal representations must be made by your wife, or you can make them on her behalf if she gives you a letter of authority. This is because liability rests with the keeper, as the driver you have no right to challenge the notice to owner in your own right.

I can't really see that you can do anything aside from making the same formal representation again, do not miss the 28 day deadline whatever you do.

Would something like the following be ok for a letter of authority, and also do I submit that alongside my formal representation?

Furthermore, I think you meant same as informal representation rather than formal right?

Letter of authority:

Wife'f legal name
Address
March 15, 2024

To Whom It May Concern,

I, Wife's name, am the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration number EA12 NHZ. I hereby grant authority to My name, residing at My address, to act on my behalf in all matters related to the parking charge notice issued by Redbridge Council, reference number AF06931666.

This authority includes but is not limited to making formal representations, submitting any necessary documents, and communicating with the council regarding this matter.

This authorization is valid until the resolution of the PCN issue.

Sincerely,

[Wife's Signature]

[My Signature]
My name

12
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge, Code 82, Parked after the expiry of paid for time, Station Road Chadwell Heath (Car Park 19)
« on: March 06, 2024, 01:51:32 pm »
Hi,

Received Notice to Owner two weeks ago, apologies for the late response. Need help formulating a representation - first time I'm attempting.

[Are you the registered keeper and is the address on the V5C up to date?][/quote]

No, I am the second driver on the car, my wife is the registered keeper, and yes, her address on the VC5 is up to date. Will this be an issue?

Attached is the picture of the Notice to Owner, all 4 sides.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

13
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge, Code 82, Parked after the expiry of paid for time, Station Road Chadwell Heath (Car Park 19)
« on: January 31, 2024, 05:31:42 pm »
Informal rep failed. They gave the same generic answer. What do you think? Would you think I've got strong evidence for a formal representation?

Thanks.

See attached

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

14
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge, Code 82, Parked after the expiry of paid for time, Station Road Chadwell Heath (Car Park 19)
« on: January 22, 2024, 07:33:51 pm »
@cp8759
Quote from: cp8759 on January 22, 2024, 02:18:32 pm
@Ahmedyali to be honest your best bet is to draft a short informal representation simply explaining what you've told us already.

Put a draft on here and we'll tidy it up for you. Please tag me in your reply.

Hi sir, I'm not sure if I've tagged you correctly, i'm assuming copying the quote tags you. Here is my draft:

Dear Redbridge council,

Soon after purchasing my time, 1 hour, I became aware that I would need to park for much longer and therefore immediately I tried to pay for a later expiry time.

However, the RingGo app would not permit this, and it kept giving me an error "Session already in progress and purchased very recently". I have attached an audit trail from RingGo themselves, which provides evidence that I tried to purchase an extension, but was denied by the app.

I was prepared to forego the £1.60 I had already paid in order to avoid getting a penalty for £80. Would you please explain why this service provider does not allow this most basic of errors on a driver's part to be rectified immediately?

I decided I'll try again later, I was even thinking of setting my stopwatch but it bugged out, I then commuted to work, got busy at work and forgot. By the time I retried at 12:33pm, a few hours had passed, and I ended up paying for the full day just in case.

On these points I would sincerely ask and plead that you exercise your powers of discretion in this instance and cancel this PCN.



15
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge, Code 82, Parked after the expiry of paid for time, Station Road Chadwell Heath (Car Park 19)
« on: January 22, 2024, 07:28:46 pm »
Quote from: H C Andersen on January 22, 2024, 04:30:45 pm
OP, you need to put this point to the authority in addition. 

Soon after purchasing my time, 1 hour, I became aware that I would in fact be away from the car park for much longer and therefore before even leaving the car park I tried to pay for a later expiry time.

However, the RingGo app would not permit this. I was prepared to forego the £1.60 I had already paid in order to avoid getting a penalty for £80. Would you please explain why this service provider does not allow this most basic of errors on a driver's part to be rectified immediately?

OP, I am just taking your account at face value. I don't know whether there were other payment methods available on site.

There is an option advertised on the car park board to pay by phone, but I was actually at home and paid before I travelled to the car park, to avoid forgetting to pay! On the app, it wouldn't let me extend, nor buy a new session. Honestly, I didn't know that payment by phone was even an option, it wasn't advertised to me on app, so I didn't try that.

Pages: [1] 2