Show Posts - Ahmedyali

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 cameraI’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/BackgroundParking company: National Parking Management (NPM)Location: Woodgrange Road, 13–15, London E7Alleged contravention: Vehicle not pre-authorised (no e-permit)Contravention date: 23 December 2025Alleged time on site: 21:08:18 to 21:11:01 (approximately 2 minutes 43 seconds)Notice received: Postal Notice to KeeperDate of sending: 30 December 2025Amount 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 stillsThe 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.SignageFrom 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 positionNo appeal has yet been submittedI have not contacted NPM beyond receipt of the Notice to KeeperI have not yet assessed whether the Notice to Keeper fully complies with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012Advice soughtI would welcome guidance on:Whether the recommended next step is to submit a simple keeper appeal to NPMWhether, given NPM are IPC members, there is any value in using the IAS, or whether it is better avoidedWhether any obvious issues stand out at this stage, particularly given the very short duration allegedI have uploaded fully redacted copies of the Notice to Keeper (all pages) showing dates and times only:https://ibb.co/album/20rrBXThanks 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.

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.

I'm in the same position I was there less than 3 minutes and they've given me £100 fine.

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#contentThe 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.

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: PN77444424Vehicle Reg: EA12 NHZContravention date/time: 27/09/2025 at 07:50Location: Browning Road E12 (North Side)Webcode: 193AT741Front of PCN:https://postimg.cc/gallery/k7SZxXqCouncil video:https://streamable.com/9hzo21Side-angle photo of the signage:https://i.postimg.cc/dVktGtqJ/1-FMA-MYL-10313.webpMy account of what happenedI 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 referenceThere’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-27244595The article confirms that many motorists have been caught out because of how unclear and misleading the restriction signage is.What I’m hoping forPlease 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

Bumping this for help

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, E5Date and time of alleged contravention: 07/07/2025 at 08:53Enforcement method: CCTVDate of PCN: 14 July 2025I'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.

Good news. Got cancelled Thanks for the help!

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 authorityQuote from: H C Andersen on 15 Mar, 2024 17:01Wife'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.

Quote from: cp8759 on 12 Mar, 2024 18:07@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 nameAddressMarch 15, 2024To 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

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 ]

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 ]

@cp8759Quote from: cp8759 on 22 Jan, 2024 14:18@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.

Quote from: H C Andersen on 22 Jan, 2024 16:30OP, 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.

Hi all,I would really appreciate some advice, thank you.TLDR: I accidentally paid for one hour parking only at 8:54am, within seconds realised my mistake, but the Ringgo app would not let me extend, and it kept giving me an error "Session already in progress and purchased very recently".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. I ended up paying for the full day just in case, but after work I came back to a pcn on my car.So not only did I end up paying the 1 hr + full day's worth of car park, but I got a £40/£80 pcn to go with it.I ended up getting an audit trail from Ringgo to show that I did try to buy an extension, but the app wouldn't let me.Not sure if I should appeal and what I should write, or if I should just pay the reduced price of £40.I've attached the audit trail and the pcn, please let me know if you need any further info. [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]