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 - Incandescent

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 497
16
I don't think so. It was a rental van, so the first PCN goes to the rental company that own the van and hold the V5C Registration Certificate. The council have 28 days to serve this from contravention date. Then the rental company have 28 days to respond, naming you and your address as the renter. The council can then cancel the first PCN and then have another 28 days after cancellation to serve a second PCN to you.

It adds up, doesn't it !

17
Parking off-carriageway has been an offence in London since the 70s and requires no lines or signs, it applies everywhere in the London councils area. Were you not aware of this ?

Very difficult to overturn, I'm afraid. The CEO's photos are clear enough. However your narrative implies you got two PCNs, one when you got back to your car, and another when you returned to take photos. Please clarify.

18
not had a response from anyone else. Is there any ground for me to at least put an appeal here?
I'm afraid I see no robust appeal argument.

19
Your link doesn't seem to be there.

So did you get two PCNs or just one ?

20
I was following Satnav but not into that road. Because i had the university on navigation and it ended on the main road.
Ah, right. So not what I call a "satnav-assisted PCN".  So how come you missed the NRT signs ?

We always encourage OPs to submit reps even though it may appear hopeless, because councils often shoot themselves in the foot in their reply. A quick look at London Tribunal cases shows that most appeals are lost here, but some do succeed, such as 2250389135, but also look at 2250504062 where the signs were obscured.

https://londontribunals.org.uk/ords/pwslive/f?p=NASSTATREG:30::INITIALISE::30::30&cs=3NLPFh7CCE5rO64LUYjIvKr9MEUOIyD4cBbgsl_Z-iHcWvYSAs3I-IGtbV_d2NOkXiNqTBI-r-9V2podOQNw6TQ

21
Just to emphasise the London Tribunals case decided on 30th July 2026, here is the judgment: -

Quote
A contravention can occur if a vehicle is stopped where prohibited on a red route.


The Penalty Charge Notice was issued under Regulation 11(1)(d) of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 (the ‘2022 General Regulations’) on the basis of a record produced by an approved device.


There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was stationary at this location, as shown in the closed-circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.


The Enforcement Authority’s case is that no stopping is permitted on the red route at any time on any day, as indicated by the double red line.


However, in R(TfL) v. London Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators) & Ors [2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin), Mr Justice Swift decided at paragraph 16 that:


the requirements in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition are cumulative; to be a red route for this purpose the road must be marked "in accordance with" both requirements. The requirements are not alternatives.


At paragraph 17, Mr Justice Swift concluded that:


Nor is it correct that the requirement at sub-paragraph (b) for signage can be construed as applying to one but not the other of the two alternative requirements within sub paragraph (a).... the correct conclusion is that the definition of red route requires that both condition (a) and condition (b) are met.


The Enforcement Authority does not appear to dispute that there is no signage at the location as it submits in its case summary that it is not required.


A sign is not required to put motorists on notice of the red route restrictions. However, the relevant issue in this present matter is whether the Enforcement Authority was entitled to issue a Penalty Charge Notice by post. The decision of the High Court in the case referred to above means that both lines and a sign are required to meet the statutory definition of a red route to enable the Enforcement Authority to issue a Penalty Charge Notice by post.


I therefore find that, because there was no sign, the red route was not a "red route" in accordance with the definition of Regulation 11(2) of the 2022 General Regulations and therefore that the Authority was not entitled to issue the Penalty Charge Notice by post.


Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

I have emphasise the basic point of the ruling in bold.

23
We've seen this location before, but I can't remember the outturn. As I recall, the positioning of the NRT signs can be criticised as too close to the actual turn, but one can see this sort of thing all over the UK so I don't think it's a winning argument.

Were you following satnav ?

24
What you've given us are the charging hours for parking bays in the Jewellery Quarter. The single yellow lines may be restricted the whole week. You need to find the entrance sign to the zone where you entered the zone.

25
Sorry, but we need to see the location in GSV, and the video to give advice.

A recent adjudication at London Tribunals for a London Red-Route case was won because a Red Route must be signed as well as having the road markings, for CCTV to be used to enforce. If this is not the case, the contravention can only be enforced by a CEO at the roadside : -

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/2260147562-definition-of-a-red-route-that-allows-postal-pcns-to-be-served/

26
Pleawse post the PCN, redact only name and address

27
Correct, the box for saying, inter alia, that you did not receive the Penalty Charge Notice. Do please note that the 'Applicant' is Transport for London, not you; you are the 'Respondent'

28
The Flame Pit / 2260388707 Worn YBJ markings.
« on: August 03, 2026, 11:19:52 pm »
More commonsense from Carl Teper

29
Interesting one this, as it would seem that a red route without signs, (commonly seen for double-reds), cannot be enforced by postal PCNs based on CCTV evidence, it has to be a Reg 9, (although this is not stated specifically)

30
The Flame Pit / 2260094579 Adjudication on the 'O' and '0'issue
« on: August 03, 2026, 10:35:32 pm »
At last something sensible on this issue, and actually quoting an online English dictionary, no less ! Although even this adjudicator seems ignorant of the mandatory font for number plates, where the number '0' is not shown for numbers to be used on car reg plates, the 'O' is used instead.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 497