16
The Flame Pit / Re: Daft adjudication decision
« on: June 08, 2026, 10:04:15 pm »
Is the adjudicator 'wet behind the ears'?
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.
17
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Lea Bridge Road No U Turn Restricted Zone (cctv)
« on: April 12, 2026, 06:26:30 pm »
Unless there's a repeater sign or further continuation of the restriction, is there a sign 440yds further up the road designating the point at which the no u-turn restriction ends? Is one required? Otherwise, how do you know when the restriction ends without measuring it yourself?
Reason for mentioning this is that Redbridge have recently introduced a no u-turn restriction in both directions on Cranbrook Rd (between Balfour Rd and Wellesley Rd) and unlike them to be helpful, have actually installed a sign at both ends to show where the restriction finishes.
Reason for mentioning this is that Redbridge have recently introduced a no u-turn restriction in both directions on Cranbrook Rd (between Balfour Rd and Wellesley Rd) and unlike them to be helpful, have actually installed a sign at both ends to show where the restriction finishes.
18
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge, code 47 Stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand, Barkingside High Street
« on: April 12, 2026, 06:18:51 pm »
In his/her defence, could OP use Schedule 7, Part 6, para.4, (2)(b) of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, which states:
“(b)a vehicle which is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver’s control or which has to be stopped in order to avoid injury or damage to persons or property;”
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made
“(b)a vehicle which is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver’s control or which has to be stopped in order to avoid injury or damage to persons or property;”
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made
19
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge / 34j - Being In A Bus Lane/Cranbrook Rd
« on: March 19, 2026, 02:48:33 pm »
As expected, the muppets at LBR have ignored my valid reps and sent the NoR.
They've contradicted and shot themselves in the foot by confirming that the start point of the bus lane is identified by the prescribed blue sign....which [shock horror!!] is congruent with the start of the solid white line, neither of which the vehicle passed.
Off to tribunal for the umpteenth time.
P.S. How do I locate the TMO referred to in the NoR?
They've contradicted and shot themselves in the foot by confirming that the start point of the bus lane is identified by the prescribed blue sign....which [shock horror!!] is congruent with the start of the solid white line, neither of which the vehicle passed.
Off to tribunal for the umpteenth time.
P.S. How do I locate the TMO referred to in the NoR?
20
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: PCN RYE LANE JUNCTION
« on: March 09, 2026, 01:09:03 pm »
Shouldn't the PCN (link in first post) state that "The Penalty Charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice".
Same applies to the language immediately below re: discounted period?
@Hippocrates @cp8759 - your thoughts?
Same applies to the language immediately below re: discounted period?
@Hippocrates @cp8759 - your thoughts?
21
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge / 34j - Being In A Bus Lane/Cranbrook Rd
« on: February 23, 2026, 11:54:48 am »
Enforcement Notice received despite the previous correspondence incorrectly suggesting it would be a NtO.
Will be responding with same reps as submitted previously....unless advised otherwise.
Just spotted that halfway down on Page1 it says, "The Penalty Charge is £160.00. So far £0 has bee paid. Payment of £80.00 is now due".
LBR online says £160 (please see here)
So which is it? Is this a case of procedural impropriety?
Will be responding with same reps as submitted previously....unless advised otherwise.
Just spotted that halfway down on Page1 it says, "The Penalty Charge is £160.00. So far £0 has bee paid. Payment of £80.00 is now due".
LBR online says £160 (please see here)
So which is it? Is this a case of procedural impropriety?
22
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge / 34j - Being In A Bus Lane/Cranbrook Rd
« on: January 30, 2026, 07:14:38 pm »23
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Barnet- 31j Entering & Stopping in YBJ When Prohibited. PCN Wording Appeal?
« on: January 30, 2026, 06:56:41 pm »
Wasn't the exit from the YJB clear (i.e. into the lanes either side of the car in front, the subsequent bus being an example) when the alleged car entered the YJB? Therefore no contravention occurred.
24
The Flame Pit / Re: Southwark to refund recipients of bus lane PCNs issued under the wrong act!
« on: January 22, 2026, 06:51:51 pm »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.
25
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge / 34j - Being In A Bus Lane/Cranbrook Rd
« on: January 22, 2026, 01:23:42 pm »The video shows no contravention at all. I assume from your narrative, you realised you were about to enter the bus lane, so stoppped and waited until it was safe to reverse back and proceed down the traffic lane. Looks like a typically mendacious editing of the video so as not to show you reversing. At no time did your car pass the bus lane sign which indicates the start of the bus lane.In essence, yes.....and have submitted as per @Hippocrates' choice of vocabulary.
So, follow Hippocrates advice re what to put in your representations, but do be aware they will reply with a Fob-Off letter as they always do. In cases like this you must be prepared to stand your ground and take them to London Tribunals.
Let's wait with bated breath
for LBR's response.
26
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Redbridge / 34j - Being In A Bus Lane/Cranbrook Rd
« on: January 19, 2026, 07:08:13 pm »
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
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
27
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge / 53j-FailingToComplyWithRestrictionsOnVehiclesEnteringAPedestrianZone / Uphall Rd IG1
« on: January 02, 2026, 08:21:43 pm »
As expected, Redbridge rejected my reps.....so London Tribunals hearing in the pipeline.
28
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Penalty Notice For Contravention 52M (only reversed slightly into the no entry road) - Adelaide Road
« on: December 14, 2025, 05:42:40 pm »
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?
29
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Received PCN for a Bus Lane Infringement in Slough with Rental Car - Wasn't at the location at the claimed time
« on: December 10, 2025, 11:14:07 am »
Any distinguishing features of the car that you hired (request pics from Avis whilst you can and before it's de-fleeted) compared with the vehicle in CCTV/camera footage? E.g. different alloys, stickers on front or rear screen, number plate surrounds, chrome trim, etc?
30
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge / 47j-Stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand / High St E11
« on: December 08, 2025, 03:54:29 pm »
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.
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.