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? !!!!

UPDATE: PCN cancelled by Redbridge council.....and rightly so!!

So as mentioned above:
- received initial PCN via post dated 15/09/25;
- couldn't submit reps online due to technical issues at LBR's end;
- sent an email with reps which was acknowledged and advised that it was added to the queue and to be reviewed;
- subsequently received EXACTLY the same PCN again via post but dated 15/10/25 (here)

Have since:
- sent a follow up email to LBR on 22/10/25 asking why the 2nd PCN, but as yet no response;
- just checked LBR parking online; payment is £160 and can't make any reps.

Your thoughts?
- follow up on my email sent on 22/10/25 and politely ask them WTF is going on?
- hold fire and let them make an even more of a mess?

a similar case - no idea of the outcome as that OP hasn't provided an update:

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/penalty-charge-notice-for-u-turn/

Is anybody able to locate the TMO for this on LBR's website?

and to repeat my question from the above-mentioned thread, albeit worded slighted differently.....does there have to be a direct/explicit relationship between a sign and its corresponding TMO? i.e. if the OP executes the u-turn prior to the sign, is it enforceable?