URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 118596--------------------------------------------------
       Newham : 51J Failure to comply No Entry : Temple Mills Lane/
       Celebration Ave : Stratford Chobham Acad Car Park exit
   DIR By: beano5892
       Date: May 13, 2026, 12:02 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I have received a PCN for my daughter allegedly failing to
       comply with a no entry restriction.
       I only opened the PCN today as it is addressed to me (I am the
       owner) and I have been away. The date of the PCN is 30/04/26. Do
       I have to appeal by tomorrow to fix the PCN amount to the
       reduced rate or do I have a full 28 days to appeal and, if
       rejected, the reduced rate remains?
       My daughter was running a free hockey camp and was told to use
       this car park as the school one was closed. She had never been
       there before. On exiting she had to leave through the entry
       because the exit was blocked off with a digger and road works.
       As she had never been there she was using waze which she
       initially thought told her to turn left. She saw the 3 no entry
       signs but thought they related to the car park exit that was
       blocked.
       After driving 10/20m down road, Waze started yelling at her and
       you can see her braking in the video. She immediately did a
       u-turn at the give way markings on the road but the video cuts
       off at 8 seconds so you can't see this. You can however see her
       braking. I don't know if the council has deliberately cut the
       video off at this stage. The no entry sign on the RHS is blocked
       by tree cover if you look on googlemaps.
       She has now received a PCN and I don't know if there are any
       grounds to appeal. The 3 no entry signs are very close together
       and I can see how she might have got confused, especially as
       waze sometimes takes a few attempts to figure out where you
       actually are once you've started moving.
       4 pages of PCN
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/13TZoBi_xl.png
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/6fzoHiH_xl.jpg
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/f6H4s9h_xl.jpg
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/zEnBFYz_xl.jpg
       image of no entry signs from googlemaps
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/iakdLb1_xl.png
       shared location from googlemaps
  HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/iksmS3gPjCyp3MVw9
       I think this covers everything per the instructions for
       uploading.
       I hope that someone can help
       Many thanks in advance
       #Post#: 118631--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham : 51J Failure to comply No Entry : Temple Mills Lane/
       Celebration Ave : Stratford Chobham Acad Car Park exit
   DIR By: fraser.mitchell
       Date: May 13, 2026, 4:19 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The normal convention (not law BTW), is that councils receiving
       reps within the discount period will re-offer it when rejecting
       representations.
       Havering is the exception, but has made a rod for its own back,
       because by not re-offering it, it is then a total no-brainer to
       take them to the adjudicators at London Tribunals, because the
       penalty remains the same and there are no additional costs. But
       the authority must prepare a detailed evidence pack and pay the
       adjudication fee.
       Even if reps are received outside the discount period, many
       councils re-offe the discount for the same reason, because most
       people then cough-up the discount. It's important to note that
       this is current practice and the PCN recipieint has no right to
       a discount after the discount period expires.
       #Post#: 118648--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham : 51J Failure to comply No Entry : Temple Mills Lane/
       Celebration Ave : Stratford Chobham Acad Car Park exit
   DIR By: Neil B
       Date: May 13, 2026, 7:55 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: beano5892 link ---
       >
       > I have received a PCN for my daughter allegedly failing to
       comply with a no entry restriction.
       >
       > I only opened the PCN today as it is addressed to me (I am the
       owner) and I have been away. The date of the PCN is 30/04/26. Do
       I have to appeal by tomorrow to fix the PCN amount to the
       reduced rate or do I have a full 28 days to appeal and, if
       rejected, the reduced rate remains?
       >
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       The deadline to pay the discount was yesterday 13th, by law.
       Same for preserving the discount officially but it's likely if
       you make reps in the next day or so, Newham will still offer the
       discount in rejection. (they just want your money)
       No opinion on your case as I simply have no time. Others might
       look.
       #Post#: 122717--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham : 51J Failure to comply No Entry : Temple Mills Lane/
       Celebration Ave : Stratford Chobham Acad Car Park exit
   DIR By: beano5892
       Date: June 23, 2026, 4:54 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi
       I appealed the above PCN on that the circumstances surrounding
       the alleged contravention were unusual and the available
       evidence does not present the full context of events. It has
       been rejected. I made points about confusing signage due to
       blocked exits as well as requesting full video camera footage as
       it has been truncated before still images that are shown and I
       asked for full untruncated video footage.
       The latter point about video footage has not been addressed. The
       rejection ignores the fact that the driver had to come out of
       the entry which has no immediately visible signage for no entry
       to the bus lane. It instead makes reference to the fact that
       there is signage on entering the road but the car park is
       immediately to left after entering so this signage cannot be
       seen when leaving car park.
       Please can I post my appeal here together with the rejection and
       someone take a look? I am frustrated that this has been rejected
       as I sent still photos, screen grabs of the multiple signage
       etc.
       Many thanks
       #Post#: 122730--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham : 51J Failure to comply No Entry : Temple Mills Lane/
       Celebration Ave : Stratford Chobham Acad Car Park exit
   DIR By: Neil B
       Date: June 23, 2026, 6:27 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: beano5892 link ---
       >
       > Please can I post my appeal here together with the rejection
       and someone take a look?
       >
       > Many thanks
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Erm yeah/ Why haven't you?
       #Post#: 122750--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham : 51J Failure to comply No Entry : Temple Mills Lane/
       Celebration Ave : Stratford Chobham Acad Car Park exit
   DIR By: beano5892
       Date: June 23, 2026, 9:24 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       This was my appeal (prob too long)
       I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and wish to make
       formal representations regarding the alleged contravention (Code
       51J – Failing to comply with a no entry restriction) said to
       have occurred on 23 April 2026 at Temple Mills Lane E20 /
       Celebration Avenue E20.
       I, as the registered keeper, requests cancellation of this
       Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the circumstances
       surrounding the alleged contravention were unusual and the
       available evidence does not present the full context of events.
       On the date in question, the driver had intended to leave the
       area using the normal route from the adjacent car park. However,
       that exit was unexpectedly closed due to construction works
       within the car park. As a result, the driver had to perform a
       U-turn within the car park and exit via the entrance. The driver
       was unfamiliar with the altered layout and was therefore using
       the additional assistance from navigation guidance which was
       simultaneously recalculating following the diversion from the
       intended exit.
       The layout encountered immediately upon exiting was confusing.
       There is no immediately visible “No Entry” signed to the left.
       Once turning left out of the entrance there are multiple “No
       Entry” signs in close proximity serving different purposes:
       those signs associated with the adjacent car park and those
       associated with the bus gate restriction. Two such (non-related)
       signs appear within only a few metres of each other. In
       addition, one of the roadside signs on the opposite side of the
       carriageway appears partially obscured by foliage, reducing
       visibility on approach. The positioning and concentration of
       signage, particularly when approaching from an unexpected
       direction due to closure of the intended exit, materially
       increased the likelihood of confusion. Evidence of the proximity
       of multiple restrictions and obscuration is attached (Appendix
       A).
       Had the intended exit route been available, the driver departing
       normally through the actual exit would instead have encountered
       a materially clearer arrangement consisting of a single fully
       visible no-entry restriction applicable to buses and cycles
       together with another sign on the opposite side (that is
       partially obscured by foliage). By contrast, the altered exit
       route placed several restrictions close together in a way that
       did not clearly distinguish restrictions applying to the road
       from those associated with the adjacent car park. Evidence of
       the signage at the usual exit is attached (Appendix B)
       Upon realising an error may have been made and that the route
       appeared inconsistent with the navigation guidance, the driver
       slowed substantially and began corrective action. The available
       footage appears to show the vehicle reducing speed to a near
       stop or complete halt. The driver’s intention was not to
       continue through a restricted route but to correct the mistake
       immediately.
       The keeper also has concerns regarding the completeness of the
       CCTV evidence disclosed.
       The downloadable CCTV clip supplied by the authority commences
       at approximately 15:18:36 BST (23424005) and ends at
       approximately 15:18:43 BST (23424220). The clip appears to show
       significant braking and reduction in speed before ending.
       The keeper also notes that the downloadable online footage ends
       (as stated above) at approximately 15:18:43, whereas additional
       still images supplied by the authority are timestamped beyond
       that point (including imagery at approximately 15:18:51 -
       23424453). This indicates that the authority possesses records
       of events occurring after the disclosed clip ends.
       The footage available online therefore appears incomplete and
       may omit material showing the vehicle stopping and immediately
       correcting course. The keeper requests that the authority review
       and disclose the complete unedited recording before determining
       these representations.
       The keeper is concerned that the online video available for
       review may not represent the full sequence of events. The still
       images provided as evidence appear to continue beyond the
       timestamps shown in the online clip. If the vehicle subsequently
       stopped and turned around immediately after the footage ceased,
       that context is directly relevant to assessing the circumstances
       and whether discretion ought to be exercised.
       In light of the above, the keeper respectfully requests:
       1. Disclosure and review of the complete unedited CCTV
       recording, including footage before, during and after the
       alleged contravention, before these representations are
       determined;
       2. Confirmation whether the online clip made available to the
       keeper has been truncated or edited;
       3. Disclosure of any additional footage, still images or records
       relied upon;
       4. Confirmation that all footage showing the vehicle’s actions
       after 15:18:43 BST has been provided.
       5. Consideration of the unusual circumstances, namely
       •
       •
       •
       diversion
       •
       different restrictions
       •
       •
       recognised a possible mistake
       •
       The keeper submits that these circumstances materially
       contributed to confusion and that enforcement in this case would
       not reflect the purpose of the restriction, given the apparent
       immediate attempt to correct the situation.
       The keeper respectfully requests that the authority exercise
       discretion and cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
       The keeper further notes that the notice came to attention only
       after returning home following an extended absence, despite the
       driver remaining at the address and not opening correspondence
       addressed to the registered keeper. The representations have
       therefore been made promptly upon the keeper becoming aware of
       the PCN. If the authority is not minded to cancel the notice,
       the keeper respectfully requests that discretion be exercised to
       preserve the discounted payment amount.
       Yours faithfully,
       Joanne Bourne
       Registered Keeper
       Attachments:
       Appendix A – Signage layout and proximity of restrictions
       (viewed from Temple Mills Ln)
       Appendix B - Signage layout from within the car park (viewed
       from usual exit)
       Appendix C – Additional still image held by authority (15:18:51
       BST)
       #Post#: 122753--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham : 51J Failure to comply No Entry : Temple Mills Lane/
       Celebration Ave : Stratford Chobham Acad Car Park exit
   DIR By: beano5892
       Date: June 23, 2026, 9:30 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       This is the Notice of Rejection
       There are 3 pages : including signature so you can see that the
       second page is incomplete.. obviously didn't print properly!
  HTML https://imgpile.com/p/9aEEgPq#3wDUQDd
  HTML https://imgpile.com/p/9aEEgPq#tjZPHGZ
       
  HTML https://imgpile.com/p/9aEEgPq#oImybAk
       #Post#: 122754--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham : 51J Failure to comply No Entry : Temple Mills Lane/
       Celebration Ave : Stratford Chobham Acad Car Park exit
   DIR By: beano5892
       Date: June 23, 2026, 9:34 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Here are the apendices to my initial appeal
       Appendix A – Signage layout and proximity of restrictions
       (viewed from Temple Mills Ln)
       Appendix B - Signage layout from within the car park (viewed
       from usual exit where you can clearly see no entry signs on LHS)
       Appendix C – Additional still image held by authority (15:18:51
       BST)
       Appendix A :
  HTML https://imgpile.com/p/c6Tm3D0#gKJzX1Z
       Appendix B :
  HTML https://imgpile.com/p/c6Tm3D0#iIPqWqu
       Appendix C :
  HTML https://imgpile.com/p/c6Tm3D0#0gNQSmA
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1