DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 123834--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop,
Clayhall Avenue
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 5, 2026, 2:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You cannot require them to consider each point: HALTON CASE.
HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/303.pdf
#Post#: 123952--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop,
Clayhall Avenue
DIR By: flash2005
Date: July 7, 2026, 5:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> You cannot require them to consider each point: HALTON CASE.
>
>
>
HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/303.pdf
>
--- End Quote ---
I have reworded the appeal slightly
DRAFT BELOW
I make representations on the ground that the alleged
contravention did not occur. The vehicle waited for
approximately twenty seconds while the vehicle ahead manoeuvred
out of the adjacent parking bay across its path, and parked in
that bay the moment it was clear; it was prevented from
proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver’s control
(Schedule 7, Part 6, paragraph 4(2)(b), TSRGD 2016). No bus was
present or impeded.
The burden is on the Council to establish the contravention.
There must be a yellow stopping plate, but there isn’t. The
stills served do not show the signage relied upon or the full
extent of the clearway marking; please provide that evidence,
together with the full, unedited footage from camera 3341
covering two minutes either side of the alleged contravention.
Alternatively, given the momentary and harmless nature of the
halt, I ask the Council to exercise the discretion referred to
on the face of the Notice and cancel the PCN.
#Post#: 123954--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop,
Clayhall Avenue
DIR By: flash2005
Date: July 7, 2026, 5:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> The first thing to say is that Redbridge will reject your
reps, as the video shows a contravention, and they like to have
the money as well, even if just the discount amount. So you'd
have to take them to London Tribunals, and I have to say I don't
think the odds are good, but wait and see what the others say.
>
> Of course the PCN, and also the relevant Redbridge web pages
may show serious errors which could be used for a technical
appeal on the basis of a procedural impropriety, as the PCN is
under the Traffic Managment Act 2004, where this is a statutory
appeal ground. Such appeals have no connection to the actual
contravention.
>
--- End Quote ---
Are there any serious errors remaining in the PCN ? I can see
one of the previous ones has been fixed from the PCN
#Post#: 123963--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop,
Clayhall Avenue
DIR By: flash2005
Date: July 7, 2026, 6:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
After further discussions with [member=24]Hippocrates[/member],
here is the final simplified version of the appeal
"I put you to strict proof that this bus stop is legally signed.
If you are unable to do so, please cancel the PCN."
#Post#: 123964--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop,
Clayhall Avenue
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 7, 2026, 7:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I put you to strict proof that this bus stop is legally signed.
If you are unable to do so, please cancel the PCN.
#Post#: 123974--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop,
Clayhall Avenue
DIR By: flash2005
Date: July 7, 2026, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have submitted the representation now.
#Post#: 126425--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop,
Clayhall Avenue
DIR By: flash2005
Date: July 31, 2026, 1:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have received the rejection notice from the council today.
Funnily enough they have included a google street image of the
sign as they have realised that the original notice doesn't have
it. Please see below and advise on next steps.
<br> Page 1 <br>
<br>
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/5snVFK1.jpeg
<br>Page 2 <br>
<br>
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/4yyHN74.jpeg
<br>Page 3 <br>
<br>
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/bO97Ntt.jpeg
<br>Page 4 <br>
<br>
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/CwgpYYe.jpeg
<br>Page 5<br>
<br>
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/uSytQ5r.jpeg
<br>Page 6<br>
<br>
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/dRd6sHQ.jpeg
<br>Page 7<br>
<br>
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/XgtgEdK.jpeg
<br>Page 8<br>
<br>
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/zmB4Yrf.jpeg
#Post#: 126493--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop,
Clayhall Avenue
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 1, 2026, 10:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
1. How old are those Google images?
2.
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D9H5QrIcb2exzFShYUfyrPIu4UVff8Ta/view
3. Same criticisms of NOR as per other PCN?
They are scraping the barrel in a few appeals at present.
#Post#: 126496--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop,
Clayhall Avenue
DIR By: flash2005
Date: August 1, 2026, 10:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> 1. How old are those Google images?
> 2.
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D9H5QrIcb2exzFShYUfyrPIu4UVff8Ta/view
> 3. Same criticisms of NOR as per other PCN?
>
> They are scraping the barrel in a few appeals at present.
>
--- End Quote ---
Timestamp of google images shows August 2025. I can read it on
the letter they sent but the scan I uploaded here is a bit
blurry.
#Post#: 126570--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop,
Clayhall Avenue
DIR By: flash2005
Date: August 2, 2026, 7:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please see a draft of the London tribunals appeal. Kindly
provide feedback
London Tribunals Appeal
Appellant: [Name]
PCN:
Vehicle Registration:
Enforcement Authority: London Borough of Redbridge
Grounds of Appeal:
* The alleged contravention did not occur.
* There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the
Enforcement Authority.
⸻
1. The alleged contravention did not occur
The vehicle was not stopped for the purpose of waiting at a bus
stop.
The driver observed a vehicle already occupying a nearby lawful
parking bay. Its occupant had entered the vehicle and closed the
door, making it clear that the vehicle was about to leave. The
driver therefore waited behind that vehicle for approximately 20
seconds while it started and vacated the bay, before immediately
parking in the now vacant space.
The driver remained in the vehicle throughout and never left it.
During this brief period, the passenger exited the vehicle
safely.
The Council’s CCTV supports this explanation by showing the
other vehicle driving away immediately before the appellant
parked. However, the CCTV does not show the full sequence before
recording commenced and therefore fails to provide the complete
context of why the vehicle was stationary.
The Enforcement Authority has relied upon incomplete CCTV
evidence and has failed to prove the contravention.
⸻
2. Failure to consider the representations
My formal representation stated:
“I put you to strict proof that this bus stop is legally signed.
If you are unable to do so, please cancel the PCN.”
The Notice of Rejection simply asserts that compliant signage
exists but provides no contemporaneous evidence whatsoever.
Instead, the Council relies upon Google Street View images dated
August 2025. The alleged contravention occurred on 16 June 2026,
approximately ten months later.
Historic Street View imagery does not prove that the required
upright sign existed, remained unobstructed and was compliant on
the date of the alleged contravention. The Council has therefore
failed to provide strict proof of lawful signage at the material
time.
The recent decision in Fahim Muhammad Haque v London Borough of
Tower Hamlets (Case 2260000010, 29 July 2026) confirms that an
enforcement authority must prove that the required upright sign
was sufficiently visible. In that case, although the road
markings were present, the appeal was allowed because the
authority failed to establish that the required sign was
adequately visible. Attached: Fahim Muhammad Haque v London
Borough of Tower Hamlets (2260000010, 29 July 2026).pdf
⸻
3. Failure to properly consider the representations
The Notice of Rejection fails to address the substance of my
representations.
It does not address:
* the incomplete CCTV evidence;
* my explanation that the driver was briefly waiting for a
lawful parking bay to become available; or
* my request for strict proof that the bus stop was lawfully
signed.
Instead, it simply repeats that stopping is prohibited. That is
not proper consideration of the representations as required by
the 2022 Regulations.
⸻
4. The Notice of Rejection demonstrates a failure to consider
this case
The Notice of Rejection states:
“Our enforcement officer observed your vehicle…”
This statement is plainly incorrect.
The PCN itself confirms that it was issued solely on the basis
of evidence from an approved CCTV device. No Civil Enforcement
Officer observed the vehicle.
This factual error strongly suggests that the Council has issued
a generic template rejection without properly considering the
facts of this particular case. Whilst this point may not be
decisive on its own, it reinforces the wider procedural
impropriety that my representations were not genuinely
considered.
⸻
5. The Notice of Rejection misstates the statutory right of
appeal
Regulation 9(4)(b) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022 requires that a Notice of Rejection informs the
recipient of the right to appeal under Regulation 10.
Regulation 10 expressly provides that an appeal may be made:
(a) within 28 days beginning with the date of service of the
Notice of Rejection; or
(b) such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
The Notice of Rejection omits this statutory right entirely and
therefore fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of the
Regulations.
⸻
6. The Notice of Rejection compounds that error
The Council goes further by stating that after 28 days there
will be no further opportunity to appeal.
That is incorrect.
Regulation 10 expressly permits an adjudicator to accept a late
appeal where appropriate.
By informing the motorist that there is no further opportunity
to appeal, the Council has misrepresented the statutory position
and is capable of discouraging a motorist from exercising rights
expressly conferred by Parliament.
This amounts to a procedural impropriety.
-----
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that the
Adjudicator allows this appeal and directs the London Borough of
Redbridge to cancel PCN
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page