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#: 127915--------------------------------------------------
       Re: LB Redbridge 11u Parking without parking of payment charge,
       Grosvenor Rd, London E11
   DIR By: WaltWhite
       Date: August 16, 2026, 6:22 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: WaltWhite link ---
       >
       > [quote author=Glitch link=topic=11483.msg125452#msg125452
       date=1784793395]
       > Redbridge Traffic Orders
  HTML https://redbridge.traffweb.app/traffweb/1/TrafficOrders
       >
       > The traffic order shows WD zone starts outside 1a Grosvenor
       Road. Their CPZ map shows it starts at the high street. CPZ Map
  HTML https://my.redbridge.gov.uk/map/permit-parking-zones
       I assume
       the Traffic Order takes precedence?
       >
       > Outside the Montesorri and the church is payment parking. WD
       permit doesn't apply (according to Traffic Order). I assume you
       parked there?
       >
       > However, the signs in your (fuzzy) photo appear to be
       conflicting. The sign for start of WD appears to be outside the
       church. This is wrong.
       > They've overlapped it with the payment parking. I can see why
       you were confused and thought it was OK to park there.
       >
       > Need others to sense check it but I'd say it's a slam dunk for
       a cancellation of the PCN.
       >
       > They will probably rely on 'except in signed bays' but I'd
       certainly argue the signs cause confusion.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       You are correct about where I parked. However I have had
       received a rejection, I will post their rejection of my
       challenge here now
       [/quote]
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/11s9cPs_xl.webp
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/q0RhG5H_xl.webp
       #Post#: 127923--------------------------------------------------
       Re: LB Redbridge 11u Parking without parking of payment charge,
       Grosvenor Rd, London E11
   DIR By: tincombe
       Date: August 16, 2026, 9:26 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Where are the council's photos??
       #Post#: 127925--------------------------------------------------
       Re: LB Redbridge 11u Parking without parking of payment charge,
       Grosvenor Rd, London E11
   DIR By: WaltWhite
       Date: August 16, 2026, 9:48 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: tincombe link ---
       >
       > Where are the council's photos??
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       The council photos show I was parked in a bay which was pay and
       display but supposedly inside a oermitncontrolled area. However
       a previous poster has said the signage for the permit controlled
       area is not in the correct place for the traffic order. I’ve
       already challenged the PCN which was rejected. Just wondering on
       next steps if any point or just pay reduced penalty
       #Post#: 127929--------------------------------------------------
       Re: LB Redbridge 11u Parking without parking of payment charge,
       Grosvenor Rd, London E11
   DIR By: tincombe
       Date: August 16, 2026, 10:28 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The PPA isn't relevant. A marked parking place operates by
       different rules, namely the restriction conveyed on the sign.
       Are we going to see this sign and markings to run our
       experienced eyes over or simply take it as a statement that it
       was there and conveyed a lawful restriction in the prescribed
       manner? You said you found the signage confusing, maybe there
       was a reason for this?
       I find the concept of marked shared use within a PPA when one of
       the users is PPA permit holders difficult to get my mind round.
       #Post#: 127935--------------------------------------------------
       Re: LB Redbridge 11u Parking without parking of payment charge,
       Grosvenor Rd, London E11
   DIR By: WaltWhite
       Date: August 16, 2026, 11:03 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: tincombe link ---
       >
       > The PPA isn't relevant. A marked parking place operates by
       different rules, namely the restriction conveyed on the sign.
       >
       > Are we going to see this sign and markings to run our
       experienced eyes over or simply take it as a statement that it
       was there and conveyed a lawful restriction in the prescribed
       manner? You said you found the signage confusing, maybe there
       was a reason for this?
       >
       > I find the concept of marked shared use within a PPA when one
       of the users is PPA permit holders difficult to get my mind
       round.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       It’s at the top of the thread.
       #Post#: 127939--------------------------------------------------
       Re: LB Redbridge 11u Parking without parking of payment charge,
       Grosvenor Rd, London E11
   DIR By: tincombe
       Date: August 16, 2026, 11:53 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Out of focus. The PPA sign is not the issue, it's the prevailing
       restriction in the 'signed bay' in which you parked and I cannot
       sort the in-focus wheat from the chaff, sorry.
       #Post#: 127948--------------------------------------------------
       Re: LB Redbridge 11u Parking without parking of payment charge,
       Grosvenor Rd, London E11
   DIR By: Glitch
       Date: August 16, 2026, 1:26 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       These are the council photos.
       Does it prove the contravention?
       Can you see the bay?
  HTML https://i.ibb.co/xtBWgQXz/IMG-6517.jpg
  HTML https://ibb.co/Tx7605YP
  HTML https://i.ibb.co/0jgHc2bj/IMG-6516.jpg
  HTML https://ibb.co/HDW5V48D
  HTML https://i.ibb.co/HptGGxcc/IMG-6515.jpg
  HTML https://ibb.co/Fq5880QQ
  HTML https://i.ibb.co/3m2NBpc2/IMG-6513.jpg
  HTML https://ibb.co/4RzTP8pz
  HTML https://i.ibb.co/1JYktyd2/IMG-6510.jpg
  HTML https://ibb.co/qFLv3qW1
  HTML https://i.ibb.co/WNGvfjbF/IMG-6511.jpg
  HTML https://ibb.co/MyZk7QYp
       #Post#: 127952--------------------------------------------------
       Re: LB Redbridge 11u Parking without parking of payment charge,
       Grosvenor Rd, London E11
   DIR By: tincombe
       Date: August 16, 2026, 1:57 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The sign is clear. Why they have such a mix in one area is
       anyone's guess i.e. PPA, marked shared use, marked pay only.
       You could argue (at adjudication) that the markings are not
       substantially compliant, but IMO it's a gamble.
       #Post#: 127954--------------------------------------------------
       Re: LB Redbridge 11u Parking without parking of payment charge,
       Grosvenor Rd, London E11
   DIR By: Glitch
       Date: August 16, 2026, 2:24 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       But worth formal reps?
       Won't Discount be reoffered?
       #Post#: 127959--------------------------------------------------
       Re: LB Redbridge 11u Parking without parking of payment charge,
       Grosvenor Rd, London E11
   DIR By: tincombe
       Date: August 16, 2026, 4:35 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The council won't accept the argument. The legal test is 'as the
       order making authority may consider requisite for securing that
       adequate information as to the effect of the order is made
       available to persons using the road;'. Whether the adjudicator
       shares their view??
       No guarantees as regards re-offered reduced rate, but more
       likely than not. You would also get a shot at examining a NOR
       for procedural correctness.
       *****************************************************
       Page 2 of 3
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page