DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 46957--------------------------------------------------
LB Redbridge 53j - Cleveland Rd, Ilford IG1 Failing to comply
with restriction on vehicles entering pedest zone (camera)
DIR By: WaltWhite
Date: November 25, 2024, 8:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Any thoughts on this one, I just didn't see the signs, had
things going on that day and I'm not familiar with this area at
this time of day....I know it from years ago when there wasn't
these restrictions in place. Not trying to make excuses but
wondered if there were any grounds to make representations.
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/SDG3RGe.jpeg
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/qieeMQo.jpeg
Google Street View is two years out of date....
I can get photos if that is helpful at some point but I think
the camera footage on Redbridge website is pretty clear too.
Thanks in advance for any replies
#Post#: 46975--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge 53j - Cleveland Rd, Ilford IG1 Failing to
comply with restriction on vehicles entering pedest zone (cam
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: November 25, 2024, 10:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Signage looks clear and you approached head on.
Would need to be a technical issue say with PCN to challenge
this.
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/cWK2Asn.gif
#Post#: 46976--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge 53j - Cleveland Rd, Ilford IG1 Failing to
comply with restriction on vehicles entering pedest zone (cam
DIR By: WaltWhite
Date: November 25, 2024, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> Signage looks clear and you approached head on.
>
> Would need to be a technical issue say with PCN to challenge
this.
>
>
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/cWK2Asn.gif
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes thought so.
From a previous post I thought someone mentioned that LB
Redbridge might have made a mistake on making representations -
that online it was restricted to one representation only, and
this might be grounds for an appeal if representations were
turned down initially?
#Post#: 47001--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge 53j - Cleveland Rd, Ilford IG1 Failing to
comply with restriction on vehicles entering pedest zone (cam
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 25, 2024, 1:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The plate re term time is proscribed.
Also, please screenshot the pages you have to jump through to
make a representation etc and get back. Do not make a
representation yet please.
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X_ea7Dwibaj2KJR2WhZdV3it0D7q9jt0/view
Finally, this lot are trigger happy so I would wat until the
last minute within the statutory time to do so.
#Post#: 47013--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge 53j - Cleveland Rd, Ilford IG1 Failing to
comply with restriction on vehicles entering pedest zone (cam
DIR By: WaltWhite
Date: November 25, 2024, 3:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> The plate re term time is proscribed.
>
> Also, please screenshot the pages you have to jump through to
make a representation etc and get back. Do not make a
representation yet please.
>
>
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X_ea7Dwibaj2KJR2WhZdV3it0D7q9jt0/view
>
> Finally, this lot are trigger happy so I would wat until the
last minute within the statutory time to do so.
>
--- End Quote ---
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/j0T6dW6.jpeg
This is the second to last page for submitting representations.
The next one is evidence I presume. I have screenshotted the
other pages prior to this but there is about 20 screenshots
maybe too much info.
It does show you have to read their explanations why they reject
some example representations. Quite onorous and challenging for
some people I would imagine (also screen shotted if helpful to
post on here)
#Post#: 47015--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge 53j - Cleveland Rd, Ilford IG1 Failing to
comply with restriction on vehicles entering pedest zone (cam
DIR By: WaltWhite
Date: November 25, 2024, 3:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> The plate re term time is proscribed.
>
> Also, please screenshot the pages you have to jump through to
make a representation etc and get back. Do not make a
representation yet please.
>
>
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X_ea7Dwibaj2KJR2WhZdV3it0D7q9jt0/view
>
> Finally, this lot are trigger happy so I would wat until the
last minute within the statutory time to do so.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for the reply. It doesnt appear to be the hinged variety
as discussed in the successful appeal you have added. I think
this is an example of what they are referring to:
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/R36qb05.jpeg
However the successful appeal was with LB Merton not LB
Redbridge maybe they have different authorised DfT signage?
#Post#: 47021--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge 53j - Cleveland Rd, Ilford IG1 Failing to
comply with restriction on vehicles entering pedest zone (cam
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: November 25, 2024, 4:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
These school street signs should be hidden out of enforcement
periods.
But I'm not sure this set-up has legs. The term time plates here
are not regulatory I think and also it's obvious from the video
that the school is in session.
#Post#: 47110--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge 53j - Cleveland Rd, Ilford IG1 Failing to
comply with restriction on vehicles entering pedest zone (cam
DIR By: WaltWhite
Date: November 26, 2024, 9:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> These school street signs should be hidden out of enforcement
periods.
>
> But I'm not sure this set-up has legs. The term time plates
here are not regulatory I think and also it's obvious from the
video that the school is in session.
>
--- End Quote ---
I didnt realise the school was in session till I reached the
speed bump after the signs. Not sure that matters though
#Post#: 47385--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge 53j - Cleveland Rd, Ilford IG1 Failing to
comply with restriction on vehicles entering pedest zone (cam
DIR By: WaltWhite
Date: November 28, 2024, 1:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
The 14 days are up today so I will put in a representation.
Would something to do with the signage be the way forward here,
or is there anything else you might suggest?
Any help with wording would be appreciated
Thanks again
#Post#: 47402--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge 53j - Cleveland Rd, Ilford IG1 Failing to
comply with restriction on vehicles entering pedest zone (cam
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 28, 2024, 4:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
14 days isn't relevant as regards reps, it only affects the
discount.
The PCN does not say that unsuccessful reps made no later than
the 14-day period would secure the discount for a further 14
days.
Talking of reps, Hippocrates might care to consider weaving this
into any appeal or reps:
(8)A penalty charge notice under this section must—
(a)state—
.....
(viii)that the person on whom the notice is served may be
entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1
to this Act;
IMO, this PCN does not and omits vital information. Instead, it
invites the recipient to join up dots and reach a conclusion
which is improper: it should be absolutely clear.
Schedule 1 to the Act:
Representations against penalty charge notice
1(1)Where it appears to a person on whom a penalty charge notice
has been served under section 4 (Penalty charges for road
traffic contraventions) of this Act (in this Schedule referred
to as “the recipient”) that one or other of the grounds
mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) below is satisfied, he may make
representations to that effect to the enforcing authority.
....
(3)The enforcing authority may disregard any such
representations which are received by them after the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty
charge notice in question was served.
(3) is not in the PCN. Instead they invite the recipient to join
up these dots:
From the PCN:
.....
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the
28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
(vi)the amount of the increased charge;
Which means what?
That the recipient cannot make reps after the 28-day period as
if issuing a CC draws a line under matters? If so, it is
non-compliant.
A recipient MUST BE TOLD that they may make reps at any time,
but that if made after the 28-day period these MAY be
disregarded.
For regular posters, IMO this is a safety net equivalent to an
OOT SD or late appeal to the adjudicator i.e reasons for
lateness.
There might be 1000 reasons why reps are made late and which,
when the reason is presented to the authority, obliges them, by
virtue of their public law duty, to act fairly and consider.
This doesn't bear upon the substance of reps, but simply the
reasons for lateness.
This PCN doesn't convey this info...other than possibly to those
steeped in road traffic law(or, in the case of this council,
folklore) because it's what we know it's supposed to say and
only join up dots leading to this end.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 10
DIR Next Page