DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 75233--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain type of vehicles, Royal Albert Way E16 & Gallions R
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 7, 2025, 8:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The next step would be for Newham to refer the case to the
tribunal, though I suspect they've sent you a letter offering to
settle the matter for £65 as they're hoping you'll give up at
this point.
You don't want to rely on the post, therefore starting from next
week call London Tribunals once a week on 020 7520 7200 and ask
them if the PCN has been referred to them by the council. Repeat
until it is, once it is get the case number, give them your
email address, and ask them to change the communications
preference from post to email. And obviously let us know.
#Post#: 75350--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain type of vehicles, Royal Albert Way E16 & Gallions R
DIR By: correcthaunt
Date: June 8, 2025, 7:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi [member=1]cp8759[/member] & [member=12]Incandescent[/member],
Further to the post from yesterday I just got the below letter
from the council acknowledging my Revoking Order.
Revoking Order
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/PCk2Vtzr/Acknowledgement-post-tec.png
HTML https://postimg.cc/PCk2Vtzr
They have also enclosed a copy of the rejection notice that was
“posted” to me in November 2024. This is bullshit as the
rejection notice for other PCNs arrived together, but this one
didn’t? They also never responded to my online submission with
the same appeal AND never provided a copy when I asked for it
under the Subject Access Request back in late December/January.
Not to mention that I was checking the fee amount online
troughtout that period and it went down to £65, but from £130 it
went up to £195 during that time. So what they are saying just
doesn’t add up and not to mention that all of a sudden they
found the rejection notice…..
Copy of the Rejection
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/xcm6Pkm4/Copy-of-rejection.png
HTML https://postimg.cc/xcm6Pkm4
I have until 19th of June 2025 if I wish to pay the reduced £65
GBP but this has caused so much heartache and effort that I
would like to ask for help with appealing this to the tribunal.
Is this something you can help me with? What do you need from
me.
#Post#: 75356--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain type of vehicles, Royal Albert Way E16 & Gallions R
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 8, 2025, 8:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=3455]correcthaunt[/member] well this location can be won
on the merits of the signage, and on top of that it is possible
the council made a procedural mistake (though I can't say for
certain at this stage). I will drop you a PM in case you'd like
me to represent you at the tribunal.
#Post#: 90781--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain type of vehicles, Royal Albert Way E16 & Gallions R
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: September 20, 2025, 12:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Outcome
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MGbFddMQrhXkvHa1JAi6vswpBg0aqaNC/view.
#Post#: 90847--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain type of vehicles, Royal Albert Way E16 & Gallions R
DIR By: Enceladus
Date: September 21, 2025, 11:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Are you considering an application for review?
The below FOI request
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pcn_statistics_11/response/3042950/attach/html/3/FOI%202025%20001089%20EIR%20RESPONSE.pdf.html<br
/>might be of general interest. 44 allowed vs 35 refused, for
the
handful of cases that reached the tribunal.
"EIR Reference: FOI-2025-001089
Date: 6th June 2025
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Subject: Royal Albert Way E16/Gallions Roundabout
We write with regard to your recent enquiry for information held
by the Council under the
provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
Request and Response
1. How many PCN tickets have been issued on royal Albert Way E16
- Gallions Reach
roundabout the last 3 years?
21,521 PCNs issued at Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout
E16 from
25th August 2023 to 14th May 2025.
2. How many have been appealed and has been successful?
4,357 Formal representations were received of which 218 cases
were successful.
3. How many of them went to court and was cancelled by court
order?
79 decisions were appealed of which 44 were allowed at
Tribunal."
#Post#: 90866--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain type of vehicles, Royal Albert Way E16 & Gallions R
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 21, 2025, 3:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How do these data address the threshold requirements for a
review and under which grounds?
#Post#: 90932--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain type of vehicles, Royal Albert Way E16 & Gallions R
DIR By: Enceladus
Date: September 22, 2025, 8:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> How do these data address the threshold requirements for a
review and under which grounds?
>
--- End Quote ---
Was that aimed at me?
I simply asked [member=1]cp8759[/member] whether he was
considering an application for review. I did not make any
comments or suggestions on the merits or otherwise of doing so.
In fact, we don't even have all of the appeal submission so we
could not do so.
I then posted a FOI request about this particular location and
the contravention as a matter of general interest. Sadly a mere
0.37% of all of the PCNs issued reach the Adjudicator. And only
slightly more than half of those that do prevail.
#Post#: 90951--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain type of vehicles, Royal Albert Way E16 & Gallions R
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 22, 2025, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My apologies, I wasn't clear as to whom the post was directed.
#Post#: 90967--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain type of vehicles, Royal Albert Way E16 & Gallions R
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: September 22, 2025, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think there are any grounds for a review, I cannot see
that the adjudicator has made any findings of fact or law that
she wasn't entitled to make, nor can I see any procedural
failings that vitiate the decision. If I was going to pursue a
review I would have waited for the outcome of that before
posting the outcome.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 5
DIR Previous Page