DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 61997--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition,
Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 11, 2025, 4:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Smhn100 link ---
>
> Hi any help?
>
--- End Quote ---
You should concentrate on the signage not reflecting the Traffic
Regulation Order that establishes the restriction. The sign only
comes on when the restriction applies, not at other times, so
there is no means of finding out when the restriction applies.
Signage should be there that tells you the nature of the
restriction. The main problem is that the council are unlikely
to give way, so you'd need to take them to London Tribunals.
We haven't seen this location come up for a while on the forum
so I suggest you look for successful appeals on the London
Tribunals statutory register. Search for successful appeals from
1st Jan 2024. Unfortunately GSV is not sufficiently up-to-date
for us to give advice on signage that is there at the moment.
There may be additional warning signs we don't know about.
Another aspect is that of Hippocrates pointing out that their
web pages for submitting reps may be flawed, but he's best for
telling you what this is.
Whatever you do, don't miss the deadline for submitting reps.
#Post#: 62020--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition,
Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: Smhn100
Date: March 11, 2025, 6:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> [quote author=Smhn100 link=topic=5465.msg61973#msg61973
date=1741723499]
> Hi any help?
>
--- End Quote ---
You should concentrate on the signage not reflecting the Traffic
Regulation Order that establishes the restriction. The sign only
comes on when the restriction applies, not at other times, so
there is no means of finding out when the restriction applies.
Signage should be there that tells you the nature of the
restriction. The main problem is that the council are unlikely
to give way, so you'd need to take them to London Tribunals.
We haven't seen this location come up for a while on the forum
so I suggest you look for successful appeals on the London
Tribunals statutory register. Search for successful appeals from
1st Jan 2024. Unfortunately GSV is not sufficiently up-to-date
for us to give advice on signage that is there at the moment.
There may be additional warning signs we don't know about.
Another aspect is that of Hippocrates pointing out that their
web pages for submitting reps may be flawed, but he's best for
telling you what this is.
Whatever you do, don't miss the deadline for submitting reps.
[/quote]
Apologies I'm going to sound really stupid here but what do you
mean by submitting reps? And that it may be flawed? Apologies
it's my first time appealing.
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member] could you shed more light on it
please
#Post#: 62024--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition,
Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 11, 2025, 7:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I must have been asleep !
Yes, you have already submitted representations (reps) and been
rejected so the next move is you either pay or you take them to
London Tribunals.
Have they re-offered the discount ? If not then it is a total
no-brainer to take them to London Tribunals. If they have, then
you have to decide whether you want to take the double-or-quits
gamble of going to London Tribunals. If it were me I'd take
them there because I see no advance warning signs that there is
an entry restriction onto Royal Albert Way. All they seem to
have erected are signs that CCTV enforcement is in place. Well,
what would anyone think seeing that ? They would surely think
it is to check for speeding
Then there is the aspect of the signs giving directions. There
is not a hint on any of them that access to Royal Albert Way is
not 24x7.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/zHJE9wUXYooB32489
and
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/VKdi7qydBruG9ZvW9
and
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/34zdshKMd4MNKKxi7
The regulation that councils must follow is contained in
Regulation 18 of the The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders
(Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 : -
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18
As far as I am concerned, they have totally failed to adhere to
this regulation.
It's some time since I looked at this location, but there have
been some successful appeals here. It is your decision though.
Here are cases very relevant to your case
2230492197
2230497838
2230530922
2230539610
There are more.
People in that council should be in jail for this sort of thing.
#Post#: 62219--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition,
Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: Smhn100
Date: March 12, 2025, 6:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> Sorry, I must have been asleep !
> Yes, you have already submitted representations (reps) and
been rejected so the next move is you either pay or you take
them to London Tribunals.
>
> Have they re-offered the discount ? If not then it is a total
no-brainer to take them to London Tribunals. If they have, then
you have to decide whether you want to take the double-or-quits
gamble of going to London Tribunals. If it were me I'd take
them there because I see no advance warning signs that there is
an entry restriction onto Royal Albert Way. All they seem to
have erected are signs that CCTV enforcement is in place. Well,
what would anyone think seeing that ? They would surely think
it is to check for speeding
>
> Then there is the aspect of the signs giving directions. There
is not a hint on any of them that access to Royal Albert Way is
not 24x7.
>
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/zHJE9wUXYooB32489
> and
>
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/VKdi7qydBruG9ZvW9
> and
>
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/34zdshKMd4MNKKxi7
>
> The regulation that councils must follow is contained in
Regulation 18 of the The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders
(Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 : -
>
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18
> As far as I am concerned, they have totally failed to adhere
to this regulation.
>
> It's some time since I looked at this location, but there have
been some successful appeals here. It is your decision though.
> Here are cases very relevant to your case
> 2230492197
> 2230497838
> 2230530922
> 2230539610
> There are more.
>
> People in that council should be in jail for this sort of
thing.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for your response. I am edging towards taking it to
Tribunal as many of these cases mention similar reasons to mine
and have been successful. Since the beginning of the year, 57%
of the cases were successful which gives me some hope. The only
one thing that's making me 2nd guess is one of the warning signs
at the entry of the roundabout. The first one - yes it does not
mention motor prohibition which works in my favour:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/svQRBov9JGmKY9wa8
However what about the small yellow sign after it:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/EGM72eZcisSzMGEe7
It's difficult to see but if you zoom in, it says "Royal Albert
closed when signs are displayed". Could this cause an issue? In
my reasoning, I mentioned having it as a separate sign could
cause confusion - driver may not know if this is related to the
camera enforcement yellow sign just before it. Could the Council
use this against me?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 62259--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition,
Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 13, 2025, 5:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What a stupid sign, being neither a traffic sign, nor placed
where a motorist would be expected to read it at the entrance to
a busy roundabout.
Basically the signage here is a complete joke. They only get
away with it because so many people just cough up and also
adjudications against them don't stop them carrying on
collecting the cash. Only if this gets into the national press
is anything likely to be done properly.
#Post#: 62269--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition,
Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 13, 2025, 5:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Website issue appears to be fixed:
Please refer to the notice you have received from the council,
which provides the grounds on which you can make a
representation. You may make representations to the council
against the penalty charge if one or more of the grounds apply
and/or there are compelling reasons why, in the particular
circumstances of the case, the council should cancel the penalty
charge and refund any sum paid to it on account of the penalty
charge. You should provide sufficient evidence to support your
case (where applicable).
#Post#: 125328--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition,
Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: bharatkuniya@gmail.com
Date: July 21, 2026, 4:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to ask whether anyone here took this PCN all the
way to London Tribunals. If so, what was the outcome?
I’ve received the same PCN for Royal Albert Way / Gallions
Roundabout. I challenged it with Newham Council, but my
representations were rejected.
Tomorrow is the deadline for me to lodge an appeal with London
Tribunals, so I’m trying to decide whether it’s worth risking
the full £160 instead of paying the discounted £80.
If anyone has been through the tribunal process for this exact
location, I’d really appreciate hearing how your case went and
what arguments the adjudicator accepted or rejected.
Thanks in advance.
Bharat
#Post#: 125334--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, 52m failing to comply with vehicle prohibition,
Royal Albert Way E16 / Gallions Roundabout E16
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 21, 2026, 5:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've just had a quick look at the London Tribunals Statutory
Register, and there are 142 successful appeals for this
location. However there have been refusals too. I think much
depends on how the case is presented, and which adjudicator one
gets "on the day", because some recent recruits to London
Tribunals seem very sadly lacking in commonsense, sorry to have
to say it.
Carl Teper observed that the signage in place failed to convey
the full traffic order information because these is nothing
outside the restricted hours to tell you what those hours are,
not even the dreadful so-called advance warning signs.
Anyway, here is the web page on London Tribunals. Enter the
location "Royal Albert Way" and a start date, then select
"appeal successful"
HTML https://londontribunals.org.uk/ords/pwslive/f?p=14952:30::INITIALISE::Y::&cs=3kBpFAkkfHqNefFQR1fY4o4Ynd4p0a4-aQBhFlzeZfZ9AkWcr57qbFsf6EX2dHqKcQm8bWyNkJXJ9qm6nLiIShA
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page