DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64182--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition - two small-ish signs at side of road
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 26, 2025, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: FightTheGoodFight link ---
>
> [quote author=Incandescent link=topic=5516.msg62258#msg62258
date=1741859783]
> So maybe add into your reps something about the difficulties
the scheme has caused with controversy in meetings of the
council, but don't be confrontational. Post a draft here before
submitting.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi Incandescent. I will be posting my appeal in the next few
days, I was just wondering whether you had any opinions on my
draft? I have successfully fought off several private parking
ticket charge notices before but this is the first time I've
appealed against a Local Council PCN.
[/quote]
It does look rather long. Try and condense it down a bit. Rather
too many councils never bother to read the reps anyway, and just
send out Fob-Off letters. They may re-offer the discount, in
which case you will have to decide whether to take the
'double-or-quits' gamble of taking them to London Tribunals.
#Post#: 64889--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition - two small-ish signs at side of road
DIR By: FightTheGoodFight
Date: March 30, 2025, 1:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Utterly utterly frustrated. Admittedly, I am close to the wire
in terms of timings, but still within the time period allowed
for appeal. I have got everything together, prepared three PDFs
-- one of the main appeal text and another two containing images
-- and the online portal at
HTML https://pcn.royalgreenwich.gov.uk
does not allow me to submit the appeal. It gets all the way to
the final stage where it says "uploading appeal documents" and
then fails with "Error - Unable to upload your supporting
evidence" and an obscure error "The page was not displayed
because the request entity is too large."
So I thought, maybe this is because it doesn't like images
inside PDFs. Recreated the images as JPEGs and made the PDF
text-only. Still fails with same error.
So now I am unable to appeal and the deadline is this evening
(or possible Monday evening).
I will try to take videos of the appeals web form failing as I
submit it. Of course there is no way to actually contact them or
talk to a real person for help, and in any case I am busy at
work all day tomorrow.
Has anyone encountered this sort of problem before and might
have any salient advice? I am tempted to print everything out
and send it to them with a covering letter explaining that their
web for did not work (and stating that I have video evidence to
back this up) ... but maybe there is another approach?
#Post#: 65007--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition - two small-ish signs at side of road
DIR By: FightTheGoodFight
Date: March 31, 2025, 11:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: FightTheGoodFight link ---
>
> Utterly utterly frustrated. Admittedly, I am close to the wire
in terms of timings, but still within the time period allowed
for appeal. I have got everything together, prepared three PDFs
-- one of the main appeal text and another two containing images
-- and the online portal at
HTML https://pcn.royalgreenwich.gov.uk
does not allow me to submit the appeal. It gets all the way to
the final stage where it says "uploading appeal documents" and
then fails with "Error - Unable to upload your supporting
evidence" and an obscure error "The page was not displayed
because the request entity is too large."
>
> So I thought, maybe this is because it doesn't like images
inside PDFs. Recreated the images as JPEGs and made the PDF
text-only. Still fails with same error.
>
> So now I am unable to appeal and the deadline is this evening
(or possible Monday evening).
>
> I will try to take videos of the appeals web form failing as I
submit it. Of course there is no way to actually contact them or
talk to a real person for help, and in any case I am busy at
work all day tomorrow.
>
> Has anyone encountered this sort of problem before and might
have any salient advice? I am tempted to print everything out
and send it to them with a covering letter explaining that their
web for did not work (and stating that I have video evidence to
back this up) ... but maybe there is another approach?
>
--- End Quote ---
I phoned Royal Greenwich Parking Services. Amazingly they
actually picked up the phone after only about 10 minutes on hold
and to be fair they were helpful. They advised me to submit the
appeal without supporting documents and then email the documents
to an email address they provided, quoting the PCN number and
explaining the situation. So I have done that, now I wait to
hear what the result of the appeal is.
#Post#: 68597--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition - two small-ish signs at side of road
DIR By: FightTheGoodFight
Date: April 25, 2025, 6:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I got back from holiday a few days ago to find an appeal
rejection letter waiting for me. Unfortunately I now have until
the 28th to pay the discounted fee, or alternatively consider
taking it to the adjudicator.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
The rejection letter refers to my being unaware of "the
enforcement at this location, nor its hours of operation" but it
completely ignores the other elements of my initial appeal,
(specifically that the road leading up to the signs can be
difficult to navigate, leading to you not really seeing the
signs until it is too late ... and also that the additional
warning signs were inoperative in both directions, etc) ... so
they are essentially ignoring all of that and saying "the signs
follow the law, and we reject the appeal". Then they say that
"the adjudicator cannot allow an appeal on the basis of
mitigating circumstances but may refer the case back to this
Authority for further consideration" ... and there is a "Grounds
of Appeal" section that says that the ONLY grounds of appeal
are:
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
- Contravention did not occur.
- Vehicle was in control of someone else without my consent.
- We are a hire firm.
- I was not the owner
- Penalty exceeds the amount applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------
(None of which apply here).
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
This seems to be to be most unreasonable! There would appear to
be no incentive for the authority to *ever* consider mitigating
circumstances, if they can simply reject every time and then
people are not allowed to take it to the adjudicator to discuss
those circumstances!
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
I would love to appeal this case if I thought there was a chance
that they might rule in my favour, but if the system is
completely stacked against me at this point I am considering
simply paying the £65. Does anyone think there's a chance I
could successfully take it to adjudication, or perhaps argue
that the process itself is at fault?
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/Appeal/rejection/p1.jpeg
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/Appeal/rejection/p2.jpeg
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/Appeal/rejection/p3.jpeg
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/Appeal/rejection/p4.jpeg
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/Appeal/rejection/p5.jpeg
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/Appeal/rejection/p6.jpeg
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/Appeal/rejection/p7.jpeg
#Post#: 68678--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition - two small-ish signs at side of road
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: April 25, 2025, 12:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you looked at the evidence on their website yet ?
You are seen driving past two prominent "Flying Motorbike" signs
of the normal size for this sort of thing, and you approached
them head-on, so they would have been visible from quite some
distance away. So really, the contravention is made out.
--- Quote ---
> or perhaps argue that the process itself is at fault?
--- End Quote ---
The enforcement process is statute based, with regulations for
the detail, so you can't argue that one. However there may be a
'technical' appeal argument based on Greenwich mismanagement of
the enforcement process, so wait a teeny bit to see what others
may suggest, but don't miss the deadline for the discounted
penalty if that is what you're minded to do if nothing comes up
between now and the deadline.
#Post#: 68693--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition - two small-ish signs at side of road
DIR By: FightTheGoodFight
Date: April 25, 2025, 1:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> Have you looked at the evidence on their website yet ?
>
> You are seen driving past two prominent "Flying Motorbike"
signs of the normal size for this sort of thing, and you
approached them head-on, so they would have been visible from
quite some distance away. So really, the contravention is made
out.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes indeed, I looked at the photo and video evidence. It's very
frustrating, it was several months ago now, but I am sure that
what happened is that I only noticed the signs shortly before
driving past them and literally did not have time to read the
restricted times before I was through. In retrospect I should
perhaps have immediately tried to turn round and drive out
again!
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> The enforcement process is statute based, with regulations for
the detail, so you can't argue that one. However there may be a
'technical' appeal argument based on Greenwich mismanagement of
the enforcement process, so wait a teeny bit to see what others
may suggest, but don't miss the deadline for the discounted
penalty if that is what you're minded to do if nothing comes up
between now and the deadline.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's my thinking as well. Thankyou for your advice!
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page