DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 73466--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest (LBWF) PCN, Failing to comply with a
prohibition, Tavistock Avenue E17 / Blackhorse Lane E17 (CCTV)
DIR By: CPN2025
Date: May 27, 2025, 11:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you again for your advice. I'm still not sure why the
signs in question are compliant with TSRGD, but it seems clear
that you're also not convinved of my argument that such signs
need to be illuminated internally or externally during certain
hours, not just reflectorised, making the signs in question
non-compliant. In terms of not seeing the signs, I would put it
down to the power of selective attention, as I was looking for a
parking space at the time (I'm sure you'll remember the
selective attention test from many years ago:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo).
I didn't find anything useful in the TMO documents myself, but
I'd be very interested to know if you do. Otherwise, I'll have
to decide if 50/50 seem like good enough odds.
Thank you.
#Post#: 73476--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest (LBWF) PCN, Failing to comply with a
prohibition, Tavistock Avenue E17 / Blackhorse Lane E17 (CCTV)
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 27, 2025, 11:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You could check if the signs are at a point 3.5 metres west of
the common boundary of Nos. 1 and 3 Tavistock Avenue, that is
pretty much your only hope. If the signs are significantly
before or after where they're meant to be, we can work with
that.
Other than that I don't see that you have much chance unless the
council don't contest the appeal, or simply mess up the evidence
pack. It's highly unlikely an adjudicator would find the signs
inadequate, the chances of that are almost zero.
And yes, I did see the gorilla.
#Post#: 74331--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest (LBWF) PCN, Failing to comply with a
prohibition, Tavistock Avenue E17 / Blackhorse Lane E17 (CCTV)
DIR By: CPN2025
Date: June 2, 2025, 10:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1]cp8759[/member] Thank you for your advice. From what I
could see in photos, the signs were where the TMO said they
should be, so I decided to pay the £65. I had a look at the ETA
stats for Waltham Forest for last year and they didn't contest
only 15% of appeals, and 58% of WF appeals were rejected by the
ETA, so I didn't fancy those odds in the end given you and
Incandescent thought there wasn't much of a case to argue.
All the best.
#Post#: 74356--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest (LBWF) PCN, Failing to comply with a
prohibition, Tavistock Avenue E17 / Blackhorse Lane E17 (CCTV)
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 2, 2025, 12:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In the circumstances that was probably a sensible decision.
#Post#: 78099--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest (LBWF) PCN, Failing to comply with a
prohibition, Tavistock Avenue E17 / Blackhorse Lane E17 (CCTV)
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 25, 2025, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For future reference, here's The Waltham Forest (Prescribed
Routes) (Winns Avenue/Pennant Terrace region) (No. 1) Traffic
Order 2025
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GhjRIBfBucCxIfQW2WS4jkbO2ZTGs_77/view.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page