DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 75323--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth 01a - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours (temporary t
DIR By: gge12
Date: June 8, 2025, 3:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Lo and behold the signs have since been covered and replaced
with signs for the new traffic order
#Post#: 75326--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth 01a - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours (temporary t
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 8, 2025, 4:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Take a photo(s) just in case.
#Post#: 75328--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth 01a - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours (temporary t
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 8, 2025, 4:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: gge12 link ---
>
> Do you think it's better to appeal as above on the basis that
The Traffic Management Order is invalid or due to procedural
impropriety?
>
--- End Quote ---
When the time comes, everything is in play.
#Post#: 79233--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth 01a - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours (temporary t
DIR By: gge12
Date: July 2, 2025, 8:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://imgur.com/a/CzBLSJA
Lambeth have rejected my appeal. They state that 'signage is
present at the location and meet necessary requirements for
enforcement action'. As stated above, there were no temporary
traffic signs on the day and they have been unable to evidence
any, respite their assertion. Furthermore, their website was
still urging me to pay 80 quid even after I had submitted my
appeal (see screenshot in earlier post).
I am awaiting the NTO to formally challenge.
#Post#: 79286--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth 01a - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours (temporary t
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 2, 2025, 12:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: gge12 link ---
>
>
HTML https://imgur.com/a/CzBLSJA
>
> Lambeth have rejected my appeal. They state that 'signage is
present at the location and meet necessary requirements for
enforcement action'. As stated above, there were no temporary
traffic signs on the day and they have been unable to evidence
any, respite their assertion. Furthermore, their website was
still urging me to pay 80 quid even after I had submitted my
appeal (see screenshot in earlier post).
>
> I am awaiting the NTO to formally challenge.
>
--- End Quote ---
What a load of utter tosh they write !
All London councils ruthlessly game the system to maximise the
cash flow, so they refuse all informal representations knowing
that >95% of people then cough up so they don't lose the
discount. Most people know nothing about parking and traffic law
enforcement, so won't take the risk of taking the matter
further. If you are sure you are in the right, (having been
confirmed in this forum), you just have to stand your ground and
wait for the Notice to Owner.
#Post#: 85081--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth 01a - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours (temporary t
DIR By: gge12
Date: August 11, 2025, 4:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
NTO received, though dated 18th July, I only saw it yesterday as
just back from holiday so am a bit late to the party.
#Post#: 85083--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth 01a - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours (temporary t
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 11, 2025, 4:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The full NTO pl.
And so that we're clear, you are the registered keeper, yes?
Anyway, NTO dated 18 July is deemed served Tues. 22nd therefore
the 28-day periods end on 18 Aug.
#Post#: 85085--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth 01a - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours (temporary t
DIR By: gge12
Date: August 11, 2025, 4:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://imgur.com/a/ElSJTEt
My wife is actually the registered keeper but I was the driver
at the time and made the initial appeal in my name.
#Post#: 85130--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth 01a - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours (temporary t
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 11, 2025, 9:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Formal reps would have to be in her name. Is the NTO addressed
to your wife and was their earlier rejection of your reps to you
by name?
#Post#: 85187--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth 01a - Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours (temporary t
DIR By: gge12
Date: August 11, 2025, 1:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Earlier rejection addressed to me and NTO addressed to her
confusingly. Maybe it's because I have previous with them in
this car!
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page