DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 86637--------------------------------------------------
Haringey NTO code 01(a)
DIR By: gainz
Date: August 21, 2025, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is unreal. My mrs received a NTO today not remembering even
parking here never mind getting a pcn. Checked her files but
nothing. I do not remember any suspenions on this road as we go
here often. I checked the pictures but really don't know what
heppened here. At least I should appeal for the reduced rate is
there anything further to add?
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1q0WvL2q7nkCKm9HMaBFEkjJJZdxKz0Cx?usp=sharing
#Post#: 86670--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey NTO code 01(a)
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 21, 2025, 10:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Looks like the wrong contravention as should be a code 2 as
there is a no loading restriction.
I don't like these temp traffic orders - is this a permit
parking bay?
The date was Friday 11 July and time 18:59. The PCN was served.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/Myh8Y9Yd/Screenshot-2025-08-21-at-16-32-19.png
HTML https://i.ibb.co/LhC2HP1f/Screenshot-2025-08-21-at-16-32-09.png
HTML https://i.ibb.co/b5nVtNFS/Screenshot-2025-08-21-at-16-32-41.png
HTML https://i.ibb.co/0VQcfXW6/Screenshot-2025-08-21-at-16-32-34.png
HTML https://i.ibb.co/gMCbM8xh/Screenshot-2025-08-21-at-16-32-28.png
#Post#: 86684--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey NTO code 01(a)
DIR By: gainz
Date: August 21, 2025, 11:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes its a permit parking bay. The restrictions normally end at
18:30.
#Post#: 87287--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey NTO code 01(a)
DIR By: sugarray
Date: August 26, 2025, 10:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
delete
#Post#: 87424--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey NTO code 01(a)
DIR By: gainz
Date: August 27, 2025, 8:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello is there any follow up on this?
#Post#: 87432--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey NTO code 01(a)
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 27, 2025, 9:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You have to make reps no later than 9 Sept.
In the photos, it seems as if the traffic sign itself is
uncovered. This is conflicting, it should be covered.
I think I know what's happened which is that the council
couldn't be bothered to cover then uncover then cover (the TTRO
restrictions were discontinuous).
For comment:
I parked at the location as I have many times before. I passed
the traffic sign(as seen in the council's photos) whilst
manoeuvring into the space. The restrictions here are well known
to me and end at 6.30pm. I parked at approx. 6.**. As I parked
it was clear, as shown in the photos, that the traffic sign was
uncovered and contained its regular restriction. Consequently, I
had no reason to look any further into the other signs which
were attached to the same post.
If the council wished to replace the provisions conveyed by the
sign, then it was incumbent on it to cover the sign. As this
sign was left uncovered, no blame should attach to the driver
and the contravention did not occur.
If the authority rejects these representations, then it must
address the substantive issues:
Does the authority accept that at the time of the contravention
the regular traffic sign was clearly displayed and its
restrictions clear to drivers?
If so, why was this sign not covered as the whole length of the
bay was within the scope of the TTRO?
Did the council make a conscious decision to leave the traffic
sign uncovered because the TTRO restrictions were discontinuous?
#Post#: 87441--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey NTO code 01(a)
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 27, 2025, 9:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is there anything in it not being a code 02 as well.
#Post#: 87455--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey NTO code 01(a)
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 27, 2025, 10:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps...
I parked at the location as I have many times before. I passed
the traffic sign(as seen in the council's photos) whilst
manoeuvring into the space. The restrictions here are well known
to me and end at 6.30pm. I parked at approx. 6.**. As I parked
it was clear, as shown in the photos, that the traffic sign was
uncovered and contained its regular restriction. Consequently, I
had no reason to look any further into the other signs which
were attached to the same post.
If the council wished to replace the provisions conveyed by the
sign[with No waiting, loading or unloading], then it was
incumbent on it to cover the sign. As this sign was left
uncovered, no blame should attach to the driver and the
contravention did not occur.
If the authority rejects these representations, then it must
address the substantive issues:
Does the authority accept that at the time of the contravention
the regular traffic sign was clearly displayed and its
restrictions clear to drivers?
If so, why was this sign not covered as the whole length of the
bay was within the scope of the TTRO?
Did the council make a conscious decision to leave the traffic
sign uncovered because the TTRO restrictions were discontinuous?
Why does the PCN refer to different grounds from those stated in
the Order, namely *********** instead of ****************. This
is in itself misleading because if the driver was
loading/collecting etc, then the CEO's error would encourage
them to submit representations to this effect when in actuality
the restriction in the Order precludes such a defence. This is
grossly misleading.
The PCN must be cancelled.
#Post#: 87467--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey NTO code 01(a)
DIR By: gainz
Date: August 27, 2025, 11:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I should choose one or more of the following;
Select all that apply, you have the opportunity to add
additional information on the next screen.
Became owner of vehicle after contravention date
Ceased to be owner before date of contravention
CEO was not prevented from serving the PCN
Hire firm - the vehicle was under hire agreement
I was never the owner of the vehicle
Penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable
The alleged contravention did not occur
The penalty charge has already been paid
The Traffic Order is invalid
There has been a procedural impropriety
Vehicle taken without the owner`s consent
Where other grounds exist (eg such as mitigation)
Thank you
#Post#: 87473--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey NTO code 01(a)
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 27, 2025, 12:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Contravention did not occur is there
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page