DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 92482--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Contravention Code 16. All signs obscured or
painted over
DIR By: fezster
Date: October 2, 2025, 4:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Any help please?
#Post#: 92483--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Contravention Code 16. All signs obscured or
painted over
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: October 2, 2025, 4:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: fezster link ---
>
> Can someone tell me what the sequence of events are after
receiving a PCN attached to a car?
>
> 1. Is a notice sent in the post?
> 2. Does the 14 day window start from the notice in post (or
the day the PCN was attached to the car)?
> 3. How many appeal stages there are?
>
--- End Quote ---
If you only do video hearings you can't get this adjudicator who
only does ones 'on the papers' i.e. postal hearings.
#Post#: 92484--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Contravention Code 16. All signs obscured or
painted over
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: October 2, 2025, 4:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: mrmustard link ---
>
> [quote author=fezster link=topic=8205.msg92117#msg92117
date=1759218928]
> Can someone tell me what the sequence of events are after
receiving a PCN attached to a car?
>
> 1. Is a notice sent in the post?
> 2. Does the 14 day window start from the notice in post (or
the day the PCN was attached to the car)?
> 3. How many appeal stages there are?
>
--- End Quote ---
If you only do video hearings you can't get this adjudicator who
only does ones 'on the papers' i.e. postal hearings.
[/quote]
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/parking-penalty-charge-notice-enforcement-process
#Post#: 92485--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Contravention Code 16. All signs obscured or
painted over
DIR By: fezster
Date: October 2, 2025, 4:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you - I did read that page, and so it looks like I should
go ahead and make a representation, as I will not receive
anything in the post.
I'd like some advice on whether there are any technical
challenges I can make on the PCN?
If not, whether or not the obscured signage (on both entry to
the zone and in/around the parking spot), plus the fact the CEO
has evidenced a sign 100m away - are these all strong grounds
for an appeal? Or if anything else I should be considering or
adding.
Thanks!
#Post#: 92489--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Contravention Code 16. All signs obscured or
painted over
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: October 2, 2025, 4:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please use imgbb.com to give us a copy of the pcn. Select do not
auto delete and Use BB Full linked code
#Post#: 92494--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Contravention Code 16. All signs obscured or
painted over
DIR By: fezster
Date: October 2, 2025, 5:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Done - looks like Imgur is doing something strange with the
previously uploaded images. Let me know if these show ok.
Also - google drive link with all of the images referred to in
my first post:
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1z9bwDy9vIGG_g6Iz4Xxk2oU6r70GGKm7
HTML https://i.ibb.co/tTsDWmY8/PCN-front.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/Zp8xkLcW
HTML https://i.ibb.co/1fVfk4ND/PCN-back.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/MDTDmJHY
#Post#: 92504--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Contravention Code 16. All signs obscured or
painted over
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: October 2, 2025, 6:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: fezster link ---
>
> Thank you - I did read that page, and so it looks like I
should go ahead and make a representation, as I will not receive
anything in the post.
>
> I'd like some advice on whether there are any technical
challenges I can make on the PCN?
>
> If not, whether or not the obscured signage (on both entry to
the zone and in/around the parking spot), plus the fact the CEO
has evidenced a sign 100m away - are these all strong grounds
for an appeal? Or if anything else I should be considering or
adding.
>
> Thanks!
>
--- End Quote ---
Keep the representation simple. It is that signage is not
adequate. Send the council the zone entry sign, tell them you
found it afterwards and that it is clearly non compliant. Also
tell them that the sign which the CEO photographed was 100m from
the vehicle and was not driven past. Invite them to cancel the
PCN.
I can take over later if you wish especially for the tribunal.
#Post#: 92506--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Contravention Code 16. All signs obscured or
painted over
DIR By: fezster
Date: October 2, 2025, 6:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much. Submitted the representation and will
update once I receive a reply.
My representation is below (for reference):
--- Quote ---
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> All photos referred to are in the attached word document and
labelled with a heading.
>
> I wish to challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.
>
> I am not local to this area and am unfamiliar with the parking
restrictions that may apply. I, therefore, have to rely on the
signage in place to be informed of any restrictions.
>
> The alleged contravention did not occur because the
restriction was not clearly signed in accordance with the
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD).
>
> The route I took into Paget Road was from Ilford Lane →
Jersey Road → Lowbrook Road → Paget Road. At no
point along this route were the restriction signs visible or
legible:
>
> •
> •
> •
parked was facing the wrong way and defaced (photos 6–7).
> •
location was also defaced (photo 8).
> •
distance was also defaced (photo 9).
>
> I note that your Civil Enforcement Officer’s evidence has
photographed a sign roughly 100 metres from where the vehicle
was parked (photo 10 which the CEO produced as evidence). I have
attached photo 13 which shows the location of the 5 closest
signs, circled in green, to the parking space - all of which
were defaced. The CEO had to walk 100m (photo 14 showing the
distance to this sign) to the sign marked "number 4" in order to
produce a photo for evidence. This is further confirmed by the
timestamp on the photo which is 3 minutes after the photo of the
vehicle was taken, showing they needed to walk some considerable
distance.
>
> I also note that the CEO seems to have intentionally not
photographed the defaced sign right next to the parked vehicle.
The angle of the photo they have taken conveniently leaves this
sign out of shot (photo 11). You can refer to my own photo 15
and photo 16 showing the defaced sign next to the vehicle. This
demonstrates that the signage within the vicinity of the vehicle
was inadequate.
>
> The TSRGD and associated case law and adjudicator decisions
confirm that restrictions must be signed so they are clear,
either upon entering a zone, or at the point of parking.
Motorists cannot be expected to walk several minutes to discover
a restriction, particularly when the nearest signs are obscured.
As this is a zone where restrictions apply, the entry into the
zone can be relied on to enforce those restrictions. However, as
my evidence shows, this sign was also defaced.
>
> In light of the above, I respectfully request that this
Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled, as the contravention did not
occur due to inadequate signage.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 94317--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Contravention Code 16. All signs obscured or
painted over
DIR By: fezster
Date: October 16, 2025, 8:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Received the following rejection today in the post from
Redbridge. To be expected, I guess. For some reason I had hope
they might apply a bit of reason.
What are next steps here? I thought it would now go to London
Tribunals - but the letter says to wait for the NtO and then
submit another formal representation (which I presume will be
rejected for the same reason) and only then can it be taken to
the independent ajudicator - is that right?
HTML https://i.ibb.co/S41D2L7F/image.png
HTML https://ibb.co/nNVqTW8x
HTML https://i.ibb.co/hJ4stCvH/image.png
HTML https://ibb.co/5gSTf2Vv
#Post#: 94319--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Contravention Code 16. All signs obscured or
painted over
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: October 16, 2025, 8:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your final paragraph is correct.
One must be patient and follow the legally set procedure.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page