DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 106560--------------------------------------------------
Redbridge / 34j - Being In A Bus Lane/Cranbrook Rd
DIR By: NTIAEP
Date: January 19, 2026, 1:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello folks!
Redbridge
AF49953922
SAF17A
PCN (redacted)
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ygihtjswheyf69vryqy8u/20260109_SAF17A_PCN-AF49953922_Cranbrook-Rd-Bus-Lane_20260101_redacted.pdf?rlkey=6bc4gvk5p39aszztuu01mqxk5&st=fm7ioqyx&dl=0
CCTV Footage
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/75nffp1osh01npyzgfc0v/AF49953922_vid1.mp4?rlkey=z7kaz0jnsif1fswjaaey1591l&st=j1ysqt4t&dl=0
GSV
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/J7FMQeXDA3Qnn1Bm7/
My proposed reps to Redbridge are:
/////////////////////////////
1) the alleged contravention of ‘34j – Being in A Bus Lane’ did
not occur due to the following:
a) The exact locus of the alleged contravention is not stated
in the PCN;
b) a Bus Lane only becomes effective/enforceable where the
white solid line starts;
c) I put to you strict proof that the vehicle encroached
beyond the solid white line as let alone ‘de minimis’, the
vehicle alleged didn’t even pass beyond the section where the
white solid line begins. If anything, the vehicle began to
reverse prior to that and was only delayed by and due to safety
concerns of other vehicles passing behind it; and
d) full and extended CCTV footage rather than a misleading
shortened clip (as is the usual ploy of Redbridge parking
enforcement CCTV operators), would corroborate the above.
2) in light of the above, cancel the PCN;
3) be forewarned that should you not cancel this PCN, I will be
taking this matter to tribunal and making a request for costs.
/////////////////////////////
Feedback/thoughts welcome.
Thanks - NTIAEP
#Post#: 106576--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge / 34j - Being In A Bus Lane/Cranbrook Rd
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 19, 2026, 4:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Too much and somewhat frivolous/vexatious in part. E mail me
please. Calma my friend. 8) I am now a watched man - by many
people. The opposition and the guys in the middle.
The PCN has an issue re mandatory information* and the evidence
does not prove the alleged contravention.
*
HTML https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=c1724f21ecb5d30d1&q=https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/bus-lane-driver-exposes-flaw-in-penalty-notices-6487620.html&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjLz5zkz5iSAxUBVqQEHdoII3YQFnoECAEQAg&usg=AOvVaw11yUadpvgGgRQAQqPk1YHX
BTW: not I driving!
#Post#: 106586--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge / 34j - Being In A Bus Lane/Cranbrook Rd
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 19, 2026, 4:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The video shows no contravention at all. I assume from your
narrative, you realised you were about to enter the bus lane, so
stoppped and waited until it was safe to reverse back and
proceed down the traffic lane. Looks like a typically mendacious
editing of the video so as not to show you reversing. At no time
did your car pass the bus lane sign which indicates the start of
the bus lane.
So, follow Hippocrates advice re what to put in your
representations, but do be aware they will reply with a Fob-Off
letter as they always do. In cases like this you must be
prepared to stand your ground and take them to London Tribunals.
#Post#: 106832--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge / 34j - Being In A Bus Lane/Cranbrook Rd
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 21, 2026, 10:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The alleged contravention is not proved by the brevity of the
video or the movement of the vehicle and its position.
#Post#: 106944--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge / 34j - Being In A Bus Lane/Cranbrook Rd
DIR By: NTIAEP
Date: January 22, 2026, 7:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> The video shows no contravention at all. I assume from your
narrative, you realised you were about to enter the bus lane, so
stoppped and waited until it was safe to reverse back and
proceed down the traffic lane. Looks like a typically mendacious
editing of the video so as not to show you reversing. At no time
did your car pass the bus lane sign which indicates the start of
the bus lane.
>
> So, follow Hippocrates advice re what to put in your
representations, but do be aware they will reply with a Fob-Off
letter as they always do. In cases like this you must be
prepared to stand your ground and take them to London Tribunals.
>
--- End Quote ---
In essence, yes.....and have submitted as per
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member]' choice of vocabulary.
Let's wait with bated breath :) for LBR's response.
#Post#: 106947--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge / 34j - Being In A Bus Lane/Cranbrook Rd
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 22, 2026, 7:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is just the first set. In the final set in the last match,
they messed up. 2250389157.
#Post#: 108066--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge / 34j - Being In A Bus Lane/Cranbrook Rd
DIR By: NTIAEP
Date: January 30, 2026, 1:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As expected, LBR's Rejection of initial reps (redacted)
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/eq8rjul744oxwunh9y94l/20260128_SAF17A_PCN-AF49953922_Cranbrook-Rd-Bus-Lane_20260101_initial-rejection_redacted.pdf?rlkey=b0ple02dclzbebtk9w9foui4z&st=kmto2srl&dl=0
Awaiting NtO.
#Post#: 108071--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge / 34j - Being In A Bus Lane/Cranbrook Rd
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 30, 2026, 1:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: NTIAEP link ---
>
> As expected, LBR's Rejection of initial reps (redacted)
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/eq8rjul744oxwunh9y94l/20260128_SAF17A_PCN-AF49953922_Cranbrook-Rd-Bus-Lane_20260101_initial-rejection_redacted.pdf?rlkey=b0ple02dclzbebtk9w9foui4z&st=kmto2srl&dl=0
>
> Awaiting NtO.
>
--- End Quote ---
Well, if they send you a Notice to Owner, frame it! It should
be an Enforcement Notice.
#Post#: 110752--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge / 34j - Being In A Bus Lane/Cranbrook Rd
DIR By: NTIAEP
Date: February 23, 2026, 5:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement Notice received
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/cszg39cjbh230c85nm5cl/20260211_SAF17A_PCN-AF49953922_Cranbrook-Rd-Bus-Lane_20260101_EN_redacted.pdf?rlkey=74f301edbueooirldo8huqx81&st=0qftjy2u&dl=0<br
/>despite the previous correspondence incorrectly suggesting it
would be a NtO.
Will be responding with same reps as submitted
previously....unless advised otherwise.
Just spotted that halfway down on Page1 it says, "The Penalty
Charge is £160.00. So far £0 has bee paid. Payment of £80.00
is now due".
LBR online says £160 (please see here
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wb0qcxtfuqxc4862gy7gd/LBR-PCN_AF49953922_Screenshot-2026-02-23-121418.jpg?rlkey=fj5d5xkkjs55gfpgqxrovrfk2&st=7rt1k8oa&dl=0)
So which is it? Is this a case of procedural impropriety?
#Post#: 110837--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge / 34j - Being In A Bus Lane/Cranbrook Rd
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 23, 2026, 1:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
E mail me. I would write to them and ask for the NTO as promised
to see what they say.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page