DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 125736--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Bus lane A1400 Woodford Avenue (Opposite Stradbrook Grove)
       IG5 Redbridge
   DIR By: fox10
       Date: July 25, 2026, 11:42 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thanks Hippocrates, so is this okay to submit:
       Dear Sir or Madam
       Re: Enforcement Notice – PCN GX33149185
       Vehicle Registration: TRL1P
       I make these formal representations against the Enforcement
       Notice on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not
       occur and that there has been a procedural impropriety.
       Firstly, I ask that my initial challenge against the Penalty
       Charge Notice be treated as incorporated into these formal
       representations. I rely upon all of the points raised therein.
       TfL's rejection letter does not properly address the procedural
       improprieties identified, but merely asserts that the signage
       complies with the relevant legislation.
       The alleged contravention did not occur
       TfL has failed to produce evidence that my vehicle passed the
       prescribed bus lane entry sign (diagram 958 or 959).
       The rejection letter merely states that the signage complies
       with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.
       That is simply an assertion and is not evidence.
       Having reviewed the CCTV footage, it does not show my vehicle
       passing either a diagram 958 or diagram 959 bus lane entry sign
       before the alleged contravention. Likewise, the still
       photographs contained within the Penalty Charge Notice do not
       show any such signage.
       I therefore put TfL to strict proof that the prescribed bus lane
       entry sign was present, lawful, clearly visible and actually
       passed by my vehicle before the alleged contravention occurred.
       Procedural impropriety
       I continue to rely upon the procedural improprieties identified
       in my original challenge, including in particular:
       - the statement that an Enforcement Notice will "automatically"
       be issued, which fetters the authority's discretion where the
       legislation provides that an Enforcement Notice may be issued;
       - the misleading wording concerning correspondence before the
       Enforcement Notice and the right of appeal; and
       - the failure to properly consider the matters raised in my
       initial challenge.
       CCTV evidence
       Although I requested the CCTV evidence promptly, it was supplied
       only on DVD.
       In 2026, it is unreasonable to expect a motorist to possess or
       obtain DVD playback equipment simply to examine the evidence
       relied upon by the enforcement authority. This unnecessarily
       hindered my ability to review the evidence and prepare my case.
       TfL could easily have provided the footage via an online viewing
       portal or downloadable electronic
       For the reasons set out above, TfL has failed to discharge the
       burden of proving the alleged contravention.
       Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Enforcement Notice
       and the underlying Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
       Yours faithfully
       #Post#: 125737--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Bus lane A1400 Woodford Avenue (Opposite Stradbrook Grove)
       IG5 Redbridge
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: July 25, 2026, 12:23 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I would redact this as procedural impropriety is not a ground
       and you.ve already  said it.
       Procedural impropriety
       I continue to rely upon the procedural improprieties identified
       in my original challenge, including in particular:
       the statement that an Enforcement Notice will "automatically" be
       issued, which fetters the authority's discretion where the
       legislation provides that an Enforcement Notice may be issued;
       the misleading wording concerning correspondence before the
       Enforcement Notice and the right of appeal; and
       the failure to properly consider the matters raised in my
       initial challenge.
       #Post#: 125748--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Bus lane A1400 Woodford Avenue (Opposite Stradbrook Grove)
       IG5 Redbridge
   DIR By: fox10
       Date: July 25, 2026, 3:38 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Will do, thanks [member=24]Hippocrates[/member]
       *****************************************************
       Page 3 of 3
   DIR Previous Page