I would stay schtum. But make sure you take a screenshot of the status of the pcn showing paid - case closed.

Something not right here. According to the council's pcn and charge certificate the contravention occurred in Oct 2020

It's unlikely that the private land extends as far as the kerb, some of the land your vehicle is parked is likely to be public footway. Even then there is the decision of Dawood v PATAS which basically found that if the public have unfettered access to private land adjacent to the public highway, then the parking restrictions that apply to the highway also apply to the prvate land: (put Dawood in the search box) Key Cases | London Tribunals WWW.LONDONTRIBUNALS.GOV.UK However I would appeal on the grounds that the contravention did not occur, that it is private land (if you can include the Land Registry entry) and you have been parking there for 30 years

No.

I suggest you send this: I am challenging PCN (no:XXXXXX) sent via post on the grounds that there has been a procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority. My vehicle was driven away before the CEO was able to serve the PCN. In these circumstances the council is obliged to cancel the Regulation 9 PCN and then issue a Regulation 10 PCN. The council have failed to do so and instead have sent me a standard Notice to Owner. The schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 provides at paragraph 2(h) that a regulation 10 PCN must state: "that the penalty charge notice is being served by post for whichever of the following reasons applies— (i) that the penalty charge notice is being served by post on the basis of a record produced by an approved device; (ii) that it is being so served, because a civil enforcement officer attempted to serve a penalty charge notice by affixing it to the vehicle or giving it to the person in charge of the vehicle but was prevented from doing so by some person; or (iii) that it is being so served because a civil enforcement officer had begun to prepare a penalty charge notice for service in accordance with regulation 9 or 9A, but the vehicle was driven away from the place in which it was stationary before the civil enforcement officer had finished preparing the penalty charge notice or had served it in accordance with regulation 9 or 9A." Nothing on the Notice to Owner served by the council specifies which of the three grounds above the PCN has been served by post and therefore does not comply with the regulations In light of this procedural impropriety the PCN must be cancelled.

What exactly were you loading? Previously you said Which sounds like shopping. If you were genuinely loading something bulky and/or heavy ( which presumably would have been seen by the CEO before you drove away), by all means include it in your reps, otherwise don't.

They have served you with the wrong NtO. A normal pcn served on the vehicle is known as a regualtion 9 pcn and they have served you with a regulation 9 NtO. Where there is a driveaway before the pcn has been served, the council should serve a regulation 10 pcn by post which also serves as an NtO and must state: (see 8.1 here Guidance for local authorities on enforcing parking restrictions - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK Your NtO does not state this and therefore there has been a procedural impropriety by the council and the pcn must be cancelled. It's quite likely the council will reject your representations but this is slam-dunk win at adjudication

Nearly all bus stops in Lomdon are restricted (denoted by a single thick yellow line) However the pcn is for the wrong contravention. It should have been: 47 Stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand Appeal on the basis that the contravention did not occur. There is no bus lane at this location. Whilst you accept that you had unwittingly stopped at a bus stop, that is not the contravention that is alleged and therefore the pcn must be cancelled

Entirely your decision, it's your money, . If it were me, I'd take it all the way to adjudication, even though it's a gamble (£130 or nothing) based on the lack of advanced warning sign at Charteris road when there are signs at all the other possible entrances at Churchfields , St Albans Road, Forest Approach and Vernon Avenue. Plus the point about the confusing dead end sign as the adjudicator mentions in the case above.

There have been 102 cases decided at London Tribunals for this location of which only 17 were allowed. this is one based on lack of advanced warning signs and confusing no through road sign: At various other entrances, Vernon Ave, Forest Approiach, St AlbansRd there are large advanced warning sins such as here: https://goo.gl/maps/5Lufnm8YBy87BPYd7 There is no similar sign at Chateris Road

Go here: https://londontribunals.org.uk/ Click on Statutory Register, then click Search under ETA .Enter London Borough of Newham as Authority andTemple Mill Lane as location. Returns over 500 adjudication appeals at that location , some allowed , some refused Click on Case Reference for details of each appeal.

Adjudication would be a risk. The prime evidence would be the councils pics taken at the time of the contravention and these do show DYL's (admittedly worn). Whether an adjudicator would find that they were insufficiently clear is anybody's guess. Personally I'd take the discount, but it's your money if you're prepared to gamble.

The forum software automatically changes other website addresses back to CAG,

Personally , for 2nd & 3rd, I'd forget about leaves obscuring the DYL's. In the council pics taken 10 days before yours, the DYL's can be seen and there is nothing like the amount of leaves as in your pics and they wll reject on those grounds alone. Far better to concentrate solely on "continuous contravention" as they then have no wriggle room and if they reject must justify why. Mention that their own photographic evidence from all 3 pcn's show the vehicle in the same position, confirming that the vehicle did not move for the whole period

Previously you said the 1st pcn was on 10th Nov, if so the deadline is today

As long as you challenge before 24th the pcns will be on hold until they reply. I don't know how efficient Richmond are, but it could be 5-6 weeks.(esp with covid) If rejected, as is likely, they will allow a further 14 days for the discount, so that's 7-8 weeks before anything has to be paid. As I said, it's only at that point will you have to decide whether to continue with all 3, thus losing the discount or accept you were in contravention, pay the discount on the first and be prepared to dispuute the continuous ones as far as adjudication if necessary. To get to adjudication , the council has to send a Notice to Owner (28days after the 14 day discount runs out,) You then have 28days to make representations to the NtO and they then must reject within 56 days. You then have 28 days to appeal to adjudication which at the moment are taking 10-12 weeks or longer. In other words, it could be April or May before you reach adjudication with a good chance of 2nd and 3rd pcns being cancelled. But be warned you must keep on top of everything , adhere to the timesclaes for each pcn and not let things slip, it will involve a fair amount of work on your part. Looking at the council pics, I can't see an adjudicator allowing an appeal on the 1st pcn on the basis of obscured DYL's

You need to submit a challenge for each pcn (separately, but refer to the others) before 24th Nov. 1st one DYL were totally obscured by leaves, 2nd and 3rd 'continuous contravention'. They will reject, but re-offer the discount. At that point you will have to decide whether to continue with all 3, thus losing the discount or accept you were in contravention, pay the discount on the first and be prepared to dispuute the continuous ones as far as adjudication if necessary. You would be risking the full penalrty on both but there have been numerous Tribunal cases to support this ground:- 2110166557, 2140191859, 2140184092, 2140234882 Going by your pics (and without seeing the councils) personally I'd take all 3 to adjudicaion, you'd almost certainly win the last two and would be risking the full penalty on the 1st.

That doesn't tell us much! Show us. Have you looked the pics for all 3 pcns. Even if they don't back up the leaves an gle , they may help confirm the vehicle didn't move.

You will certainly be able to have the last two cancelled on the grounds that, since the vehicle was not moved during the whole period, it was a 'continuous contravention', where the convention is that you cannot be punished more than once for a single offence. The council may well reject that, but you would almost certainly win at adjudication, particularly since DYL's are 24/7 , ie not an intermittent restriction and therefore you were in contnuous contravention for the whole period you were parked there. The first pcn is more contentious and would rely heavily on whether the councils pics show the leaves totally obscuring the DYL. There should be pics on Richmonds website. https://www2.richmond.gov.uk/PCNViewer/

What are the dates of the 3 pcn's? Are they consequetive days? Google street view does extend up Meadow Close, so post your photos

Make an informal challenge on the grounds that the contravention did not occur. Explain that you were visiting your parents from xxxx(date) till xxxx (date) and clearly displayed a valid visitors permit each day, therefore your vehicle was not in contravention. In addition, between those two dates your vehicle was not moved at all , neither was the vehicle driven away at the time of the alleged contravention. Since the vehicle was present at all times between xxx and xxx, the CEO would not have been prevented from serving a Regulation 9 PCN and therefore by serving Regulation 10 PCN the council has committed procedural impropiety. Please confirm that the PCN has been cancelled. (Reg 9 PCN is served on the vehicle or handed to the driver. Reg 10 PCN is one sevred by post)

You have completely misunderstood the sign. You can park there for a maximum of 2 hours and cannot return to that parking bay within 2 hours of leaving. Any time must be paid for whether you are there for 20 mins or 2 hours and a ticket showing how long you have paid for must be displayed.

Plenty of iffy points. a) HMCTS do not get invovled until the Charge certificate and Order for Recovery have been issued and the debt registered at HMCTS by the council b) PCN number should be two letters followed by 8 numerals c) Charge certificate cost would be full penalty +50% ie £50 +£25 =£75 not £100 d) contravention desciption is not one of the statutory descriptions e) Location should be a road or carpark not just United Kingdom f) Drive-away PCN's must be served by post

You can pay on the day of travel or by midnight the next charging day.. Appeal to TfL on the grounds that you have already paid within the allowed time and enclose proof of payment.

Congestion charge (£15)an be paid up to midnight the following day. However there is also the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) charge (£12.50) which covers the same area as the CC zone.