Tilt

Here's the official process since nobody has explained it correctly. 1. Informal appeal (they will reject this out of hand). The threatened fine will double. 2. Wait for a NTO (Notice to Owner) to arrive in the post. This should be within 28 days. This will explain you may now appeal formally. 3. Submit your formal appeal once you receive the NTO. The council will again reject it. 4. Once you have the formal rejection letter you may now appeal to London Tribunals which is an independent adjudication service. You submit your appeal and any evidence online and the council will submit theirs. You will then be offered possible dates for your hearing. It is best to do this in-person (or via phonecall) at their centre which is in Holborn. Some notes: Whoever said they are "simply not paying" is an idiot. This is a legal process. They absolutely will send bailiffs around if it gets to that stage. No, ifs or buts. That *will* happen. The council also don't care one iota what your circumstances are. You could be delivering life-saving organs to someone at death's door. They do not care. It is a pen-pusher on minimum wage who quickly reviews the hundreds of thousands of appeals they get. Unless they have made a mistake then they will not accept your appeal regardless of circumstances. You may have more luck at London Tribunals but again, they follow the law to the letter. There is no such thing as extenuating circumstances. Your best bet is to hope they make a mistake at some point during the process which is entirely possible. I have had my appeal accepted at the tribunal on multiple occasions because the council either submitted something too late or made a mistake in some of the paperwork. As soon as they make one single mistake they lose. But remember: You MUST follow the process even though the possible fine will increase to financially crippling levels.

mr.chicken Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's only reasonable to call the new thing > divisive if divisions didn't exist before. And on > that I agree with you, everyone loved the traffic > state before the LTN and there were no divisions. > So we can consider the new one divisive. Do you > not agree? Well, I rather think you're being deliberately simplistic. That said, having lived in ED for a decade I can't think of any other topic that people have talked about so much. People have always complained about traffic / parking / air pollution but those have been grumbles and nothing like the annoyance and passion that these road closures appear to have provoked...on both sides. So yes, this is definitely highly divisive when it comes to my experience. Just to be clear, I'm fully behind changes to alleviate traffic and for us to get cleaner air. As I said, I don't really have a horse in this race: I neither own a car nor live on one of the streets that has been closed. However, what I have noticed is a significant increase in traffic on the route I use which is clearly a result of adjacent road closures. So, my observation is that there are probably better ways to achieve the aforementioned goals as opposed to a scheme which has not gone through (as far as I can see) appropriate consultation phases and is getting a lot of people very exercised. Providing something that's been carefully and transparently researched with a full consultation of all affected areas would probably have much higher levels of support and therefore be better received. So, both better than it is now and better than it was, which I suppose is what your clumsy question is getting at. Isn't that win-win for everyone?

mr.chicken Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It's amazing they would choose something like this > that's divisive: the situation before was loved by > everyone, and there were no divisions over that at > all. I think we should go back to exactly how > things were two years ago, that was perfection. I've gone back numerous pages and I am none the wiser in trying to figure out whether your replies are sarcastic or not. If they are I'm not sure they're having the effect you think they are.

164 pages and still going strong. Clearly there is a need to address the climate crisis and fewer cars on the roads and quieter streets would be lovely. Quite how people think this is achievable with LTNs is utterly beyond me. You only have to look at this thread to see how divisive the scheme is. I don't drive but there is considerably more traffic on the route I use regularly. I simply don't understand how people cannot see that it's just moving the problem around; perhaps it's willful ignorance. To be honest if my street was blocked off I'd be campaigning pretty hard to keep it that way. The sad thing is I desperately want to fight the climate crisis but putting in schemes like this with no consultation that are so divisive only alienates the people that we need to take along with us. Big failure by whoever thinks this is a good idea.