Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi, today we?ve just received another PCN from the Southwark Council, alleging a driving contravention on Townley road. The PCN had a picture of our vehicle committing the alleged offence. On the day in question we did not use our car. We can only surmise that Southwark?s automated computer system has used a different ?picture? from the previous contravention (a traffic enforcement camera ?picture? is actually a video still). We strongly suggest anyone who has recently received a PCN, for any alleged driving contraventions involving any of the new cameras installed in East Dulwich in the last six Months, and if you have already paid a fine, then to complain, and to challenge the Council. You may have been fined more than once for the same alleged driving contravention.
  • 4 weeks later...

Fines from cameras in a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) run by Southwark Council in London have generated ?2.5 million in revenue just three months after the scheme?s launch, data from a Freedom of Information (FOI) request reveals.


A large amount of fixed penalty charges have been issued to road users by three?LTN cameras installed in Dulwich and one in Walworth.


In Dulwich Village, drivers have received?22,424 fines?between January 11 and February 28 2021

Although this will not change anything about penalties already issued you can register for the consultation on the review until 10 May 2021 and you will be advised when the consultation is issued. Register at

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-review-registration-form/


You will still be able to respond to the consultation if you don?t register but this will make sure you are aware its been issued.

Would you happen to know which one on Walworth is it?


I got a PCN on an outrageous LTN scheme camera on Manor Place Road - road with one lane blocked (ironically) by Southwark Council's houseing scheme work (blocked for at least 4 years and a massive hazard) and the one lane that's open has 4 traffic signs.


It's as if someone was seeking a way to make money.

Such fines should only be usable to reduce the council tax of residents. Then we would see what is actually needed....


The problem is the legislation, which allows usage only to use the fines for the transport part of council budget. Of course, without the fines, that money would have to come from council tax...


Total stupidity... The roads are public property yet councils are allowed to ransom us for driving on them. Go figure.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...