Ealing - Alighting in a bus stop, Ticketed by CCTV for dropping off in a bus stop Options

[TigerRob]

A week ago my wife received a PCN for dropping off her mother in a bus stop near Ealing Broadway Station. I was just going to pay up (having chastised her as she knows she shouldn't do this). However, before I pay up, I'd like to check in with the collective knowledge here as to whether there's a chance of a challenge. I'll post more details tonight, but specifically I'm interested if the missing yellow lines in this bus stop (GSV: https://goo.gl/maps/RvG88H5XhbE2 ) give her a get-out-of-jail card? I.e. are the yellow lines essential to enforcing the no stopping regulation? I believe that without the 'no stopping' rule then alighting in a bus stop is OK?

Thoughts?

Thanks, and more details later,
Rob.

[Advertisement]

[stamfordman]

'Alledged' spelt wrong.

I would say explicitly what is wrong with the markings - that the broad yellow line marking the no stopping restriction is not present in this bus stop.

[PASTMYBEST]

'Alledged' spelt wrong.

I would say explicitly what is wrong with the markings - that the broad yellow line marking the no stopping restriction is not present in this bus stop.

Nothing wrong with stamfs suggestion to indicate what is missing, but use the regs not guidance

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made

It is schedule 7 part 4 item 7 for the road marking (1025.1) and schedule 4 part 3 item 2 for the sign

As regards the reference to your wifes car. If she is the RK then the reps need to be in here name or she needs to sign an authorisation for you to act on her behalf. Or if you are the RK then its your car and you are liable she was just the driver

[TigerRob]

So this is where I've got to. Will submit later today.

Dear Mr Parking

Representation against PCN number xxxxxxx . VRN xxxxxx

The alleged contravention did not occur

(1) Between the observed times of 8.37:03 and 8.37:04 as stated in the PCN, the video evidence clearly shows that there was no vehicle in the bus stop. As such the contravention as stated did not occur and the PCN must be cancelled.

(2) This bus stop does not have the correct markings to indicate a stopping restriction. Without the required markings motorists could not know that stopping was prohibited. As such this contravention could not occur and this PCN must be cancelled. The correct markings should be as per The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, schedule 7, part 4, item 9 (Diagram 1025.1), which require a solid yellow line along the kerb to indicate a stoppong restriction. The photographs and video provided as evidence clearly show this required yellow line to be missing.

Should you choose not to cancel this PCN the please provide:

1. An explanation of how the video evidence supports the observed timings in the PCN.
2. A reference to the regulations that allow for this bus stop to not have the requisite markings.
3. A copy of all Traffic Management Orders applicable to the bus stop in question.
4. A copy of all other evidence on which you are relying, including the CEO notes.

Answers to these questions will be essential to my next steps and defences at adjudication.

Yours,
/Registered Keeper/

[TigerRob]

Any reason not to add "given the above it would be wholly unreasonable for you to refuse to cancel the, and if you force me to pursue this to adjudication I will be making an application for costs."??

[stamfordman]

Any reason not to add "given the above it would be wholly unreasonable for you to refuse to cancel the, and if you force me to pursue this to adjudication I will be making an application for costs."??

Don't go there. Unnecessary and aggressive.

[PASTMYBEST]

Any reason not to add "given the above it would be wholly unreasonable for you to refuse to cancel the, and if you force me to pursue this to adjudication I will be making an application for costs."??

Don't go there. Unnecessary and aggressive.

+1

I would not always shy away from such a statement but wether the signage would be found substantially compliant or not is a subjective view and a matter for an adjudicator, if the council choose to let it get there. No point in getting their backs up.

[TigerRob]

Understood. Thank you.

[TigerRob]

Reps submitted:

[PASTMYBEST]

It is a formal representation. See post 9 and read the PCN, better make sure they have it

[TigerRob]

It is a formal representation. See post 9 and read the PCN, better make sure they have it

Agh. That 'informal' in the first para is a typo that I though I had corrected. I know this is formal reps, and I hope that doesn't ruin anything ... annoying as I try to be accurate, especially when trying to pick other people's inaccuracies apart.

I submitted as a PDF attachment to a covering email, and have a response email from them saying that it has been received:

Automatic reply: Representations against PCN EA92103735

Thank you for your email, this is an automated acknowledgement.

Response Times

Informal challenges = 30 working days

Formal representations* = 30 working days

Correspondence received after a Charge Certificate/Order for Recovery or if the PCN has been paid will be placed onto the case however there is currently no specific response time.

If your correspondence is received within the discount period stated on your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) we will review your case at the discounted amount, regardless how long it take us to respond.

*Correspondence is considered as ‘formal’ once a Notice to Owner, Enforcement Notice or Postal Penalty Charge Notice has been served to the registered keeper of the vehicle.

If you want to contest the issue of the ticket at the informal or formal stage then please do not make payment.

Your Details

All correspondence regarding PCNs are forwarded to a central processing unit. Responses to Formal representations are sent to the named keepers postal address only.

Please ensure you provide your PCN number, Vehicle Registration Number, name and current address details in all correspondence. Without these details we may not be able to locate your record and your case may progress further.

You can also check the status of your PCN by accessing our website: https://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201180/ticke..._ticket_details and selecting the option “Manage your penalty charge notice (PCN) online”.

Please do not reply to this message, as it is an automatic response.

Kind Regards

Parking Services

Ealing Council

**Latest Updates**:

Due to recent Virus threats the London Borough of Ealing has put a block on all e-mails with ZIP files attached.

Emails containing ZIP files will not be opened. Please only send your correspondence in an email or word document.

[TigerRob]

Notes to self for later:

check location Haven green (on PCN) vs. The Broadway (where alleged offence actually occurred)

Haven Green:
2110456659 - requirement for PCN to establish contravention; ref. observation times
2080309141 - appeal allowed based on council's failure to provide evidence of correct signage (clearway sign in this instance)
2080250264 - appeal allowed - marking etc.

This post has been edited by TigerRob: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 14:55

[TigerRob]

NoR received:





Enclosed with the letter was
(a) a "Your right to appeal" document, which explains the appeal process and includes the forms for appealing.
(b) This TMO - which as far as I can see is to do with Ealing bus lanes and bus only routes. Nothing to do with the case at hand, and not mentioned in the NoR letter.

So I now have the standard "pay the discount" vs. "appeal at full price" decision to make. TBH at the moment I'm leaning towards paying the discount, as I don't feel the case is strong, but would appreciate views of the experts.

Here's what I have at the moment
(1) A missing broad yellow line from along the curb at the bus stop. Can the bus stop markings still be found substantially compliant? I think it likely, as I think that alighting from a private vehicle is never allowed in any bus stop? (i.e. the clearway bus stop marking only allows the standard exemptions of taxis(and others?) to be removed?????
(2) A timing error between the observation period, and the offence. Is this enough to win? I think this is probably the strongest point I have. The offence definitely occurred, but not during the 1 second observation window stated on the PCN.
(3) A possible 'failure to consider' as their response did not deal with all the items I raised in the challenge. Specifically it did not mention anythign about the timing error, which was clearly called out as an objection. They clearly read all my challanege, and chose to be selective about which parts to include in their response (e.g. inclusion of (the wrong) TMO, but no CEO notes)
(4) A possible 'vague location'. The location of the camera, but I think that the road naming is correct ('Haven Green')

Can anyone see anything else? Is this worth pursuing to adjudication?

Thanks,
Rob.

[PASTMYBEST]

No broad yellow line= no bus stop clearway Have we seen the video ? and can you confirm the markings are still as the GSV? If the answer to that question is yes i would continue with high hopes

[TigerRob]

Video is linked somewhere earlier. Here is is again for convenience.

I understand the no bus lane clearway without the yellow bar along the edge of the carriageway.
The council's response is that the yellow dashed outline and words 'bus stop' are sufficient (i.e. substantial compliance with diagram 1025.1)
My question. Is there such a marking as a bus stop *without* the yellow curb line that OH would have been allowed to stop for alighting of a passenger. If yes, then I see the case as strong. If not, then I find it harder to make the case for not being substantially compliant.

Having said that, the bus stop immediately behind has the broad yellow curb line, and the change in curb marking should prompt a driver to think there is a change in restrictions.

Yes, GSV looks correct. The missing line can also be seen in the Council's photos and the video.

Rob.

[DancingDad]

Whoah Neddy.

Council believes the signs and lines are compliant !!!
Not substantially compliant, compliant.
And to TSRGD !

There is a world of difference between a properly signed bus stop/stand (to TSRGD) with the broad band where you MUST not stop.
And a marked out bus stop without the broad yellow band where you SHOULD not stop.
If a council want to use legislation and CCTV to enforce it is their duty to properly mark the place using compliant signage, not some half baked variant that can confuse the reasonably aware driver.
Especially where there is a difference between must not and should not.
They cannot enforce on should not.
Don't care how pretty the tarmac is or the wording on the tarmac or the yellow outline. Without a broad yellow band it is not compliant and never will be.

[TigerRob]

Don't care how pretty the tarmac is or the wording on the tarmac or the yellow outline. Without a broad yellow band it is not compliant and never will be.

Thanks DD. How much of this week's beer money will you stake on the adjudicator agreeing with you :-)

I'm happy to take this through to adjudication, but to do so I need to get the argument to a point where I am happy and can argue all angles .... (plus I want to ensure I'm being reasonable, especially given that OH knew that stoping here wan't allowed).

Me: It's not substantially compliant with diagram 1025.1
Adj: But even without the yellow line it's obviously a bus stop, and a private vehicle is never allowed to stop in a bus stop.

... is how I saw the conversation going ...

(a) I know that a bus stop clearway has a no stopping restriction. It needs lines to 1025.1 and a yellow plate stating something like 'No stopping except (local) busses). The plate is there, but obscured by the parked bus.
(b) You (by your 'SHOULD not stop' comment) appear to be telling met that there is a class of bus stop (without a yellow line?) that I can legally stop in (even if it's not receommended to stop). Is this correct? Diagram/legislation pointers, please?

Rob.

[cp8759]

IMO it's a no brainier to take this to adjudication, the lines are self-evidently not compliant.

[PASTMYBEST]

Substantially compliant is a long way from not there at all.

The regs define the area, it must be signed and lined correctly to be a clearway. And if it is not a clearway then you can board alight (excepting ZZ at crossings which are effectively clearways)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made

Schedule 7 part 6 para 1

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 - 12:54

[DancingDad]

.........Me: It's not substantially compliant with diagram 1025.1
Adj: But even without the yellow line it's obviously a bus stop, and a private vehicle is never allowed to stop in a bus stop.

... is how I saw the conversation going …………..

Forget the word substantially, it is simply not compliant.
And adjudicator would not be correct in making such a statement.
You should never stop in a bus stop, you must never stop where one is signed as a bus stop clearway with all the bells, whistles, lines and yellow No Stopping sign.
Here is an example at a local school.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.5585859,-...3312!8i6656
Yellow box nicely inserted between no stopping ZZs.
Now turn round and look at the next bus stop.... yellow box and broad line (and upright sign)
I used to drop my daughter off on the "should not" stop bus stop, never had an issue even with CEOs hovering.... on one occasion even a camera car.

Not my beer money BTW but if it were mine, would bet all of it.

[TigerRob]

Thank you again DD. That's exactly what I was looking for - a pointer that there are bus stops without the clearway provision. As a Londoner I don't get to see such things. I still can't find any examples of bus stops drawn in TSRGD or the highway code that aren't to 1025.1, but I assume such a variant must exist somewhere.

Let's assume I'm in for taking this through to adjudication. I've not done it before, but have followed some traffic here, so think I understand the process. We've got plenty of time, but I'll draft something up around what we know already and share it here for comment.

I'm still open to any other suggestions for lines of attack.

For the record here's the timeline going forwards - would appreciate eyes double checking this:
date on NoR: 28/6/18
assumed date of service of NoR: 2/7/18 (day 1)
end of 28 day period for submitting request to LT: 29/7/18 (day 28)

Thank you all for your continued support,
Rob.