Bus Lane NEWHAM Options

[mystroe]

Brief summary- received PCN for bus lane. Appealed on grounds that signs for restrictions lacking. 3 months later Newham respond that signs are fine..

All replies with definitive and concise appeal grounds welcomed.

I don't doubt quite a few motorists have paid up for similar PCNs at this spot.

This post has been edited by mystroe: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 - 19:13

[Advertisement]

[stamfordman]

The sign for that stretch has been bent 90 degrees so you can't see it:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.550184,0.04...3312!8i6656

They will claim it's on a continuous stretch of lane that goes on through the crossing and side road before - but then there is supposed to be a visible sign for any car turning out of the wee road.

If you're down that way go take a pic of the twisted sign.

[PASTMYBEST]

Photos on the PCN are clear that the sign is missing So I would continue with that .

One of the vagrancies of the 1996 act is that you can require the signatory of the witness statement that the council submit attend the appeal I would ask that this be so to question them on the accuracy of the cameras clock and calibration also re the missing sign

[mystroe]

The sign for that stretch has been bent 90 degrees so you can't see it:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.550184,0.04...3312!8i6656

They will claim it's on a continuous stretch of lane that goes on through the crossing and side road before - but then there is supposed to be a visible sign for any car turning out of the wee road.

If you're down that way go take a pic of the twisted sign.

This is a black and white case where you're introducing doubt and greyness.. Doesn't really hit home for the lay person trying to make an appeal... Wouldn't it work better if you said: Regulations require a visible sign at the prescribed junction, in absence of a visible sign such and such alleged contravention is without grounds.. ? or if at least not those precise words, but something a bit more encouraging to take on the council?

And despite the above evidence with no visible sign you think I need to now whizz out and take a pic?

[stamfordman]

This is a black and white case where you're introducing doubt and greyness..

No, other way around. The black and white case is that they put a sign there and now you can't see it because it's been shunted around the post. They won't know (or check) there is supposed to be a visible sign there unless you tell them.

[Neil B]

They won't know (or check) there is supposed to be a visible sign there unless you tell them.

Sadly true but they're happy to routinely call the public liars.

Second case there this week.

[cp8759]

If this goes to the tribunal I would make a claim for costs. It is wholly unreasonable for them to say the bus lane is "clearly signposted"

[mystroe]

This is a black and white case where you're introducing doubt and greyness..

No, other way around. The black and white case is that they put a sign there and now you can't see it because it's been shunted around the post. They won't know (or check) there is supposed to be a visible sign there unless you tell them.

Presumably you have evidence that it was shunted. OP states "All replies with definitive and concise appeal grounds welcomed."

[cp8759]

This is a black and white case where you're introducing doubt and greyness..

No, other way around. The black and white case is that they put a sign there and now you can't see it because it's been shunted around the post. They won't know (or check) there is supposed to be a visible sign there unless you tell them.

Presumably you have evidence that it was shunted. OP states "All replies with definitive and concise appeal grounds welcomed."

The evidence is in the council photos, I don't know what further evidence you would need. The concise grounds are that the sign was twisted and out of position, as per the council evidence, therefore the alleged contravention did not occur.

[mystroe]

This is a black and white case where you're introducing doubt and greyness..

No, other way around. The black and white case is that they put a sign there and now you can't see it because it's been shunted around the post. They won't know (or check) there is supposed to be a visible sign there unless you tell them.

Presumably you have evidence that it was shunted. OP states "All replies with definitive and concise appeal grounds welcomed."

The evidence is in the council photos, I don't know what further evidence you would need. The concise grounds are that the sign was twisted and out of position, as per the council evidence, therefore the alleged contravention did not occur.

Thank you CP, like you I can't see how it could be any clearer. Down with those who would cast doubt and let the council steal another innocent poor person's hard earned money. "Helping the motorist get justice"

[cp8759]

I would still suggest you post a draft of your appeal on here before submitting.

[Neil B]

Down with those who would cast doubt

I don't see any in the posts so far?

[mystroe]

I would still suggest you post a draft of your appeal on here before submitting.

Thanks CP, here is draft appeal. All thoughts appreciated.

Dear ****

Thank you for your letter dated 23rd August 2018 in response to my appeal dated 29th May 2018.

Thank you for pointing out in your letter that the bus lane restrictions are 4pm – 7pm Monday – Friday.

It is my understanding that the regulatory sign to diagram 959/959b should be placed just beyond the side road in this case Manor Park Road. Likewise a sign to diagram 961 including days and times of operations – specifically the bus lane restrictions you have noted. This is in accordance with

• The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 Schedule 9 Regulatory signs at Junctions, Part 4 Item 10
• Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 Regulatory Signs 15.10 & 15.12

Also it is my understanding that signage should be checked prior to any enforcement action. Given that this was omitted and on your review you have not acknowledged the signage shortcomings I would greatly appreciate remuneration for the expenses of £78.00 I have incurred dealing with this (printing costs, professional consultation, recorded mail etc.)

Lastly as noted in my previous letter, I think it is important that Newham Council make a stronger effort with signage with a view to encouraging bus lane usage out of restricted times to ease traffic congestion – of which Romford Road is notorious.

Yours sincerely

Down with those who would cast doubt

I don't see any in the posts so far?

Did you see "a enforcement" or too trivial to mention?

[Neil B]

here is draft appeal. All thoughts appreciated.

For clarity, this isn't an 'appeal'.

You first submitted an informal challenge.

Now, when the opportunity arises, this will be your 'formal representations'.
That opportunity comes when you receive the Enforcement Notice.

[mystroe]

here is draft appeal. All thoughts appreciated.

For clarity, this isn't an 'appeal'.

You first submitted an informal challenge.

Now, when the opportunity arises, this will be your 'formal representations'.
That opportunity comes when you receive the Enforcement Notice.

Thanks Neil. You've done a good job with microscopic attention, but perhaps missed the bigger picture. I'm looking for feedback on my appeal or representations or response or follow up or protestations or defence or whatever you want to call it. Do you have any constructive criticism on the body of the content? Something helping the motorist get justice would be appreciated.

[Neil B]

Dear ****

Thank you for your letter dated 23rd August 2018 in response to my appeal dated 29th May 2018.

Thank you for pointing out in your letter that the bus lane restrictions are 4pm – 7pm Monday – Friday.

It is my understanding that the regulatory sign to diagram 959/959b should be placed just beyond the side road in this case Manor Park Road. Likewise a sign to diagram 961 including days and times of operations – specifically the bus lane restrictions you have noted. This is in accordance with

• The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 Schedule 9 Regulatory signs at Junctions, Part 4 Item 10
• Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 Regulatory Signs 15.10 & 15.12

Also it is my understanding that signage should be checked prior to any enforcement action. Given that this was omitted and on your review you have not acknowledged the signage shortcomings I would greatly appreciate remuneration for the expenses of £78.00 I have incurred dealing with this (printing costs, professional consultation, recorded mail etc.)

Lastly as noted in my previous letter, I think it is important that Newham Council make a stronger effort with signage with a view to encouraging bus lane usage out of restricted times to ease traffic congestion – of which Romford Road is notorious.

Yours sincerely

The "Dear", "Yours Sincerely" and last sentence are superfluous.
Head it appropriately, e.g. 'Representatations against PCN -------, VRM xxxx xxx.'

Rest is ok but I can't help thinking you should quote and directly challenge their phrase asserting the signs are in place.

You should also be considering the other missing signs for mention.

[mystroe]

Head it appropriately

Mr Neil - I really appreciate this. Thank you, I will revise with your comments in mind.

[Neil B]

here is draft appeal. All thoughts appreciated.

For clarity, this isn't an 'appeal'.

You first submitted an informal challenge.

Now, when the opportunity arises, this will be your 'formal representations'.
That opportunity comes when you receive the Enforcement Notice.

Thanks Neil. You've done a good job with microscopic attention, but perhaps missed the bigger picture. I'm looking for feedback on my appeal or representations or response or follow up or protestations or defence or whatever you want to call it. Do you have any constructive criticism on the body of the content? Something helping the motorist get justice would be appreciated.

We respond as we see fit to be of use to you and others reading.
You will find numerous mentions, from many members, across the forum, of applying the correct terminology.
In general, we encourage the use of the words used in legislation, for each stage of the process, for the sake of uniform clarity.
That is for the benefit of you, those helping and any other readers.

Dictating how I should respond, ditto the member earlier or anyone else, is unlikely to garner good responses.

PS drop the costs mention.

[stamfordman]

As I said, if it were me I'd highlight that the sign isn't missing as that could imply it was never there. It is there, but not visible, so there is a de facto case that the sign is necessary because they put one there.

[mystroe]

As I said, if it were me I'd highlight that the sign isn't missing as that could imply it was never there. It is there, but not visible, so there is a de facto case that the sign is necessary because they put one there.

Just to split hairs Stanford, aren't some signs supplementary and non-regulatory thus not necessary - or more to the point non-regulatory i.e. their pre-existence does not give rise to their ongoing existence? Your angle requires revisiting the site in some shape or form, providing additional evidence which entails time and money to produce. Time and money which is unlikely to be reimbursed. Are you not confident that the enforcing agency's evidence is sufficient?