PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Whipps Cross E11 Bus Lane PCN 34 - Confusing Road Markings
John121
post Sat, 11 Sep 2021 - 16:14
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 384
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Hi all,
The following PCN was received by a family member for the alleged contravention of 34 Being in a Bus Lane. Location was Whipps Cross Road E11 (bus lane).
The so called contravention occurred on 15/08/2021, with the date of notice on 08/09/2021 and the PCN was just received in the post today (11/09/2021).

Having reviewed the PCN images and the video the road markings are very unclear because there is a bus lane which is one colour followed by the road colour changing to a red colour where one would assume that the bus lane ends and then further down it changes to another colour hence the confusion. Also I cannot see any sign visible which says the bus lane ends.

Please advise if there is any flaws in this PCN or if there is any eligible/solid grounds this PCN can be appealed on? Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Please see the location of the bus lane where PCN was issued:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5734151,0...6384!8i8192

Please see pics of PCN below:





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 58)
Advertisement
post Sat, 11 Sep 2021 - 16:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 21 Oct 2021 - 19:33
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,901
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (John121 @ Thu, 21 Oct 2021 - 19:06) *
Firstly you rejected my first formal representation and in your response mentioned: “The bus lane is separated from the carriageway by a solid white line which runs until the end of the bus lane. Motorists are not permitted to cross this line as doing so constitutes being in a bus lane.”

However if you review the CCTV evidence you will see that there is a break in the solid white line and this is the exact point at which the driver turned into the bus lane hence the break in the solid white line caused confusion for the driver and the driver assumed the bus lane had ended hence turning into the bus lane.

I don't like that bit. fwiw.
I can't see any significant break to cause confusion and it detracts somewhat from Mr Mustard's point.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Thu, 21 Oct 2021 - 20:01
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 384
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



The only reason I thought I add that in is because it contradicts there response about solid white lane from the beginning to the end?

What you guys think
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 21 Oct 2021 - 20:08
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,901
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



If you're talking about this tiny break I think it's just silly.

Not a valid point as it would be considered 'substantially compliant' (very, imho)

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5733633,0.0...6384!8i8192


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Thu, 21 Oct 2021 - 22:44
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 384
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Is there any harm in leaving this in? Its just an extra point? I can maybe bring it down as the second point. If you think it will cause harm than good than im happy to remove it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 21 Oct 2021 - 23:05
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,901
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



You have time to see what others say.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glitch
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 08:19
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,139
Joined: 28 Aug 2010
From: Centre of the Universe
Member No.: 40,127



No doubt the Council will reject the reps but thinking forward to an appearance at the Tribunal:

Based on previous successful appeals at the Tribunal I would make a point about the lack of an End of Bus Lane sign and 'unclear' road markings.
Previously (as seen on GSV) they have moved the end of bus lane sign from one end of the bridge to the other, before removing it completely. The TMO has not changed.
As a regular user of that road the changes have been confusing.

If they rely solely on the road markings then they should ensure the line is continuous and fully compliant

QUOTE
The bus lane is separated from the rest of the carriageway by a continuous line
to diagram 1049A (S9‑6‑11).


The wording for red and yellow lines for parking restrictions is not as prescriptive as the wording above.

QUOTE
9.3.9.  The end of a with‑flow bus lane will usually be obvious through the termination of the
diagram 1049A marking. If considered necessary due to observed driver behaviour, an upright
sign to diagram 964 (S9‑4‑11, see Figure 9-5) may be sited as shown in Figure 9-1.


Observed driver behaviour from numerous cases is that they cut across the last few metres where there is a break in the line. Perhaps because drivers are confused.

You might get an adjudicator that will say it is substantially compliant, but there are successful appeals for lack of end of bus lane sign, de minimis, adjudicator applying the 20m 'rule' and lack of evidence from the EA to prove where the bus lane ends. The final point is what I think Mr Mustard alludes to, i.e. where exactly does the bus lane end, is there another gap in the line or does it continue on down the road?

Put the onus on the EA to provide evidence that the lane is clear and compliant and prove where it ends.

This post has been edited by Glitch: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 08:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 08:49
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,010
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 21 Oct 2021 - 21:08) *
If you're talking about this tiny break I think it's just silly.

Not a valid point as it would be considered 'substantially compliant' (very, imho)

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5733633,0.0...6384!8i8192

I agree, it's frivolous and detracts from the more valid points.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative party member, this means some people think I am "scum". No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rsg444
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 09:08
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 290
Joined: 21 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,597



My view is, if the issuing authority can issue a PCN for a minimal thing like this, then they should be able to repair the line no matter how small the break is - the issuing authority should be held to the same standards as drivers.

Page 93 of this doc: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...-chapter-03.pdf mentions the end of bus lane sign - there isn't one, why not? As a driver it's far easier to see a road side sign rather than a poorly maintained line on the road - the end of the lane is near the Green Man Interchange roundabout where the issuing authority know people will start needing to change lanes to get into the appropriate lane, there should be no ambiguity for the driver in my honest opinion. I'd try and include points like these if you can.

Do an FOI request for the TMO too if you can.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glitch
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 09:24
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,139
Joined: 28 Aug 2010
From: Centre of the Universe
Member No.: 40,127



QUOTE (Mr Mustard @ Thu, 21 Oct 2021 - 13:45) *
I would start with this: Your camera is carefully located so as not to show that the end of the markings are imminent.

The incursion was de minimis non curat lex i.e. so trivial that the law does not concern itself.

Please cancel the PCN.


Being devils advocate.

You can clearly see the start of Diagram 1050 (lane filter arrows) and a break in the 'continuous' line in the video which together indicate the end of Bus Lane, both of which must have been seen by the driver.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glitch
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 09:35
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,139
Joined: 28 Aug 2010
From: Centre of the Universe
Member No.: 40,127



QUOTE (rsg444 @ Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 10:08) *
My view is, if the issuing authority can issue a PCN for a minimal thing like this, then they should be able to repair the line no matter how small the break is - the issuing authority should be held to the same standards as drivers.

Page 93 of this doc: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...-chapter-03.pdf mentions the end of bus lane sign - there isn't one, why not? As a driver it's far easier to see a road side sign rather than a poorly maintained line on the road - the end of the lane is near the Green Man Interchange roundabout where the issuing authority know people will start needing to change lanes to get into the appropriate lane, there should be no ambiguity for the driver in my honest opinion. I'd try and include points like these if you can.

Do an FOI request for the TMO too if you can.


Totally agree. They've probably made £1M out of this bus lane by now. The gap has been there for years and growing. It's a 5 minute job to fix but perhaps it dupes enough drivers to keep more cash rolling in.

Edit - They've made over £1.4m

End of Bus Lane sign is not mandatory but might be needed due to 'observed driver behaviour'. They seem unable to place a sign in the right place because it's on a bridge over the Central Line. Presumably not allowed.


The TMO is out there in another thread.
The end is 183m from the start.
I would argue that the start location as described is ambiguous or misleading, but I guess we don't want any more frivolity.

Edit: 186m

Whipps Cross Road Bus Lane TMO

This post has been edited by Glitch: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 10:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 10:40
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 384
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Appreciate all your help. I've left the part out about the break in the line and have included the point about no end of bus lane sign. Please see draft below, will be greatly appreciated if someone can help me re-word the paragraph highlighted in red to make it stand out a bit more before I send this off.

Dear London Borough of Waltham Forest,
I challenge this PCN on the following points.

Firstly there is a lack of an end of bus lane sign and unclear road markings causing confusion. Please provide evidence that the bus lane is clear and compliant and prove where it ends.

I would also like to point out that your camera is carefully located so as not to show that the end of the markings are imminent.

The incursion was was de minimus non curat lex I.e so trivial that the law does not concern itself and hence should not have been been issued in the first place.


I would also like to challenge liability on the basis that the contravention did not occur.

Under section 4(1) of the London Local Authorities Act 1996, a PCN may only be served "on the basis of information provided by the use of a prescribed device", section 3 (1) defines a prescribed device in the following terms:

“prescribed device” means a device prescribed under section 20(9) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 or a device of a description specified in regulations made for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State;

Please would you supply evidence that the camera is prescribed under section 20(9) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, or alternatively that it is of a description specified in regulations made for the purposes of section 3(1) of the 1996 Act.

In addition to being prescribed, the camera must also be approved, as sub-paragraphs 7(2) & (3) of Schedule 1 to the Act provide that:

(2) A record produced or measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings under paragraph 6 above unless—
(a) the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State; and
(b) any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied.

(3) Any approval given by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph may be given subject to conditions as to the purposes for which, and the manner and other circumstances in which, any device of the type concerned is to be used.

Would the council please provide evidence that its camera has been approved for the purposes of paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the 1996 Act.

The council will appreciate that if its camera is not both prescribed under section 3(1) and authorised under paragraph 7 of Schedule 1, then its video is not admissible in tribunal proceedings so no contravention could be proved.

Based on the above points I would be grateful if you can please cancel this PCN.

Yours faithfully,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 11:20
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,010
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Slight revision, might as well use substantial compliance against them. Put this in a PDF in order to preserve all indentation and italics formatting and send it to them as an attachment.

----------------------

Dear London Borough of Waltham Forest,

I challenge this PCN on the following grounds.

Under section 4(1) of the London Local Authorities Act 1996, a PCN may only be served "on the basis of information provided by the use of a prescribed device", section 3 (1) defines a prescribed device in the following terms:
prescribed device” means a device prescribed under section 20(9) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 or a device of a description specified in regulations made for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State;
Please would you supply evidence that the camera is prescribed under section 20(9) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, or alternatively that it is of a description specified in regulations made for the purposes of section 3(1) of the 1996 Act.

In addition to being prescribed, the camera must also be approved, as sub-paragraphs 7(2) & (3) of Schedule 1 to the Act provide that:
(2) A record produced or measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings under paragraph 6 above unless—
(a) the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State; and
(b) any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied.
(3) Any approval given by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph may be given subject to conditions as to the purposes for which, and the manner and other circumstances in which, any device of the type concerned is to be used.
Would the council please provide evidence that its camera has been approved for the purposes of paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the 1996 Act.

The council will appreciate that if its camera is not both prescribed under section 3(1) and authorised under paragraph 7 of Schedule 1, then its video is not admissible in tribunal proceedings so no contravention could be proved.

I also challenge liability on the basis that, even if the video evidence were admissible (which is denied), nonetheless no contravention occurred.

The incursion was was de minimis non curat lex I.e so trivial that the law does not concern itself and hence should not have been been issued in the first place. The camera is carefully located so as not to show that the end of the markings are imminent, and this gives a misleading impression of the materiality of any contravention. This is compounded by the lack of an end of bus lane sign.

Where an incursion into a bus lane is extremely trivial it is trite law that the motorist has behaved in a manner substantially compliant with the regulations, as such there is no contravention. Hence the penalty must be cancelled in any event.

Yours faithfully,


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative party member, this means some people think I am "scum". No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glitch
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 12:33
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,139
Joined: 28 Aug 2010
From: Centre of the Universe
Member No.: 40,127



Nailed it.
Bases covered.

Well done CP

Intrigued to see how they deal with the camera issue.

Probably gloss over it claiming compliance and agree to de-minimis as a one-off gesture of goodwill

This post has been edited by Glitch: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 12:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 19:17
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 384
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Thanks a million CP. That's fantastically composed.
As per the instructions I will save this as a PDF and send the PDF attachment.
Will keep you guys updated as soon as I get a response.

Many Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Tue, 9 Nov 2021 - 19:35
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 384
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Hey guys received the following Notice of Rejection from WF council in the post today.
Please advise next steps?

Thanks














delete duplicates online
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 9 Nov 2021 - 19:46
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,010
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The notice of rejection is a complete and utter failure to consider, so you now have an additional ground you can rely on should they bother to contest.

Log an appeal on https://londontribunals.org.uk under the ground that the contravention did not occur, all you need to put for now is "I rely on my formal representations". Request a telephone hearing and let's see if they bother to contest. If they do they will upload a series of PDF files with their evidence, if this happens let us know right away and also drop me a PM.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative party member, this means some people think I am "scum". No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Tue, 9 Nov 2021 - 20:18
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 384
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Excellent CP. I've clicked on create new appeal and filling out online form. Ive put my contact details.
Its asking Do you have a legal representative who will conduct the appeal on your behalf?

Shall I click yes to this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 9 Nov 2021 - 20:19
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,901
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



There is some bizarre stuff in that rejection too.
Observation and grace periods???
17 days to pay discount?

and where does it say that you have 28 days in which to pay £130 ?


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Wed, 10 Nov 2021 - 08:39
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 384
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Morning CP. Just Pm'd you.

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 30th November 2021 - 13:04
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.