Lambeth 34J - Dreaded Clapham Park Road |
Lambeth 34J - Dreaded Clapham Park Road |
Wed, 27 May 2020 - 22:31
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 May 2020 Member No.: 108,762 |
I was recently caught on the infamous Clapham Park Road bus lane (didn't realise it was so popular until searching this forum!)
I understand almost all appeals are rejected, however in this case I am hoping I have something to stand on. At the time of the offence there were roadworks that obstructed most of the bus lane. I have already filed an appeal which was rejected and am wondering if I have enough evidence to be successful at a tribunal. Few things I was thinking: - The words BUS LANE are obstructed by the roadworks which nulls the statement in the PCN response - There is a short distance between the end of the roadworks and traffic lights - The solid line for the bus lane has a crack running down it which could be mistaken for a broken line Thanks for any help! This post has been edited by gravitas: Sun, 31 May 2020 - 17:09 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 27 May 2020 - 22:31
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 9 Jul 2020 - 16:12
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 May 2020 Member No.: 108,762 |
Evidence here: updated below
This post has been edited by gravitas: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 - 19:37 |
|
|
Fri, 10 Jul 2020 - 19:37
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 May 2020 Member No.: 108,762 |
Apologies, correct link here https://imgur.com/a/C34bKH2
|
|
|
Sat, 11 Jul 2020 - 09:47
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
So it's down to whether the street works add sufficient confusion to mean that the signage fails the LATOR 18 test. As you have an enforcement notice you might as well send something as a representation, but I'm not sure I'd risk the discount on this one.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 11 Jul 2020 - 09:55
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
I always think not enough is made of the left turn arrow on the carriageway it surely causes confusion for those who do not know the area
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 11 Jul 2020 - 10:17
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
OP---give me a few days to do a bit of research (Chapter 6 of the Traffic Signs Manual has recently been amended/updated) and I'll draft an appeal for you.
Mick |
|
|
Mon, 13 Jul 2020 - 13:28
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 May 2020 Member No.: 108,762 |
Thanks all for your help, appreciate the efforts!
|
|
|
Tue, 14 Jul 2020 - 04:47
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
OP-----Here's a draft appeal. You will have to include your details (address and PCN number) and photos of the diversion.
I have asked the Council for any TMO amendments to the 2004 Order. I would keep the hectoring tone, a little bit of leverage won't go amiss. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...FPOsoLP-aVJbGjJ Bus Lane Appeal: Clapham Park Road This appeal relates to PCN number????? Dated???? Since this is a serious appeal I would request that it be considered by a senior member of staff taking advice from a highways engineer cognizant with the requirements of DMRB. The appeal is in two parts, but each part is predicated on the lines and signs at this pinch point being inadequate under Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR). To follow the gist of the appeal it is necessary for me to highlight discrepancies in the layout of the restriction as follows:- 1. The Contravention Did Not Occur. As can be seen from the attached photographs there were road works on the day in question which I now understand were undertaken by Thames Water. The key indication was the diversion sign which had an impact on the overall lines and signs for the bus lane. The effect of the diversion sign meant the bus lane became discontinuous thereby normal lines and signs were rendered inoperative and not substantially compliant. Directly beyond this diversion is a road marking (an arrow) indicating that motorists turn left, which I did. The Council has a duty under LATOR 1996 not to mislead or confuse a motorist and I would argue that there has been such failure because of the juxtaposition of conflicting signage. I would therefore request that the Council use its discretion in these circumstances and cancel the PCN. 2. The Contravention Did Not Occur If the Council contend that the contravention occurred when my vehicle crossed the broad white line to diagram 1049 then I would claim the exemption stipulated in the Lambeth Bus Priority Clapham Park Road Traffic Order 2004:- “4(2) The controls specified in Article 3(1) do not apply in respect of a vehicle crossing a bus lane to get to or from any road adjacent to the bus lane or any vehicular access to premises adjacent to the bus lane;” This exemption is predicated on the pinch point in the left hand lane being neither a bus lane nor a bus gate but an unrestricted street. To demonstrate this is the case:- 1. The TMO stipulates that the bus lane ends at the southern tip of the traffic island --Schedule 1 (1); 2. Therefore the bus lane ends sign beyond the pedestrian crossing is incorrectly located; 3. For the same reason the Diagram 953 sign incorporated into the traffic lights is incorrect; 4.. The pedestrian crossing (Pedex type) requires 8 zig zag road markings (Schedule 1 and Schedule 14 part 1 to the 2016 Regulations). This equates to 16m of zig zags to the south of the pedestrian crossing. 5. A bus lane or bus gate cannot co-exist with zig zag markings (ETA 2170474513). 6. Diagram 953 signs within a zig zag area are an anomaly. The adjudicator in that Lambeth case concluded that crossing markings created a separate traffic regulatory regime within its limits which ousted the effect of the bus lane regardless of what the TMO stated. I would therefore contend that the exemption applies and I had the right to cross the white line to access the left hand unrestricted lane. The left hand lane beyond the tip of the traffic island is incorrectly signed as a bus gate/bus lane and the Council has failed in its duty under LATOR 1996 to provide adequate lines and signs. Should I receive a template rejection I will take advice on whether to contact the Council’s auditors with a request that they do not sign off the accounts until the LATOR 1996 issues are resolved. The number of contraventions at this pinch point exceed 20,000 per annum which gives rise to a significant contingent liability should penalty charges need repayment. Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 07:39 |
|
|
Tue, 14 Jul 2020 - 13:14
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 May 2020 Member No.: 108,762 |
Thank you, is it worth waiting for confirmation of any TMO amendments to the 2004 Order? Other than including my details (PCN, address, date) and photos, I don't plan on deviating from the draft wording.
Also, I appreciate the hectoring tone is for effect, however point (2) reads as if it could genuinely have major ramifications on prior cases at this location if it were to hold up? Out of curiosity I looked at the register of appeals to see if anyone had tried this approach previously but couldn't find anything. |
|
|
Tue, 14 Jul 2020 - 13:43
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
OP-----they have indicated a 20 day response time for the FOI response which might take it beyond the time you have to send in the appeal. I'd delay as much as you can without missing the deadline.
If they have amended the Order most of the second part of the appeal could fall leaving you at the mercy of their discretion. However I have had a quick glance at the London Gazette and cannot find any Notice which suggests the 2004 Order has been amended. Fingers crossed. Mick |
|
|
Thu, 23 Jul 2020 - 09:32
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 May 2020 Member No.: 108,762 |
Thank you, I will probably respond to the EN this weekend/early next week to be sure I am within the timeframe.
I went back and looked at the photos and realised a couple of them didn't upload correctly. I've added 2 additional photos to the link above, you can see there was an additional sign which indicates the bus lane was closed - unsure if this changes anything in the draft response above. This post has been edited by gravitas: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 - 09:32 |
|
|
Thu, 23 Jul 2020 - 11:49
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
OP-----Nothing yet on the Traffic Order.
Yes, I would add those additional photos. With the angled road markings to the bus lane being covered and the lane closure sign in place it's obvious the bus lane was non-operational. We've argued that bus lane wasn't in operation but those extra photos prove it IMO. I'll add a little to the draft when I have a moment. Mick |
|
|
Thu, 23 Jul 2020 - 19:11
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
OP---here's the updated draft:-
Bus Lane Appeal: Clapham Park Road This appeal relates to PCN number????? Dated???? Since this is a serious appeal I would request that it be considered by a senior member of staff taking advice from a highways engineer cognizant with the requirements of DMRB. The appeal is in two parts, but each part is predicated on the lines and signs at this pinch point being inadequate under Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR). To follow the gist of the appeal it is necessary for me to highlight discrepancies in the layout of the restriction as follows:- 1. The Contravention Did Not Occur. As can be seen from the attached photographs there were road works on the day in question which I now understand were undertaken by Thames Water. The key indication was the diversion sign which had an impact on the overall lines and signs for the bus lane. The effect of the diversion sign meant the bus lane became discontinuous thereby normal lines and signs were rendered inoperative and not substantially compliant. It will be noted that the angled feed in road marking to the bus lane is covered as is the "Bus Lane" marking but, most important, there is a lane closure sign to diagram 7287 relating to the bus lane. There is no indication to a motorist where the bus lane might start and he is also faced with a lane closure. Directly beyond this diversion is a road marking (an arrow) indicating that motorists turn left, which I did. The Council has a duty under LATOR 1996 not to mislead or confuse a motorist and I would argue that there has been such failure because of the juxtaposition of conflicting signage. Given the inadequacy of signage I would request that the Council use its discretion and cancel the PCN. Otherwise, I expect the Council to fully justify its decision to enforce a bus lane contravention with reference to the noted discrepancies. 2. The Contravention Did Not Occur If the Council contend that the contravention occurred when my vehicle crossed the broad white line to diagram 1049 then I would claim the exemption stipulated in the Lambeth Bus Priority Clapham Park Road Traffic Order 2004:- “4(2) The controls specified in Article 3(1) do not apply in respect of a vehicle crossing a bus lane to get to or from any road adjacent to the bus lane or any vehicular access to premises adjacent to the bus lane;” This exemption is predicated on the pinch point in the left hand lane being neither a bus lane nor a bus gate but an unrestricted street. To demonstrate this is the case:- 1. The TMO stipulates that the bus lane ends at the southern tip of the traffic island --Schedule 1 (1); 2. Therefore the bus lane ends sign beyond the pedestrian crossing is incorrectly located; 3. For the same reason the Diagram 953 sign incorporated into the traffic lights is incorrect; 4.. The pedestrian crossing (Pedex type) requires 8 zig zag road markings (Schedule 1 and Schedule 14 part 1 to the 2016 Regulations). This equates to 16m of zig zags to the south of the pedestrian crossing. 5. A bus lane or bus gate cannot co-exist with zig zag markings (ETA 2170474513). 6. Diagram 953 signs within a zig zag area are an anomaly. The adjudicator in that Lambeth case concluded that crossing markings created a separate traffic regulatory regime within its limits which ousted the effect of the bus lane regardless of what the TMO stated. I would therefore contend that the exemption applies and I had the right to cross the white line to access the left hand unrestricted lane. The left hand lane beyond the tip of the traffic island is incorrectly signed as a bus gate/bus lane and the Council has failed in its duty under LATOR 1996 to provide adequate lines and signs. Should I receive a template rejection I will take advice on whether to contact the Council’s auditors with a request that they do not sign off the accounts until the LATOR 1996 issues are resolved. The number of contraventions at this pinch point exceed 20,000 per annum which gives rise to a significant contingent liability should penalty charges need repayment. Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 08:37 |
|
|
Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 07:54
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 May 2020 Member No.: 108,762 |
Many thanks again, I'll be sharing the letter tonight. In their original response to my challenge (https://imgur.com/a/C34bKH2) they did not acknowledge the roadworks, is this worth mentioning in my appeal? For example, they say "the word Bus Lane can be seen written on the ground" - clearly this is not the case with the roadworks?
This post has been edited by gravitas: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 07:55 |
|
|
Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 08:20
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
There is a road marking "Bus Lane" which is completely covered by the roadworks, so their response is fatuous.
They are relying on the video which fails to show any roadworks. They have become so reliant on CCTV and moneymaking that it demonstrates a complete breakdown in cognitive abilities when lines and signs issues are pointed out. I would not indicate their failure to respond at this stage. Time limit for the appeal to be submitted is 5th August. Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 08:21 |
|
|
Mon, 27 Jul 2020 - 18:03
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 May 2020 Member No.: 108,762 |
Thank you, I'll hold off a few more days but will submit a bit early just to be sure.
On the online form the 'reasons' listed are: - I didn't see/understand the signs - I was lost - my satnav misdirected me - the signs/markings were faulty - my car - but it wasn't me driving In this case I am thinking the fourth reason is most appropriate? |
|
|
Mon, 27 Jul 2020 - 18:24
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
That doesn't match the Enforcement Notice. The reason given should be "the alleged contravention did not occur".
I wonder whether they accept appeals by e-mail after Enforcement Notices because they indicate a signature is needed. I also doubt whether there would be room on an email submission for all the photos and verbiage. Perhaps another member might enlighten us. Might be better to post the appeal but get proof of postage. Mick |
|
|
Mon, 27 Jul 2020 - 19:05
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Might be better to post the appeal but get proof of postage. I would do this. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 28 Jul 2020 - 14:14
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 May 2020 Member No.: 108,762 |
Thanks both - I'll send via post in that case and include hard copies of the photo evidence
Edit - I realised maybe the reason the list is different on the website is because of my original response to the PCN (uploaded to the album)? I submitted that under 'I wish to challenge this PCN for other reasons' This post has been edited by gravitas: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 - 14:18 |
|
|
Fri, 7 Aug 2020 - 11:37
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
The FOI has confirmed that the Order has not been changed or amended since 2004.
Therefore the second part of the OP's appeal is supported by the exemption because the Order indicates the bus lane ends at the southern tip of the traffic island. Perhaps discretion will prove the better part of valour-----they have been given a bolt hole in the first part of the appeal which they should utilise. Mick |
|
|
Thu, 20 Aug 2020 - 09:27
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 May 2020 Member No.: 108,762 |
Rejection letter added to the album above - at this stage I am leaning towards an appeal. I previously sent the letter written by Mick above as well as photos I took of the roadworks in question
This post has been edited by gravitas: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 - 09:29 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 05:39 |