Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 34J Being in a bus lane PCN in Eden Street, Kingston, alleged contravention 29.07.15
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
OBWAN01
Thanks to Astralite for the below suggestion, so here goes:

QUOTE (astralite @ Wed, 26 Aug 2015 - 22:32) *
1. Please start a new personal thread so that we will be looking at your case specifically and assist if you decide to appeal.
2. On the new thread, post the PCN, (and the info provided so far here) and the text of your representation. Plus tell us a) the date of
Kingston's rejection, b) the date by when you have to pay at the discount, or c) appeal.
3. Some of us are familiar with these dodgy signs and the confusion in this area. Nonetheless it would be helpful if you could please post your other pics.
4. Plus its essential to see the video. Does it show you passing any signs? Can you post a link to or provide the PCN no. and reg no. by PM?


  1. Please find attached the Original PCN, dated 03.08.2015
  2. My orignal representation text copied below and some of the photos attached with that representation, sent 11.08.15
  3. Kingston's Informal rejection attached plus a second file with the photos they've sent showing their current signage (dates on the photo is 22/7/2015, 12:59), dated 14.08.15
  4. Kingston's Enforcement Notice, dated 08.09.15
  5. The CCTV Video link


My main argument in the first representation and ongoing is that the contravention did not occur due to an unclear sign. The photo attached, 'attach1_005' shows that the largest sign, supposed to be clearly warning of the upcoming bus lane is obscured significantly by the optician's store front that it hasn't been sited correctly.

Kingston rejected my first representation saying my photo was taken from a pedestrian's perspective (it was taken in the middle of the road!), though haven't provided an alternative photo to show the sign is correctly placed. What they have provided is a front on photo of this sign, but not showing where it is placed and several further photos that seem pretty irrelevant.

To summarise the initial rejection from Kingston, full attached with their photos:

With regards to your comments about the relevant signage, I can confirm that Eden Street is a contra flow bus lane and, as such, the signs and markings in place are clearly visible, sufficient, legal and conform to the current regulations.

I have considered the content of your correspondence and the available evidence. I would like to advise the the photographs, including the first photograph [attached], were taken from a pedestrian perspective [although I am in the middle of the road]. Whilst driving in a vehicle, the angle of sight of the motorist to the signage is different as compared to the photographs you have supplied and there is a greater and clearer visibility of the signage from a motorist's perspective [there isn't].

Please note the signage, in photographs 2 and 3 supplied with your correspondence, is neither damaged nor twisted at an angle due to damage. The signage at the place has been erected and positioned at an angle in order to increase the visibility for the oncoming traffic. The positioning ensured that the signage is clear of any visual obstruction for the oncoming traffic.

[This is clearly not the case from the photo supplied, and secondly, how can 'deliberately' angling a sign away from the oncoming traffic make it more visible?]

Sorry for the huge length of this post, but if anyone has any suggestions, they would be very welcome, and thanks in advance.


Original represention I sent in on 11.08.15:


Dear Sir / Madam,

Please accept my challenge - this is a signs and lines issue. A significant part of the signage was hidden from plain view, so did not correctly alert me to the upcoming restrictions, and the signage was not adequate in several instances and for several reasons as explained below.

Please take these three arguments into consideration and also the recent PATAS cases as to the correctness and clarity of the Eden St Bus lane, Case 2150154553 and Case 2140379546. I fully believe that the previous issues have not been corrected, and there is also the key failure to make the advanced directional sign visible as per regulations. If you do not accept my challenge, please would you to fully answer each challenge and explain why they haven’t been accepted, as I would like this to be on the record should this unfortunately have to go to PATAS.

The signage was not adequate in several instances and for several reasons.

Firstly, the advanced directional sign sited outside John Rose Eyecare Optician is inadequate for three reasons:

1. As per attachment 1, photo 005.jpg, the advanced directional sign (as listed in the DfT authorisation attachment 4) is almost completely hidden by the Opticians Shop Front Sign until right up until you drive past it. The first time I saw this sign was today when I went back to take photographs.

2. As per attachment 2, photo 657.jpg, the sign has been damaged and is twisted considerably, making it further out of sight from any driver. The two poles are bent and the sign is pointing towards Apple Market rather than along Eden Street.

3. A second picture, as per attachment 3, photo 467.jpg, to show the sign is pointing towards Apple Market rather than along Eden Street.

Secondly the signage has not changed since two recent PATAS appeals that were allowed on exactly this bus lane, Case 2150154553 and Case 2140379546. In both cases, the adjudicator, Edward Houghton’s reason for allowing the appeal is the same:, ‘The carriageway legend to diagram 1048 at this location is in my judgement not being used in conjunction with diagram 960 but in conjunction with diagram 953. The upshot is that the entry to the bus lane is incorrectly signed, and that is sufficient for the Appeal to be allowed’

Thirdly, as per attachment 5, 894.jpg you can see that as you are approaching the bus lane, the carriageway legend 1048 is very difficult to read as part of it is printed before and on a raised pedestrian walkway and attachment 6, 086.jpg shows it also still has the former legend showing through.

From PATAS Case Reference: 2150154553 on this exact bus lane: “The onus is on the Council to prove that the signs in question were substantially (not necessarily exactly) compliant with the Regulations and adequate to inform the motorist of the restrictions relied on - see the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v The Parking Adjudicator and Sunderland City Council on the application of Herron [2010]EWHC 1161(Admin)”. And “The motorist is entitled to the benefit of signage that complies with the Regulations.”
PASTMYBEST
What signs do you pass in the video? I can't see any, so how do the council prove the contravention, i:e they were correctly in place when you passed.


P S no need to answer re the signs I've seen the layout and yes as you have pointed out it is wrong. There are patas cases that have been won at this site because no signs are visible in the video
OBWAN01
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 10 Sep 2015 - 17:24) *
P S no need to answer re the signs I've seen the layout and yes as you have pointed out it is wrong. There are patas cases that have been won at this site because no signs are visible in the video


Thanks, PASTMYBEST.

On the layout being wrong, did you mean the first large sign not being in view or later signs?

PASTMYBEST
Astralites threads go into detail and link successful appeals on those

One big point IMO is that both the advance warning sign (877 the large directional sign) and the sign at the start of the bus lane(953) are folding signs so that the restriction can be dis-applied.

I assume that if you had seen the signs you would not have passed them, so how do they show that the signs were in the open position, the video doesn't show it, records maybe but that would not be shown if a miscreant yob decided it would be funny to close them


Have a read through this thread

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.pep...jvyLgp0o1sumAqw
OBWAN01
Thanks.

To view the appeals you mention, am I going to the right page?

http://patas.gov.uk/ and then:

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/ - doesn't seem to open. It was apparently down as was due to be updated, but not sure if it's come back up.



PASTMYBEST
Yes as far as i am aware it is still down, this is one example


Case Reference: 2100308010
Declarant: Mr xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Authority: Kingston Upon Thames
VRM: xxxxxxxxxxxx
PCN: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contravention Date: 19 Sep 2009
Contravention Time: 10:23
Contravention Location: Eden Street
Penalty Amount: £120.00
Contravention: Being in a bus lane
Referral Date: 24 Jun 2010
Adjudicator: Teresa Brennan
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons: Mr XXXXXXX raises numerous issues in relation to this appeal. One of these is that he states that adequate and proper signage was not in place at the time of this alleged contravention.

Following an adjournment I have now seen the CCTV footage. This shows Mr Tyler's car in the bus lane driving towards the camera. The footage does not show any of the bus lane signs or any of the signs that Mr Tyler would have driven past before entering the bus lane. The local authority relies on a map of Eden Street that has been annotated to show the location of cameras and the bus lane and other traffic sings. However I have not seen any evidence that this signage was in place on 19 th September 2009. Therefore I allow this appeal.
OBWAN01
Thanks, PASTMYBEST. My attachment with council photos shows they seem to have updated at least some of their their photos with time stamps at 22/7/15 (long thin strip of photos attached with original post).

However, I think I may have a much better chance with the very poor siting of the first large sign. From my photo attached in my original post, it shows that for the first sign, there is nowhere near 45m of clear visibility distance, possibly not even 5m with the overhang of the opticians. Whether my view is from a pedestrian or driver's perspective may be irrelevant as the sign is just past a 90 degree bend in the road and therefore nowhere near 45m of minimum clear visibility distance required.

In the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 2008, in the introduction on sign siting, it states:

SITING [of signs]

1.15 It is essential that drivers have an unobstructed view of traffic signs. The distance which should be kept clear of obstructions to the sight line, whether caused by vegetation, other signs or street furniture, is known as the clear visibility distance. The higher the prevailing traffic speeds, the greater this distance needs to be.

Table 1-1 Minimum clear visibility distances
85th percentile speed of private cars(mph) Minimum clear visibility distance (metres)
Up to 20 --------------------------------------- 45
21 to 30 --------------------------------------- 60
31 to 40 --------------------------------------- 60
41 to 50 --------------------------------------- 75
51 to 60 --------------------------------------- 90
Over 60 --------------------------------------- 105 (120)

1.16 Table 1-1 [above] specifies minimum clear visibility distances. These should normally be measured from the centre of the most disadvantaged driving lane. It is important that the full recommended sight line to the whole of the sign face is preserved. Cutting back of vegetation only in the immediate vicinity of the sign might not be sufficient; sign visibility should always be checked from the appropriate viewing distance.

Table 1-1 does not apply to the following, but I don't think the first sign is either to 958 or to 958.1, if anyone can confirm.
1.18 Table 1-1 does not apply to speed limit and speed camera signs (see section 14), signs to diagrams 958 and 958.1 (see paras 15.9 and17.5 respectively), or to time plates that are parallel to the kerb.


Secondly, the first sign seems to have 3 separate signs mounted on it and still in the introduction (The original sign, a no loading sign and speed camera sign):

MOUNTING MORE THAN ONE SIGN ON A POST (Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, 2008)

1.25 Research has shown that the greater the number of signs which drivers are presented with simultaneously, the greater the difficulty they are likely to have in assimilating the information. This problem in dealing with information overload increases with age, so that older drivers suffer disproportionately. Generally, therefore, not more than two signs should be erected on any one post when intended to be read from an approaching vehicle. This also applies to signs mounted at the same location on separate posts. Where a sign requires a supplementary plate, the combination of sign and plate may be regarded as one sign. Exceptionally, three signs may be mounted on one post, or at the same location, provided none requires a supplementary plate.
Hippocrates
I know this bus lane inside out. There are signage issues here - the one by the opticians is twisted and serves no purpose re warning. There is no evidence of the signage in the video. And the Enforcement Notice limits to one ground of appeal. There is a Chan decision re no signage being present and I will dig it out.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/9/schedule/1/enacted

"one or other of the grounds"

Case re signage shown (not shown) in video at end of this post:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t=0#entry988059

2140200326
OBWAN01
Thanks, Hippocrates.

The Chan decision would be great, thanks (or is this is? Sorry).

2140200326 - still can't access these as the PATAS site still appears to be down
Hippocrates
Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable
Case Reference: 2140200326
Appellant: Mr
Authority: Kingston Upon Thames
VRM:
PCN: KT56395036
Contravention Date: 17 Nov 2013
Contravention Time: 15:21
Contravention Location: Eden Street
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Being in a bus lane
Decision Date: 21 Jun 2014
Adjudicator: Anthony Chan
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons: The Appellant attended the hearing in person. The Authority was not represented.

The Appellant said that he did not see a bus lane sign and there is insufficient evidence that the bus lane is properly signed.

The CCTV recording showed the presence of a painted road surface, the bus lane legend, and a thick white line. What is missing is evidence of the blue upright sign. I musty therefore allow the appeal.

Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable
Case Reference: 210030797A
Declarant: Mr
Authority: Kingston Upon Thames
VRM:
PCN: KT55190592
Contravention Date: 03 Oct 2009
Contravention Time: 11:29
Contravention Location: Eden Street
Penalty Amount: £120.00
Contravention: Being in a bus lane
Referral Date: 24 Jun 2010
Adjudicator: Teresa Brennan
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons: Mr raises numerous issues in relation to this appeal. One of these is that he states that adequate and proper signage was not in place at the time of this alleged contravention.

Following an adjournment I have now seen the CCTV footage. This shows Mr car in the bus lane driving towards the camera. The footage does not show any of the bus lane signs or any of the signs that Mr would have driven past before entering the bus lane. The local authority relies on a map of Eden Street that has been annotated to show the location of cameras and the bus lane and other traffic sings. However I have not seen any evidence that this signage was in place on 3 rd October 2009. Therefore I allow this appeal.
OBWAN01
Thanks, Hippocrates.

With regards the last paragraphe in 2140200326, they have sent me timestamped photos (22.7.15) which I've attached in my first post. However the picture they attach of the 'twisted optician' sign is not time stamped and not from the 'driver's perpective', so useless in showing if it is adequate.

Do their timestamped pictures negate the last paragraph in 2140200326 in your post above as they will be likely provided to PATAS as have been provided to me, though crucially I think they haven't provided a timestamped pic of the first 'twisted optician' sign to show that it is a) placed correctly, b) in place at a set date?

The video (link in first post) only shows me passing signs from behind not confirming that they're in place, and the video does not show me passing the first 'twisted sign' at all.



My picture of twisted sign from in the middle of the road (also attached first post) clearly shows that the signage is in adequate, as you can barely see it, and for these various reasons from other posts. Any thoughts?:

1. In R (Herron) v the Parking Adjudicator ( 2011 EWCA Civ 905)
Lord Justice Stanley Burnton confirmed that, “It has long been recognised that the enforceability of a TRO requires that adequate notice of the applicable restriction is given to the road user. The principle is derived from Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996”.

Regulation 18(1) of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 sets out the duty of a highways authority to sign the provisions of a TRO:

Traffic signs 18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure

( a ) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;

( b ) the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force; and

( c ) in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions.


2. In R(Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010
]
EWHC 894 (Admin) Mr Justice Beatson confirmed that, “the fact that signs are prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient for securing adequate information as to the effect of an order is made available to road users is clearly correct. If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed” [para. 65]

He went on to set out the matters to be considered when deciding whether the signs provided adequate information at the time of the alleged contravention, “Where the signs have not been placed in positions where they cannot be seen or easily seen, are not obscured by vegetation or other street furniture, and are clearly visible and comply with Departmental Guidance, there must be strong reasons given for concluding that they do not provide adequate information” [para. 69]

Put another way, the “Beatson Tests” comprise the following questions:
1. Are the signs themselves authorised in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002?
2. Are they placed in accordance with Department for Transport guidance set out in the Traffic Signs Manual?
3. Are the signs clearly visible and can easily be seen?
4. Are the signs obscured by vegetation or other street furniture?

My photo clearly shows that points 3 and 4 are not satisfied. My initial representation was rejected with one reason being the photo attached, 'taken from a pedestrian perspective', but they have failed to provide proof that it is clearly visible, and they won't be able to provide one as it clearly isn't.
Hippocrates
You are on the right tracks. Just be mindful of dates to submit etc.
OBWAN02
Hi all,

My representation (see below) has been rejected as in the attached document. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated, and many thanks in advance.

They've given me the right to appeal to the Environment & Traffic Adjudicators, is this the former PATAS? They've also included a four page document to appeal by post to ETA, which I haven't uploaded.

Issues I have with their rejection:
  1. On the first page it's now being called a contravention, rather than alleged contravention. Is this standard / normal at this stage?
  2. They've supplied 3 photos. The first is clearly from the far right hand side of the wrong side of the road!!, and they state this is from 'a driver's perspective', which it clearly isn't. The 2nd photo is from what looks like less than 5m from the actual sign, so not helpful. It does show that the shop signage is partly covering the sign, even from this distance.
  3. They've now removed the Traffic Enforcement Camera Sign which was facing the wrong way in even their photographs. This means that another of my arguments that the sign was cluttered due to MOUNTING MORE THAN ONE SIGN ON A POST (Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, 2008), 1.25 (quoted as below) has been amended. This would suggest they agree and have removed it for that reason. I have my own photos showing it was in position a few days after my alleged contravention.
  4. They say, 'The sign of which you make most mention of is actually not legally required for a contra flow bus lane and therefore even in its absence the bus lane would be enforceable.', and then refer me to the Department of Transports own signs manual, chapter 3, but without any reference to a paragraph or page - it's a 185 page chapter!! Is this actually the case - if it's not required, why is it there, and why has it not been position correctly? And they could have been a bit more helpful with a 185 page paragraph. They then say that the initial sign in Eden Street can be observed by motorists [not satisfactorily, I still don't think]..... In addition we are satisfied that the signage remains legal and conforms to the regulations set out in the Traffic Signs and Lines manual provided by the DFT' Again, I don't agree and it doesn't seem to satisfy Beatson nor the other DFT guidelines.
  5. They say they've submitted my Freedom of Information requests, which were made as an effort to see how many other motorists have failed to see what the signs in question. I suspect from this forum and other articles that it will be a large number, but probably not available in time for my PATAS hearing.
  6. They include a full paragraph on Costs, which state in paragraph (a) these can be awarded the local authority has consented to an appeal being allowed... if he is of the opinion that that party has acted frivolously or vexatiously. I think that apart from any other part of this process that they have provided a photo from 'a driver's perspective' taken from the wrong side of the road, would probably fill that criteria. The fact they've even added this paragraph and mentioned it in the letter seems to be deliberately 'vexatious'!
  7. The address at the top of the letter is RBK (I guess Royal Borough of Kingston), based in Sheffield. Does it seem like they've farmed this out to a third party to decide on?



=========================

My original representation was that a major part of the legally required signage is hidden from view to the motorist. This is still the case and I believe that the photographic evidence attached and further information below and various cases to follow go to show that the sign is invalid and hence the contravention did not occur.

I included a picture of this inadequate sign originally and have attached it again. Your original response was ‘I can confirm that Eden Street is a contra flow bus lane and, as such, the signs and markings in place are clearly visible, sufficient, legal and conform to current regulations’.

You then say that my photo [showing the sign was hidden / inadequate] was ‘taken from a pedestrians perspective’, ‘The positioning ensured that the signage is clear of any visual obstruction for the oncoming traffic’, and, ‘the signage has been changed and the changes can be seen whilst reviewing the attached photographs’.

You say that my sign is from a pedestrian perspective, then for some strange reason include a photo of the same sign, directly in front of that sign, so not showing the drivers’ perspective at all. Why is this?

Also, very helpfully for me, your supplied photo (Letter dated 14 August) does incredulously show that the Traffic Enforcement Camera Sign is facing completely the wrong way, as is the no loading sign, and this also shows there are three signs on one post which are all further contraventions.

1) Firstly, I would like this PCN cancelled for the above reasons with the below added justifications. The sign does not comply with Regulation 18(1) of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 nor does it fulfil the Beatson tests as outlined below. The Traffic Enforcement Camera Sign is also facing the wrong way, as is the ‘no loading’ sign, and there are three signs on one post - MOUNTING MORE THAN ONE SIGN ON A POST (Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, 2008). The sign also doesn’t seem to follow the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 2008, in the introduction on sign siting (see below)

2) I would also like to make several Freedom of Information Requests:
a) How many 34J PCNs have been issued on this stretch?
b) of these how many have paid £65? (or the smaller amount before the fine increased)
c) of these how many have paid £130? (or the smaller amount before the fine increased)
d) How many of these PCN Representations were upheld before the PATAS stage?
e) How many of these PCNs were upheld by PATAS?
f) How many of these PCNs were rejected by PATAS?


In the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 2008, in the introduction on sign siting, it states:
SITING [of signs]


1.15 It is essential that drivers have an unobstructed view of traffic signs. The distance which should be kept clear of obstructions to the sight line, whether caused by vegetation, other signs or street furniture, is known as the clear visibility distance. The higher the prevailing traffic speeds, the greater this distance needs to be.

Table 1-1 Minimum clear visibility distances
85th percentile speed of private cars(mph) Minimum clear visibility distance (metres)
Up to 20 ----------------------------------------------------- 45
21 to 30 ----------------------------------------------------- 60
31 to 40 ----------------------------------------------------- 60
41 to 50 ----------------------------------------------------- 75
51 to 60 ----------------------------------------------------- 90
Over 60 ----------------------------------------------------- 105 (120)

1.16 Table 1-1 [above] specifies minimum clear visibility distances. These should normally be measured from the centre of the most disadvantaged driving lane. It is important that the full recommended sight line to the whole of the sign face is preserved. Cutting back of vegetation only in the immediate vicinity of the sign might not be sufficient; sign visibility should always be checked from the appropriate viewing distance.

[b]Cases showing the signage is inadequate:
In R (Herron) v the Parking Adjudicator ( 2011 EWCA Civ 905)[/b]
Lord Justice Stanley Burnton confirmed that, “It has long been recognised that the enforceability of a TRO requires that adequate notice of the applicable restriction is given to the road user. The principle is derived from Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996”.

Regulation 18(1) of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 sets out the duty of a highways authority to sign the provisions of a TRO:

Traffic signs 18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure

(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;

(b) the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force; and

© in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions.

In R(Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010]

EWHC 894 (Admin) Mr Justice Beatson confirmed that, “the fact that signs are prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient for securing adequate information as to the effect of an order is made available to road users is clearly correct. If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed” [para. 65]

He went on to set out the matters to be considered when deciding whether the signs provided adequate information at the time of the alleged contravention, “Where the signs have not been placed in positions where they cannot be seen or easily seen, are not obscured by vegetation or other street furniture, and are clearly visible and comply with Departmental Guidance, there must be strong reasons given for concluding that they do not provide adequate information” [para. 69]

Put another way, the “Beatson Tests” comprise the following questions:
1. Are the signs themselves authorised in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002?
2. Are they placed in accordance with Department for Transport guidance set out in the Traffic Signs Manual?
3. Are the signs clearly visible and can easily be seen?
4. Are the signs obscured by vegetation or other street furniture?

My photos clearly show that points 3 and 4 are not satisfied.

MOUNTING MORE THAN ONE SIGN ON A POST (Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, 2008)
1.25 Research has shown that the greater the number of signs which drivers are presented with simultaneously, the greater the difficulty they are likely to have in assimilating the information. This problem in dealing with information overload increases with age, so that older drivers suffer disproportionately. Generally, therefore, not more than two signs should be erected on any one post when intended to be read from an approaching vehicle. This also applies to signs mounted at the same location on separate posts. Where a sign requires a supplementary plate, the combination of sign and plate may be regarded as one sign. Exceptionally, three signs may be mounted on one post, or at the same location, provided none requires a supplementary plate.
PASTMYBEST
please post up in this order . your challenge in full(redact only personal identifying detail).

The Notice of rejection in full same redaction only.
OBWAN02
Thanks, Pastmybest.

My 'challenge in full' is the main text of my last post (it was sent electronically so I've just cut and pasted it into the post) and the 'Notice of Rejection' is attached to that last post too. Is that what you required - let me know what else you need?

From the NoR, I did miss out photos which they'd already previously sent and the 'Your Right to Appeal' and 'Notice of Appeal' documents from the London Tribunals / Environment & Traffic Adjudicators.

There are links to the photos and these two documents below, along with the only new photo the council sent, apparently 'from a driver's perspective on approach to the bus lane', but has clearly been taken on the wrong side of the road, so clearly not from 'a driver's perspective'. The sign is even partially obstructed from this angle.

I have 7 issues with their rejection as per my last post too, the above being one.

Many thanks in advance for any help or suggestions.


Link to 'Your Right to Appeal' and 'Notice of Appeal'
Link to Original duplicated photos council sent again with my Notice of Rejection
Latest council photo 'clearly taken on the wrong side of the road!!' so not a driver's perspective!

PASTMYBEST
You did not challenge that no contravention was evidenced in the video.Do so at appeal. How can the council prove the were not folded?
OBWAN02
Thank you. Definitely worth mentioning.

I've also just noticed, that other than the first sign (opticians), which is definitely obstructed, there are no further signs indicating that a bus lane is ahead apart from the sign in the link below. This would seem to negate the argument that they don't need the first advance sign legally, wouldn't it?

This sign is actually placed after the bus lane has started, so pretty useless too.

Link to only bus lane sign placed after bus lane starts

Any thoughts on my 7 points?
PASTMYBEST
Your 7 points are really one point. the signage is not sufficient to convey the restriction, Add in other separate issues
OBWAN02
Thank you. Noted.
OBWAN02
Hi all,

I have the London Tribunal at the end of this week, will let you know how I get on.

If anyone has any last minute advice, please let me know, thanks!

obwan
OBWAN02
Hi all,

Huge post, sorry, but point 5 below I think is quite damning on the signs in place. If anyone has any further suggestions, I can still add evidence to my file before the hearing. Any help greatly appreciated.

The Adjudication lasted for about 45 mins to an hour. I left the hearing with the adjudicator saying that they would send out the letter with a decision that evening. The following Tuesday I received a letter to say that the hearing had been adjourned and the letter sent out with the adjudicator agreeing ‘the advance warning sign has been poorly placed and does not give the motorist the 60 metre clear visibility…’ but then only suggests that the authority reduce the fine to the discounted penalty level. Adjournment Letter from London Tribunal

The case is adjourned until 4th December.

Kingston have since replied saying that they will not accept the reduced fine. Kingston not accepting reduced fine

Another point, just to show Kingston’s lack of credibility. This was one of the photos Kingston supplied to the adjudicator to show the advance warning sign was visible. If you look very closely above the bus you can see they highlighted it with the blue circle!!!!! Kingston supplied photo showing advanced sign 'visible'.. Google Maps photo 1 showing the hidden sign



I am able to add extra evidence before the next date online and have already added points 1 -5 below.

I can add more before the date too, if anyone has any suggestions.

There’s a lot more here to wade through (and quite an ask to ask you to wade through it), but I think point 5 is pretty damning on the 63,599 PCNs issued for a 34J on this stretch since July 2009 that I found out from an F.O.I request:

1. It is agreed by the adjudicator in the letter dated 21st November, 2015 that ‘the advance warning sign has been poorly placed and does not give the motorist the 60 metre clear visibility distance recommended in 1.15 of Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual’ …. and hence ‘drivers can be caught out if they miss it’. It is also important to note that 3rd party Google Maps photos as well as those I provided show that it not only gives less that 60m but in fact gives only 5m or less visibility, which makes it near impossible to see at anywhere near the local speed limit.

2. This ‘poorly placed’ advance warning sign is crucially important as it is to convey three key pieces of information, not just the one that there is a contra-flow bus lane ahead. It also shows:
a) Left turn prohibited
b) Contra-flow bus lane ahead
c) Other traffic to turn right – this is the only option for normal traffic
This means that with this sign poorly placed (5m or less visibility, see 1.15 of Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual) the driver gets no advance warning sign before this junction giving notice that their only option is a right turn only, and this is what adds to the confusion greatly.

3. I mentioned in the hearing that the CCTV video evidence did not show any of the bus lane sign as only the back of the signs were shown and was told that this wasn't relevant. Patas case reference 2140200326 shows that it has been taken into consideration previously.

4. In R(Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010], the "Beatson Tests" comprise the following questions:
1. Are the signs themselves authorised in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002?
2. Are they placed in accordance with Department for Transport guidance set out in the Traffic Signs Manual?
3. Are the signs clearly visible and can easily be seen?
4. Are the signs obscured by vegetation or other street furniture?

In Kingston's own supplied photo, 'Kingston council supplied Missing No-Entry sign photo dated just after the alleged contravention.jpg' DFT Here supplied previously in the evidence for appeal, appellant, this shows that on 22.07.15 that the no entry sign that is supposed to be on the central refuge as per ‘DFT Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 page 136, Figure 15-8 showing recommended signage which is missing.PNG’ already supplied in the evidence for appeal, appellant is missing. Missing sign link
This would seem to suggest that it fails the ‘Beatson Tests’ point 2.

5. Please refer to R(Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] below.
I requested a Freedom of Information request CAS-756576 asking How many 34J PCNs have been issued on this stretch. The answer provided by the council and supplied in their evidence online for this case is 63,599 PCNs from 13/7/2009 to 27/10/15 or on average just over 27 PCNs issued per day or 10,106 per year. This would seem to suggest that the signs in place, whether prescribed or authorised do not in fact provide adequate information or certainly not to the 10,106 motorists per year, many of whom are very unlikely to make this mistake again. This would also seem to satisfy the ‘strong reasons given for concluding that they do not provide adequate information’.

In R(Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010]
EWHC 894 (Admin) Mr Justice Beatson confirmed that, “the fact that signs are prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient for securing adequate information as to the effect of an order is made available to road users is clearly correct. If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed” [para. 65]
He went on to set out the matters to be considered when deciding whether the signs provided adequate information at the time of the alleged contravention, “Where the signs have not been placed in positions where they cannot be seen or easily seen, are not obscured by vegetation or other street furniture, and are clearly visible and comply with Departmental Guidance, there must be strong reasons given for concluding that they do not provide adequate information” [para. 69]
Put another way, the “Beatson Tests” comprise the following questions:
1. Are the signs themselves authorised in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002?
2. Are they placed in accordance with Department for Transport guidance set out in the Traffic Signs Manual?
3. Are the signs clearly visible and can easily be seen?
4. Are the signs obscured by vegetation or other street furniture?
OBWAN02
Hi all,

PATAS Appeal rejected - anything I can do?

My original PCN: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=101389 which includes an adjournment and an agreement by the adjudicator that a major part of the signage was inadequate.

I seem to have missed the 14 days to ask the adjudicator to review their decision, but the 14 review wasn't mentioned in the paperwork so didn't know about it until too late. I do have several issues with the adjudicator that I would like to raise including ignoring this point below:

Please refer to R(Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] below.
I requested a Freedom of Information request CAS-756576 asking How many 34J PCNs have been issued on this stretch. The answer provided by the council and supplied in their evidence online for this case is 63,599 PCNs from 13/7/2009 to 27/10/15 or on average just over 27 PCNs issued per day or 10,106 per year. This would seem to suggest that the signs in place, whether prescribed or authorised do not in fact provide adequate information or certainly not to the 10,106 motorists per year, many of whom are very unlikely to make this mistake again. This would also seem to satisfy the ‘strong reasons given for concluding that they do not provide adequate information’.

I have also now received a 50% increase in the fine to £195. I didn't get anything from the Royal Borough of Kingston until the 50% increase notice. I would have expected payment details to have come from them after the rejection of the Patas appeal.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Adjudicator decision: http://imageshack.com/a/img922/9966/IXdNzZ.jpg

Increased Charge Certificate: http://imageshack.com/a/img923/5390/ReYeu2.jpg

Thanks.

OB



orford
QUOTE (OBWAN02 @ Tue, 23 Feb 2016 - 17:09) *
I have also now received a 50% increase in the fine to £195. I didn't get anything from the Royal Borough of Kingston until the 50% increase notice. I would have expected payment details to have come from them after the rejection of the Patas appeal.


Page 3 of the adjudicators decision makes it pretty clear you had 28 days to pay the full penalty or it would be increased by 50%
OBWAN02
Yep, saw that, but assumed incorrectly Kingston would send out another charge letter, as they sent out lots of letters and demands during the process, and was waiting for that.

Anything else I can do at this stage if I've missed the 14 days?

OBWAN02
Thanks to whomever for merging the thread, but I wanted to start another as I'm asking is there anything I can do after I've lost the PATAS appeal.

Would it be possible to keep these as two separate for that reason, please?
Steve_999
One case - one thread. Standard forum rule; for good reason.

Why would you want to keep it separate?
OBWAN02
Hi Steve,

Only because my title is for an original "34J Being in a bus lane PCN" and now I have a new question about what to do after a PATAS loss. Thought my new question would just get lost in my original post, and I now don't have much time for the next 14 days to pay the increased fine.

Also I did a quick search on threads for what to do after a PATAS loss and couldn't find much, hence the new question as I thought the new title might also help others searching.

OB
OBWAN02
Morning, all.

Sorry to post again, but running out of time for the increased payment.

Has anyone fought after a PATAS rejection and have any ideas? Could I take this to court potentially, as feel strongly enough about this?

Thanks,

OB

PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (OBWAN02 @ Thu, 25 Feb 2016 - 12:04) *
Morning, all.

Sorry to post again, but running out of time for the increased payment.

Has anyone fought after a PATAS rejection and have any ideas? Could I take this to court potentially, as feel strongly enough about this?

Thanks,

OB


You could apply for a judicial review, but will be expensive
orford
There are limited reasons to apply for a review of an adjudicator's decision and you must apply within 14 days, so you've missed that.

You may apply to the High Court for a judicial review but only if the adjudicator has made a mistake of law. It's extremely costly, potential thousands, so if you enjoy standing in a shower and tearing up £50 notes, that's the way to go.
Incandescent
Can you please give us the LT Case Number so we can see the adjudicator's reasoning. It could help us with subsequent appeals. Have you posted your appeal text here ?
OBWAN02
Thanks Orford and Pastmybest – looks like I won't be going any further. Worth pointing out to others that there is the two week window after a decision, that I was unaware of this and it wasn't mentioned in the paperwork with the adjudicators decision.

Hi, Incandescent, is this what you meant? Posted above too:
Adjudicator decision: http://imageshack.com/a/img922/9966/IXdNzZ.jpg

Unfortunately with no precedent being set, it seems pot luck as to the adjudicator you get as to how they seem to decide, which is disappointing. Also my one didn’t seem to consider other recent tribunal cases I provided but these might help others:

Case 2150368422, decided 12 November 2015
Case 2150262432, decided 22 September 2015
Case 2150188249, decided 27 June 2015
Case 2150125409, decided 11 Jun 2015

In my case, the Adjudicator agreed the advance warning sign had been poorly placed, but didn't state that it was pretty much invisible until you're 5 yards away (that I’d demonstrated with several pictures provided at the hearing), and then didn't take into account that that is the only sign until after the bus lane has started. I in fact didn’t know it was even there until re-visiting the scene to take photos.

She also summarises, "I find that there is substantial compliance and the reasonable driver would not be misled into thinking that he was not in a bus lane.", but ignored my freedom of information request that I provided showing that 63,599 PCNs have been issued for a 34J on this stretch since 2009, or 27 a day - we can't all be unreasonable drivers.

She also didn’t take into account the R(Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] and the Beatson Test that I'd asked her to consider, but used Herron from 2011. Was this possibly because this supersedes the Oxford CC ruling, or can they work alongside?
Incandescent
Bit of a council patsy, that adjudicator, I think.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 26 Feb 2016 - 18:01) *
Bit of a council patsy, that adjudicator, I think.


Yep. but there are no grounds to argue that there was any flaw in the finding of facts but possible that they did not consider all the evidence.
No harm in writing to them if you want, but they do not have to accept
OBWAN02
Thanks, both. If I write to them, whilst awaiting a reply I will pass the two weeks given to pay this increased fine and RBK could "apply to the county court to register the increased charge as a debt and ... recover the amount due as if it were payable under a county court order." Any suggestions as how to avoid this other than pay?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (OBWAN02 @ Fri, 26 Feb 2016 - 22:11) *
Thanks, both. If I write to them, whilst awaiting a reply I will pass the two weeks given to pay this increased fine and RBK could "apply to the county court to register the increased charge as a debt and ... recover the amount due as if it were payable under a county court order." Any suggestions as how to avoid this other than pay?


Think you are best to pay, a review is not granted by the council so if L T do allow one and you win then you would get a refund
OBWAN02
Thank you.
gidster99
QUOTE (OBWAN02 @ Tue, 23 Feb 2016 - 17:09) *
Hi all,

PATAS Appeal rejected - anything I can do?

My original PCN: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=101389 which includes an adjournment and an agreement by the adjudicator that a major part of the signage was inadequate.

I seem to have missed the 14 days to ask the adjudicator to review their decision, but the 14 review wasn't mentioned in the paperwork so didn't know about it until too late. I do have several issues with the adjudicator that I would like to raise including ignoring this point below:

Please refer to R(Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] below.
I requested a Freedom of Information request CAS-756576 asking How many 34J PCNs have been issued on this stretch. The answer provided by the council and supplied in their evidence online for this case is 63,599 PCNs from 13/7/2009 to 27/10/15 or on average just over 27 PCNs issued per day or 10,106 per year. This would seem to suggest that the signs in place, whether prescribed or authorised do not in fact provide adequate information or certainly not to the 10,106 motorists per year, many of whom are very unlikely to make this mistake again. This would also seem to satisfy the ‘strong reasons given for concluding that they do not provide adequate information’.

I have also now received a 50% increase in the fine to £195. I didn't get anything from the Royal Borough of Kingston until the 50% increase notice. I would have expected payment details to have come from them after the rejection of the Patas appeal.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Adjudicator decision: http://imageshack.com/a/img922/9966/IXdNzZ.jpg

Increased Charge Certificate: http://imageshack.com/a/img923/5390/ReYeu2.jpg

Thanks.

OB

Hi OBWAN02,

Like yourself I have been caught with a 34J PCN for driving along the Eden Street Bus Lane. I have read through your well documented saga and cannot believe that the Adjudicator seemingly has totally ignored your pertinent FOI information revealing that 63,599 other drivers have also received PCNs on this particular Eden Street Bus Lane, during the 6 years period from July 2009 to October 2015.

I have requested the identical information under FOI but fear that I shall only receive th FOI response AFTER my defence to the Enforcement Notice falls due -- I have 28 days (from 14 April 2016) to reply the Enforcement Notice which is a shorter amount of time than the 20 'working days' needed for the FOI reply.

Are you able to send (either to me and/or to this website) a copy of the POI information that had been sent to you?

I would be most grateful if you would help me and all the other motorists who continue to fall foul of this goldmine for the Council because of the poor and inadequate warning signs leading up to the Eden Street Bus Lane ahead.

Thanks,

gidster99
OBWAN02
Hi gidster99,

Please check the link below. Hope it helps.

FOI Response

gidster99
QUOTE (OBWAN02 @ Wed, 20 Apr 2016 - 11:23) *
Hi gidster99,

Please check the link below. Hope it helps.

FOI Response


Hi OBWAN02,

Thank you for posting your FOI response CAS-756576.

I find it hard to comprehend how point (a) of your FOI request can have been totally ignored by the Adjudicator. Have you any idea how this came about?

point (a) of your CAS-756576 dated 27 October 2015 reads:

a) How many 34J PCNs have been issued on this stretch?
The lane was originally introduced by an order dated 13/07/2009, to date 63,599 PCNs have been issued.

63,599 other motorists who have also been issued with PCNs for driving on this Eden Street contra-flow Bus Lane over a 6 year period of time (a road which by the way doesn't even appear to be heavily trafficed) should suggest to any open minded individual, that the signage along the road (in advance of the start of the bus lane) warning that all traffic (other than buses, taxis or cycles) MUST turn right into St James's Road is sadly deficient and wanting).

The only proper warning that all traffic MUST turn right at the junction ahead (the sign positioned just beyond the Opticians John Rose) is a sign that cannot be seen (because line of sight for motorists is obscured by the frontage of the Opticians Shop).

Placing that self same sign further ahead (ie closer to the road junction from where the Bus Lane starts) would mean that motorists would have a clear and unobstructed view of this vital sign and consequently would not fall foul of this 34J infraction.

The fact that nothing has been done so far (these past 6 plus years) to improve the placement and location of the warning signs, is worrying in terms of the implications thereof. Is it Kingston Council's intention to hoover up cashloads of money on this Bus Lane or is it that noone in authority in the Council has been made aware of the deficiencies of the existing signage?

Let us be clear, the 'income' generated (according to your CAS-756576) totals some £3.86 million in the six or so years betwen 13/07/2009 and 27 October 2015... [53,216 PCNs at £65 each = ££3,459,040 and 3,089 PCNs at £130 each = £401,570 = say £3.86 million]

If this is not a 'money trap', I don't know what is. Surely 63,599 motorists cannot all be irresponsible drivers, who have nothing better to do than intentionly drive along a Bus Lane, knowing that they will be served with a 34J PCN?

Given the sheer numbers who (like you and me) have been caught driving in this Eden Street Bus Lane, I am staggered that the Council has not (of its own accord) looked into why so many motorists have been served with 34J PCNs. Has noone in the Council wondered whether the reason for so many PCNs could be because the existing signage is not adequate OR is it that the Council view this as a money-making-machine?

The other day, after phoning the Council, I obtained an extension (till end of May) to respond to the Enforcement Notice that had been sent to me -- I requested and they agreed to give me sufficient time to file my defence AFTER receiving my response to my FOI request that I had submitted some days ago.

My FOI request asked for two things:

Firstly how many 34J PCNs had been issued from whenever this bus lane was first introduced until when I was issued with an identical PCN in March 2016, and secondly I asked for a copy of your FOI CAS-756576 covering the period 13/07/2009 and 27/10/2015.

gidster99





Neil B
What happened to your own thread?
Have you given up on it?
gidster99
QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 26 Apr 2016 - 21:06) *
What happened to your own thread?
Have you given up on it?


Hi Neil,

No I haven't given up on this matter. I have been given an extension, till end of May, to file my reponse to the Enforcement Notice and I am waiting in the meantime to receive answers to my FOI.

Where my original threads is I have no idea (since I am no forum-expert).

gidster99
gidster99
Hi Neil or anyone who may know,

Is there a new thread in my name on the question of my having received a 34J PCN for driving down the contra-flow bus lane along Eden Street in Kingston? (Neil B askewd this question on 26 April 2016).

My reply to Neil over two weeks ago was: no I have not given up but (not being familiar with how threads are laid out) I had no idea where my original thread was if indeed it had been established.

My current questions are:

(a) how do I find my original thread / kif it has been established?

(b) alternatively should I start a new thread?

© can someone please point me to where new forum users (like myself) get a check list of what all I / we should put down to get a 'thread' started in this forum?

The brief history nof my March 2016 PCN so far is as follows:

(1) Having received a PCN for driving along the Eden Street bus lane, I was sent a 34J PCN in early March 2016

(2) I filed an online challenge essentially stating that the signage leading up to the said bus lane was inadequate. I pointed out in the photos and the text of my 'challenge' that the main advance warning sign was inadequate -- this is the one located just beyond the Opticians on Eden Street. I pointed out that the location of that sign was such that drivers could not see it as they drove along the road past the Opticians; I pointed out that when I returned on foot to the scene I did see the sign, but when driving it was partially obscured by the Optician's shop frontage and anyway was located just after a busy pedestrian crossing which all drivers needed to focus on. I made various other points but don't need to go into them here (since this is not my own thread.

(3) Having come across this blog and having read several postings by OBWAN02, I asked the Council, under the FOI Act, for details of how many identical PCNs had been issued on this Eden Street bus lane over each of the last five years.

(4) The total numbers of PCNs issued, according to the reply I eventually received, totalled just under 9000 PCNs. Which though a large number was no where near the 63,000 odd mentioned in OBWAN02's postings on this forum.

(5) A month or so later, in mid April, I received the Enforcement Notice. I decided to ask for a further FOI query, this time asking for the total of all PCNs that had been issued since this bus lane was first introduced (when ever that may have been) and I also asked for a copy of the FOI request that OBWAN02 had filed (the one where some 63,000 odd PCNs had been mentioned.

(6) At the same time I contacted the Council and received an extension till end of May to file my defence to the Enforcement Notice -- the reason I gave was that the Enforcement Notice had to be responded to within 28 days whilst the FOI data was promised within 20 'working days' which meant I had not ime to incorporate information that came to me from my FOI request. The person I spoke to on the phone in the Council willingly gave me an extension and I confirmed that in writing.

(7) The actual date for my receiving the FOI information was a day last week, but when that day came and went by, without any communication reaching me from the FOI Team, I followed up with an email to them.

(8) That was replied but their email reply appeared garbled in tha whilst it had my name and address on it, the actual 'salutation' in the communication, was to a name other than myself. I therefore asked that a revised FOI communication be sent to me.

If anyone can help me get my thread running, that would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Gidster99

Neil B
QUOTE (gidster99 @ Mon, 16 May 2016 - 20:47) *
(a) how do I find my original thread / kif it has been established?


Erm, how did you find this one from 5 pages back?

--
You could look at your own profile for your topics or posts.
gidster99
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 16 May 2016 - 20:55) *
QUOTE (gidster99 @ Mon, 16 May 2016 - 20:47) *
(a) how do I find my original thread / kif it has been established?


Erm, how did you find this one from 5 pages back?

--
You could look at your own profile for your topics or posts.


Hi Neil,

I cannot really remember how I found this thread. I believe it may have come from a search for '34J PCNs in Eden Street, Kingston' but I am not sure.

It could also be that I recalled the name of the person who had been posting his story on the same Eden Street bus lane when I first came across this website .

As it happens, I was taken aback that he lost his case. I never understood why that was so given that he had filed his FOI information showing that very large numbers (63,000 odd) of other drivers had also all received identical PCNs.

Did he lose his Appeal because he had included so many (dare I say, too many) arguments in his defence pleadings and perhaps as a result diluted his own very powerful evidence that his FOI request provided?

You mentioned that in trying to find out if my thread already exists I could look at my 'profile'. Where is my 'profile' to be found?

Thanks,

gidster99
OBWAN02
Hey gidster99,

I think if you just put "gidster99" into the search box it seems to pull up your posts.

How you getting on, and did you manage to get your own FOI request to match mine?

obwan
gidster99
QUOTE (OBWAN02 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 10:26) *
Hey gidster99,

I think if you just put "gidster99" into the search box it seems to pull up your posts.

How you getting on, and did you manage to get your own FOI request to match mine?

obwan

Hi OBWAN02,

Thanks for your tip about searching for posts.

Within the next day or two I am expecting to hear further about some error in the numbers of PCNs that had been issued in response to my initial FOI request made back in March 2016.

I can certainly keep this thread informed.

gidster99
gidster99
QUOTE (gidster99 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 11:10) *
QUOTE (OBWAN02 @ Wed, 18 May 2016 - 10:26) *
Hey gidster99,

I think if you just put "gidster99" into the search box it seems to pull up your posts.

How you getting on, and did you manage to get your own FOI request to match mine?

obwan

Hi OBWAN02,

Thanks for your tip about searching for posts.

Within the next day or two I am expecting to hear further about some error in the numbers of PCNs that had been issued in response to my initial FOI request made back in March 2016.

I can certainly keep this thread informed.

gidster99


Here is an update:

RBK have withdrawn the PCN that they had issued to me back in March -- which is a great result.

Here follows what I emailed them. I wonder how long till they get back to me. My thanks to all who made comments and especially to OBWAN02 because his story was most helpful. I decided to concentrate on the poor signage, and the 70,000 odd other drivers who like me 'strayed' onto the bus lane BECAUSE of the poorly located sign past the John Rose Optician's Shop.

My email:

Subject: matters arising out of: 34J PCN xxxxxx -- driving on Eden Street's contraflow bus lane



For the kind attention of:
(1) Rachel Lewis, Head of Environment at the Royal Borough of Kingston, and
(2) Zac Goldsmith, MP for Richmond (my local MP)

I received a letter on 24 May 2016 http://screencast.com/t/DNbr9ixGr1 from the Royal Borough of Kingston, stating that my above penalty charge had been withdrawn.

The letter explained that their decision to withdraw my PCN was taken because of 'errors in the response to related Freedom of Information requests'.

The letter did not acknowledge my challenge, that the 34J PCN issued to me in March 2016 was flawed and should be waived (on the grounds of poor and inadequate signage).

Whilst I am pleased that my PCN has been withdrawn, I am concerned about two things which I believe still need addressing:

1. What systems are needed in order to avoid inaccurate FOI requests being sent out (which was what had happened in my case), and
2. That the signage leading to the Eden Street bus lane needs to brought up to the required standards. I know that I personally didn't (nor do I believe that any of the other 71,410 drivers per the FOI information received) intentionally drove into the Eden Street bus lane. That we all did drive into that bus lane is entirely down to the poor and inadequate signage that presently exists in the run up to the bus lane. For the sake of all future drivers I say that the signage must be relocated so as to then conform to the required standards as laid out in Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual, 2008.


With regard to point (1):


How can it be that a Freedom of Information request fails to give the correct factual information, (see here for what happened in my case):

http://screencast.com/t/9etCRd638czE


(a) Are there no checks and balances in the system to ensure that factual errors do not happen during processing and collating of FOI answers?

(b) Since the public have no access to the various data-sets (from which these FOI requests are drawn) without proper systems and controls in place, how can the public ever be certain that the information they are sent, by way of FOI responses, are accurate?

© Kindly clarify please, what systems and controls are in place in Kingston Council, to ensure that the answers sent out under the FOI are accurate.


With regard to point (2):

Who is in charge in Kingston of Traffic Signs?

I am asking because I believe that the signage leading up to the Eden Street bus lane (for which I received my 34 J PCN) is at fault and needs to be looked at. I say it is patently deficient and needs to be brought up to what is laid out in the Traffic Signs Manual, 2008, Chapter 3
.
In this connection I would also like to point out that:

(a) Since a staggering number, 71,411 motorists according to FOI see here (look at the 5th line down): http://screencast.com/t/cemaZvZv6p
myself included, have all been sent 34J PCN for driving along this Eden Street bus lane in what was a period of less than 7 years duration, (from 13/07/2009 till 07/03/2016 to be precise), I say that such large numbers can indicate only one thing: that the signage that exists warning of the bus lane ahead, is totally deficient.

(b) It is beyond all realms of possibility to believe that 71,000 plus motorists have all intentionally ignored traffic signs warning them of a bus lane ahead. The only logical explanation is that they never saw those signs. No one would intentionally drive into a bus lane thereby risking a fine of £65 or even £130. And let us not forget that 71,000 x £65 by way of fines (assuming just the 'discounted' rate), amounts to a staggering total of £4,615,000 (collected in less than 7 years, since this bus lane was first introduced in July 2009) and is clearly a very serious matter that needs looking into.

© Given these huge numbers of 34J PCNs (71,411 was not a typo), how is it that no one seems to have investigated into what may have caused all these PCNs to have been issued? Has no one in Authority, within Kingston Council deemed it necessary to investigate why it is, that so many motorists have received these PCNs?

(d) Is this perhaps some over-sight on the part of Kingston Council or was it an intentional decision taken by Kingston Council, to collect fines from innocent motorists (knowing that perhaps most do not have the time to challenge these wrongful PCNs)?

As a Kingston Council Tax Payer myself, I would be mortified if it was the latter possibility; not that I am much pleased if it was the former.

I don't believe either is acceptable behaviour on the part of our Council.

(e) Reference to the 2008 Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3,
can be found in this link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...-chapter-03.pdf

I am also attaching to this email an extract from that Manual. Para 1.15 / Table 1.1 / and para 1.16 are all relevant http://screencast.com/t/0YM7Mbr7I

These paras specify that the faster the traffic speed, the greater the 'clear visibility distances' have to be for the motorists.

And in a 20 mph zone (the speed limit along this stretch of Eden Street) traffic signs have to be located in places where the motorist has a clear and unobstructed 45 metres view of traffic signs.

(f) The first (and I say the single most important) traffic sign (the one just past the Optician's shop warning of the upcoming bus lane), is not located properly BECAUSE it fails to provide the motorist with the required 45 metres of unobstructed visibility as per the Traffic Signs Manual.

(g) If the Council disagrees with my above assertion, may I suggest we arrange a site visit and they can please show me the requisite 'clear 45 metres unobstructed sight line' (as per the Manual) to the sign just past the Optician's shop .


(h) If this one crucial street sign were to be relocated further along Eden Street, say to where the 'no left turn' sign (except for cycles) is presently located (at the junction Eden Street and Union Street), motorists would have (after passing the busy pedestrian crossing just before the Optician's shop) well in excess of a clear and unobstructed 45 metres sightline to the sign.

And once this sign is relocated in this way, I am sure that the numbers of 34J PCNs that are then issued would immediately drop down close to zero.

I look forward to receiving replies to my points, namely:

(1) how can the public be assured that FOI requests are processed and sent out without errors, and

(2) when will the signage (giving advance warning of the Eden Street bus lane) be made compliant with the requirements laid out in Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual, 2008?

…………. I ended my email here …………………


I would like to thank OBWAN02 for his story and for posting (for me) on this blog his actual FOI case number and the answers he received.

I wonder how long it will take RBK to respond to my email.

And if they agree that their signage clearly is deficient and needs to be brought up to the standards laid down in the Traffic Signs Manual, how pro-active will they be in returning the fines paid by all those 70,000 odd motorists? That is quite a thought.

My thanks to all,

Gidster99




Calevin81
Hi,
I' m another one who fell in the trap. (Nov 16)
I've actually seen the sign just at the end and manage to go back before the crossing line.
Still the council after they seen the video (I believe) they didn't cancel the fine.
I'm waiting now for the formal representation to try and use the same writing you all used.
Hopefully it help.
What a disgrace, a council making money on this.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Calevin81 @ Thu, 5 Jan 2017 - 14:10) *
Hi,
I' m another one who fell in the trap. (Nov 16)
I've actually seen the sign just at the end and manage to go back before the crossing line.
Still the council after they seen the video (I believe) they didn't cancel the fine.
I'm waiting now for the formal representation to try and use the same writing you all used.
Hopefully it help.
What a disgrace, a council making money on this.


Start your own thread, post the PCN and if possible the video. If you did not go through all the at but turned round a De minimis argument might be best
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.