Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bus Lane - Penalty charge Notice
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
Boonburger
Hi There

I have been reading some of the posts on the site and it seems like an invaluable resource.

I recently received a Penalty Charge Notice in relation to "being in a bus lane". Based on the information in the notice I must admit that I was there however I have to say that the road markings were complex and unclear and that I had no idea that the street was an exclusive bus lane. Especially as traffic was coming the other way down the same road. Anyway, I guess ignorance is no excuse.

My query relates to the notice itself. Having carried out some research on these forums and other sites I just wanted to check that the wording relating to possible appeals/representations was sufficient. From some posts I have been lead to believe that the notice must give specific examples of situations where an appeal may be appropriate.

I am posting a copy of the notice and would welcome and thoughts/feedback.

Thanks for your assistance!



dave-o
1) Is that all of the PCN? No information about appealing?

2) Do you remember what happened?
Boonburger
Hi dave-0

Thanks for your reply. In reply to your questions

1) yes - This is all have received. There is nothing about grounds for appeal i.e. i was not the owner at the date of the PCN etc.

2) Thinking back I had a passenger in the car that I was looking to drop off. I can recall driving along the road and noticing that that written on the tarmack before the junction that there were the words "no left hand turn" as well as a "no left turn except cycles" sign at the junction. I was therefore conscious of this fact. I then arrived at the juncttion (I had prority) and noticed cars coming from the other direction (i.e. towards me). This of course probably influenced my decision to drive straight on (into what i now know to be the bus lane) and drop my passenger before turning right at the next roundabout (about 100 yards) on to a road that is not a bus lane. Haivng been back to the junction there is no advance warning of the bus lane or that it is a no-entry road. The only signs indicating this are actually at the start of the bus lane itself and being the other side of the junction.

Hopefully this hyyperlink to google maps will help indicate the position. This is taken from my direction of travel.

Google Maps Link

Thanks again for any assistance.

clark_kent
There is no bus lane in eden street.
Spitfire_55
Could it be that hr Drove past the No Entry , where its ment to be Buses Only?

Here : http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sour...mp;t=h&z=19


EDIT - from a better angle

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sour....00327&z=19
clark_kent
QUOTE (Spitfire_55 @ Tue, 18 May 2010 - 19:46) *
Could it be that hr Drove past the No Entry , where its ment to be Buses Only?

Here : http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sour...mp;t=h&z=19


EDIT - from a better angle

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sour....00327&z=19



Indeed he did which is why he should have been issued a moving traffic ticket under the LLA 2003 not a LLA 1996 bus lane ticket, I am currently contesting a couple of these PCNs in Kingston.
Boonburger
Hi

Thanks for the responses so far.

Apologies for the use of terminology, I had assumed that as the ticket had said "Being in a bus lane" that the Buses only sign and road markings indicated that the area was a bus lane!

Any further assistance/suggestions gratefully received.

Thanks
clark_kent
QUOTE (Boonburger @ Tue, 18 May 2010 - 20:05) *
Apologies for the use of terminology, I had assumed that as the ticket had said "Being in a bus lane" that the Buses only sign and road markings indicated that the area was a bus lane!

Any further assistance/suggestions gratefully received.

Thanks


It would be correct if it was outside London and used the Transport act to enforce as it defines a bus lane as a lane set aside for buses however the LLA 1996 uses the definition of a Bus lane as prescribed by the TSRGD 1994 which is not the same.
Boonburger
Thanks again for your responses.

clark_kent - I may be missing your point but having done some more research I wonder if this may be more of a "bus gate" than a "bus lane." (pages 140-1 of the Traffic Signs Manual 2008).

I have looked to see if "bus gate" is defined anywhere but can not see any specific reference.

I used your helpful reference to look at the definition of bus lane. I note that the LLA Act 1996 defines "bus lane" as having the meaning given in regulation 23 of the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994 and any regulation amending or revoking and re-enacting that regulation. It seems that the 1994 regs have been replaced by the 2002 regs and they define bus lane as follows:

Bus lanes

23. - (1) In the signs shown in the permitted variants of diagrams 877 and 878 in which the expression "bus lane" appears and in diagrams 962, 962.2, 963, 963.2, 964, 1048 and 1048.1, "bus lane" has the meaning given in paragraph (2).

(2) "Bus lane" in the signs referred to in paragraph (1) means a traffic lane reserved for -


(a) motor vehicles constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers (exclusive of the driver);

(b) local buses not so constructed or adapted; and

© pedal cycles and taxis where indicated on the sign shown in diagram 958 or 959 and pedal cycles where indicated on the sign shown in diagram 960, 962.2, 963.2 or 1048.1.


Looking at the sign references it appears that none of these are those used to mark a "bus gate".

Am I missing the point or is a "bus gate" not a "bus lane" and therefore could the PCN issued for "being in a bus lane" be invalid?

Thanks for any input.

clark_kent
You are spot on under the lla 1996 a bus gate is not a bus lane they should be using the LLA 2003 to enforce

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/localact2003/u...30003_en_6#sch3
Boonburger
thanks clarke_kent,

I will draft an appeal on this basis.

Were there any other comments as to lack of grouns for appeal on the original PCN?

Thanks
philmorgan
Hello. I too have had a PCN re same bus lane and can offer the following advice if helpful taken from various sources.

1. According to Stautory Instrument 2005 no 2757, part 3, paragraph 8(5): g,h,j,k,m and n should be on the ticket. Clearly, as with mine, they are not.

2. According to their own Code of Practice, they should attach photos to the PCN: again, they have not.

3. There are insufficient warning signs PRIOR to the commencement of the lane and camera enforcement.

4. Their definition of a contra-flow means that the legend on the road is incorrect: should include cycle and taxi, too!

5. The road MARKINGS at the junction are a mess, as is the start of the "bus lane" which extends over the junction.

6. The road sign (diagram 953) is set behind the beginning of the lane, which is incorrect.

7. There is no sign indicating the end of bus lane at Brook Street junction.

I am appealing on the above points and wish you well. I also note you have had advice from "Green and Mean" and I hope you will let us know how you get on as I am considering using the same kind of arguments: it does seem that the more arguments, the better. I also got good info from BusLanes.com re previous adjudications. It might be a good idea to make a request under FOI Act for information about how many appeals, both formal and informal, have been made regarding this location and how many have been successful.
clark_kent
QUOTE (philmorgan @ Sat, 5 Jun 2010 - 10:19) *
It might be a good idea to make a request under FOI Act for information about how many appeals, both formal and informal, have been made regarding this location and how many have been successful.



5500 PCNs in the last year and allegedly only one was cancelled at PATAS something to do with not supplying additional info.
philmorgan
Thanks Clark I am new to this site but do value your advice. I used to play my violin in the town and have been in touch with Surrey Comet who will run the story if I win. I have also contacted my MP, Chief Executive and senior people in the Corporation. I note your other identity!

By the way, the Give Way/Mini Roundabout sign is also incorrectly placed i.e. it is directly in line with the dotted lined but should be 1.5 metres before the actual roundabout. Further, the speed limit sign for 20 at the beginning of the High Street is only one i.e. as you turn left from Portsmouth Road and there is a plethora of signs around the pub area, some of which may be blocked by parked traffic and others which are positioned on the inside side of the pavement.

Phillip
philmorgan
Thanks Clark I am new to this site but do value your advice. I used to play my violin in the town and have been in touch with Surrey Comet who will run the story if I win. I have also contacted my MP, Chief Executive and senior people in the Corporation. I note your other identity!

By the way, the Give Way/Mini Roundabout sign is also incorrectly placed i.e. it is directly in line with the dotted lined but should be 1.5 metres before the actual roundabout. Further, the speed limit sign for 20 at the beginning of the High Street is only one i.e. as you turn left from Portsmouth Road and there is a plethora of signs around the pub area, some of which may be blocked by parked traffic and others which are positioned on the inside side of the pavement.

Phillip

Yes I did play outside Holland and Barrett and made the Surrey Comet in September 2008 "Fiddler on the Hoof"! What about: "Busker takes on Bus Lanes!"?
clark_kent
QUOTE (philmorgan @ Sat, 5 Jun 2010 - 21:32) *
Thanks Clark I am new to this site but do value your advice. I used to play my violin in the town and have been in touch with Surrey Comet who will run the story if I win. I have also contacted my MP, Chief Executive and senior people in the Corporation. I note your other identity!

By the way, the Give Way/Mini Roundabout sign is also incorrectly placed i.e. it is directly in line with the dotted lined but should be 1.5 metres before the actual roundabout. Further, the speed limit sign for 20 at the beginning of the High Street is only one i.e. as you turn left from Portsmouth Road and there is a plethora of signs around the pub area, some of which may be blocked by parked traffic and others which are positioned on the inside side of the pavement.

Phillip



I thought you were good much better than most buskers in the town!!

http://www.kingstonguardian.co.uk/video/?archive_page=2

The old section by Primark is also wrong as it doesn't have signs warning drivers the opposite carriageway is a bus only route. I often shop in Kingston and there are numerous signage problems nearly all the permit signs in the borough are also technically wrong to as they have the time at the top and it should be at the bottom but I'm saving that for a rainy day.
J_Edgar
QUOTE (philmorgan @ Sat, 5 Jun 2010 - 10:19) *
Hello. I too have had a PCN re same bus lane and can offer the following advice if helpful taken from various sources.

1. According to Stautory Instrument 2005 no 2757, part 3, paragraph 8(5): g,h,j,k,m and n should be on the ticket. Clearly, as with mine, they are not.

2. According to their own Code of Practice, they should attach photos to the PCN: again, they have not.

3. There are insufficient warning signs PRIOR to the commencement of the lane and camera enforcement.

4. Their definition of a contra-flow means that the legend on the road is incorrect: should include cycle and taxi, too!

5. The road MARKINGS at the junction are a mess, as is the start of the "bus lane" which extends over the junction.

6. The road sign (diagram 953) is set behind the beginning of the lane, which is incorrect.

7. There is no sign indicating the end of bus lane at Brook Street junction.

I am appealing on the above points and wish you well. I also note you have had advice from "Green and Mean" and I hope you will let us know how you get on as I am considering using the same kind of arguments: it does seem that the more arguments, the better. I also got good info from BusLanes.com re previous adjudications. It might be a good idea to make a request under FOI Act for information about how many appeals, both formal and informal, have been made regarding this location and how many have been successful.


The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/2757


Citation, commencement and application
1. —(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 and shall come into force on 1st November 2005.

(2) These Regulations apply only to England exclusive of Greater London.

As it is issued under London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amended)

The correct legislation is London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003

LLATLA 2003

/edit

I see clark_kent had already posted the same.
philmorgan
thanks for the info re the correct legislation. However, the PCN's STILL DO NOT CONTAIN THE CORRECT INFO.!

Phillip
J_Edgar
QUOTE (philmorgan @ Sat, 5 Jun 2010 - 23:42) *
thanks for the info re the correct legislation. However, the PCN's STILL DO NOT CONTAIN THE CORRECT INFO.!

Phillip


Very few bus lane PCNs that I have ever seen issued in or outside London comply. Iirc Nottingham is a notable exception.
clark_kent
QUOTE (J_Edgar @ Sat, 5 Jun 2010 - 22:17) *
QUOTE (philmorgan @ Sat, 5 Jun 2010 - 10:19) *
Hello. I too have had a PCN re same bus lane and can offer the following advice if helpful taken from various sources.

1. According to Stautory Instrument 2005 no 2757, part 3, paragraph 8(5): g,h,j,k,m and n should be on the ticket. Clearly, as with mine, they are not.

2. According to their own Code of Practice, they should attach photos to the PCN: again, they have not.

3. There are insufficient warning signs PRIOR to the commencement of the lane and camera enforcement.

4. Their definition of a contra-flow means that the legend on the road is incorrect: should include cycle and taxi, too!

5. The road MARKINGS at the junction are a mess, as is the start of the "bus lane" which extends over the junction.

6. The road sign (diagram 953) is set behind the beginning of the lane, which is incorrect.

7. There is no sign indicating the end of bus lane at Brook Street junction.

I am appealing on the above points and wish you well. I also note you have had advice from "Green and Mean" and I hope you will let us know how you get on as I am considering using the same kind of arguments: it does seem that the more arguments, the better. I also got good info from BusLanes.com re previous adjudications. It might be a good idea to make a request under FOI Act for information about how many appeals, both formal and informal, have been made regarding this location and how many have been successful.


The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/2757


Citation, commencement and application
1. —(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 and shall come into force on 1st November 2005.

(2) These Regulations apply only to England exclusive of Greater London.

As it is issued under London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amended)

The correct legislation is London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003

LLATLA 2003

/edit

I see clark_kent had already posted the same.


I think you are getting confused?

Bus Lane PCNs in London are issued under the LLA 1996, the Kingston Bus Lane PCNs would be fine if the recipients were guilty of 'being in a bus lane' however they are not the contra flow lane is a 'route restricted to buses and cycles (varied to include taxis)' NOT a bus lane as defined by the TSRGD such a contravention is not covered by the 1996 legislation and it is a moving traffic offence decriminalised by the LLA 2003.
J_Edgar
Aye, guess I should not post when I am over tiered. Still I got the right act for the PCN in question based on your assesment of the contravention. wink.gif

I will try harder.
philmorgan
I am only confused because of the confusion as exhibited by the PCN! Have now checked PATAS site and agree. Are you saying that this "contra flow" is not a bus lane at all, rather a "gate" or something else? Because all the signs are confused, too! PATAS state that the 953 sign applies to a Moving Traffic contravention. In any case, all the other points re the road markings are still valid?

Cheers. May have to come to Holland and Barrett for stress-relief pills! Though I have vowed never to play in Kingston again!
clark_kent
QUOTE (philmorgan @ Sun, 6 Jun 2010 - 11:44) *
I am only confused because of the confusion as exhibited by the PCN! Have now checked PATAS site and agree. Are you saying that this "contra flow" is not a bus lane at all, rather a "gate" or something else? Because all the signs are confused, too! PATAS state that the 953 sign applies to a Moving Traffic contravention. In any case, all the other points re the road markings are still valid?

Cheers. May have to come to Holland and Barrett for stress-relief pills! Though I have vowed never to play in Kingston again!



Yes it is not a bus lane as defined by the TSRGD so cannot be enforced using the 1996 regulations which use this as a definition. If it was outside London it would be OK because the regulations are different and a bus lane is basically just a road or lane signed for buses (and taxis cycles etc) therefore bus gates etc can be enforced outside london as 'bus lanes'. However in London they should not be and the LLA 2003 used and anyone who has the required BTEC in CCTV enforcement should know this as its part of the curriculum so I am amazed RBK management don't?!
edpgc
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Sun, 6 Jun 2010 - 11:39) *
Yes it is not a bus lane as defined by the TSRGD so cannot be enforced using the 1996 regulations which use this as a definition. If it was outside London it would be OK because the regulations are different and a bus lane is basically just a road or lane signed for buses (and taxis cycles etc) therefore bus gates etc can be enforced outside london as 'bus lanes'. However in London they should not be and the LLA 2003 used and anyone who has the required BTEC in CCTV enforcement should know this as its part of the curriculum so I am amazed RBK management don't?!


Hi, I can't see the difference between london and outside of london requirements for enforcement within the TMA 2004? Am I looking in the wrong place? Thanks.
southpaw82
QUOTE (edpgc @ Tue, 8 Jun 2010 - 15:06) *
Hi, I can't see the difference between london and outside of london requirements for enforcement within the TMA 2004? Am I looking in the wrong place? Thanks.


Bus lanes are nothing to do with the TMA 2004.

In London - The London Local Authorities Act 1996.

Outisde London - The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005.
edpgc
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 8 Jun 2010 - 16:58) *

Thanks, however TMA 2004 does contain a section on "Bus Lane Contraventions" (Schedule 7 part 2)

The LLA 1996 defines as a ... “bus lane” has the meaning given in regulation 23 of the M9 Traffic Signs Regulations 1994 and any regulation amending or revoking and re-enacting that regulation;

While the outside London document simply does not define a bus lane, so we fall back to the Transport Act 2000 Section 144 definition which is quite simply

(5) An area of road is or forms part of a bus lane if the order provides that it may
be used—
(a) only by buses (or a particular description of bus), or
(b) only by buses (or a particular description of bus) and some other
class or classes of vehicular traffic.


or perhaps the TMA 2004 which repeats (or extends) this in (Schedule 7 part 2)
(1) A bus lane contravention is a contravention of any provision of a traffic
order relating to the use of an area of road that is or forms part of a bus lane.
(2) An area of road is or forms part of a bus lane if the order provides that it may
be used—
(a) only by buses (or a particular description of bus), or
(b) only by buses (or a particular description of bus) and some other
class or classes of vehicular traffic.

So in effect any area which is correctly and legally sign posted as restricted to buses only can be civily enforced as a 'bus lane'?
southpaw82
QUOTE (edpgc @ Tue, 8 Jun 2010 - 18:22) *
Thanks, however TMA 2004 does contain a section on "Bus Lane Contraventions" (Schedule 7 part 2)


Is it in force yet?
philmorgan
Hello. Can anyone post a copy of the relevant Traffic Order of 10th July 2009 pertaining to this "Contra flow lane", which RBK are insisting is in accordance with Traffic Signs Regulations. I rehearse that the diagram 953 on the left applies to alleged contraventions of moving traffic, have checked with PATAS, therefore the Act quoted in the PCN is incorrect i.e. LLA Act 1996. RBK would say that the actual contravention code for the latter i.e. 33(e) is illegal since it should be 34 j - as per their PCN. This is all cross-wired since RBK and challengers are clearly mixing the arguments up in the melting pot. Until such challengers as Boonburger and I achieve a positive result, all the above arguments re wrong act, wrong signs, wrong road-markings etc will only remain to be hypothetical UNLESS someone can quote a case where such arguments have won the day! Please, can someone do so!

Phillip
southpaw82
QUOTE (philmorgan @ Tue, 8 Jun 2010 - 20:43) *
Until such challengers as Boonburger and I achieve a positive result, all the above arguments re wrong act, wrong signs, wrong road-markings etc will only remain to be hypothetical UNLESS someone can quote a case where such arguments have won the day!


If you think that the wrong signs (road markings are signs, by the way) is a "hypothetical" point you're seriously misguided. Off the top of my head (ie I haven't bothered to look this up) the wrong road signs won the day in Jalali-Bijari v Bolton and Letts v Lambeth. Quite frankly, if you want to criticise the advice given here then you'd better back it up.
clark_kent
QUOTE (philmorgan @ Tue, 8 Jun 2010 - 20:43) *
Hello. Can anyone post a copy of the relevant Traffic Order of 10th July 2009 pertaining to this "Contra flow lane", which RBK are insisting is in accordance with Traffic Signs Regulations. I rehearse that the diagram 953 on the left applies to alleged contraventions of moving traffic, have checked with PATAS, therefore the Act quoted in the PCN is incorrect i.e. LLA Act 1996. RBK would say that the actual contravention code for the latter i.e. 33(e) is illegal since it should be 34 j - as per their PCN. This is all cross-wired since RBK and challengers are clearly mixing the arguments up in the melting pot. Until such challengers as Boonburger and I achieve a positive result, all the above arguments re wrong act, wrong signs, wrong road-markings etc will only remain to be hypothetical UNLESS someone can quote a case where such arguments have won the day! Please, can someone do so!

Phillip



You should have more faith, lol!! You will win if not take it to PATAS and RBK will send you a copy of the traffic order which is correct by the way I've read it.

Road Traffic Acts

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

EDEN STREET, KINGSTON

ONE-WAY WORKING & CONTRA-FLOW BUS LANE

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames on 6th July 2009 made the following Orders under sections 6 and 124 of and Part IV of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended.

• The Kingston Upon Thames (Prescribed Route) (No. 2) Traffic Order 2009

• The Kingston Upon Thames (Bus Priority) (Amendment No. 8) Traffic Order 2009

1. The general effect of the Orders, which will come into force on 13th July 2009, will be to:-

(a) introduce one-way working (i.e. westbound only) for vehicles in Eden Street between its junctions with Union Street/St. James’ Road and Brook Street;

(b) introduce an eastbound contra-flow bus lane on the north side of Eden Street between its junctions with Union Street and Brook Street to apply at any time.

Note: All vehicles, except buses, taxis, dial-a-ride buses and pedal cycles would be prohibited from being in the bus lane referred to above.

2. The Orders, and other documents giving more detailed particulars of the Orders, including plans showing the location and effect of the proposals, are available for inspection until 17th August 2009 at:

• the 2nd Floor Reception Area, Guildhall 2, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 1EU between 9.30am and 4.30pm on Mondays to Fridays inclusive;

• Kingston Library, Fairfield Road, Kingston during normal opening hours.

3. Any person desiring to question the validity of the Orders or of any provision contained therein on the grounds that it is not within the relevant powers of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or that any of the relevant requirements thereof or any relevant regulations made thereunder have not been complied with in relation to the Orders may make application for the purpose to the High Court by 17th August 2009.

Dated 10th July 2009.


John Bolland



Service Manager (Traffic Management and Design)



You should be able to view it at the guildhall or library.



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 8 Jun 2010 - 18:29) *
QUOTE (edpgc @ Tue, 8 Jun 2010 - 18:22) *
Thanks, however TMA 2004 does contain a section on "Bus Lane Contraventions" (Schedule 7 part 2)


Is it in force yet?



No
philmorgan
Sorry Southpaw - no criticisms intended. Thanks Clark for your information. The point I am trying to make is, has this Eden Street lane ever been successfully challenged at PATAS? That is all. Therefore, until it is, then the arguments remain as they are!

Phillip
clark_kent
QUOTE (philmorgan @ Tue, 8 Jun 2010 - 21:15) *
Sorry Southpaw - no criticisms intended. Thanks Clark for your information. The point I am trying to make is, has this Eden Street lane ever been successfully challenged at PATAS? That is all. Therefore, until it is, then the arguments remain as they are!

Phillip



PATAS deal with the matters put before them I suspect most appeals have been on the grounds of incorrect signage, mitigation (got lost, didn't know what a bus lane was etc) all which are unlikely to win I'm sure if the wrong legislation argument was used PATAS would have cancelled,. There is of course the chance RBK know its wrong and just cancel before PATAS to those that have spotted the error.

Boomberger put his reps in a month ago so we should get some word soon and I've had no reply from the Council yet either.
philmorgan
Just to state that, having checked BusLanes.com, the signs to this contra flow are correct i.e. the blue rondel (diagram 953, correctly varied) and the two no entry signs; HOWEVER, the 953 sign is positioned wrongly in relation to the Bus Lane legend in that it should be placed at the commencement of the lane, indeed BEFORE the legend. The legend, too, is incorrect as it should have a cycle symbol and taxi added AND it should be at the commencement.

This incorrect positioning, therefore, is not a mere matter of nit-picking since one is already on the (incorrect) legend BEFORE one sees the blue rondel!

Finally, it also states somewhere that sufficient warning signs should be made well before the actual lane itself i.e. according to the speed limit i.e. at least 20 metres before. I have previously mentioned there is only ONE 20 mph sign as one enters the High Street from Portsmouth Road which is also unsatisfactory.

If we win, we must get together and arrange a publicity stunt with violin included: I propose playing "The Last Post" which would be a satirical pun on signposts! Let's face it, it's either that or pole-dancing!

Phillip

P.S.: Has anyone actually measured the letters and spacing of legend yet because they have to be a certain measurement, too! I do realise this would mean putting life and limb at risk! Also, the width of the lane should be at least 4 metres to allow a bus to overtake a cyclist!

P.P.S: Just returned from taking pics. What a mess! The width at its inception is 3.46 metres. No warning signs to pedestrians to look left and/or right! The Mini roundabout/give way sign is not facing oncoming traffic! After the roundabout going left to Primark direction, there is another 953 roundel sign but no bus lane legend! Should be one after each junction according to the rules! that is if they insist it is a road reserved for buses, cycle and taxis as the roundel states? Many of the road legends are faded including zig zags and particularly at the junction with Union Street. Bus stop placed just before mini roundabout is no longer in use - hardly surprising as it is so close to the roundabout! Have taken detailed angle shots of this junction and road markings. You don't even see the arrow on the road because it is painted on a slope downards! Come 'ere!

P.P.P.S.: According to RBK's Code of Conduct for Operation of CCTV Enforcement Cameras in RBK, Version 3.3 -December 2009, paragraph 2.5.12: Still Images: Still images must be provided in accordance with the relevant legislation. Notwithstanding this, authorities should include such still images on the PCN to show sufficient grounds for the PCN being issued." And so. this is yet another argument, if you deem it useful, anyone out there!
4eldred
Hello!

I've just got one of these in exactly the same place dry.gif

I'm a bit confused by it because I honestly don't remember driving in a bus lane at all but was in Kingston that day, so I'm going to pop along today and have a look at the video evidence and also take some photos of the bus lane.

I'll post them here to help anyone else!
philmorgan
QUOTE (4eldred @ Thu, 10 Jun 2010 - 09:17) *
Hello!

I've just got one of these in exactly the same place dry.gif

I'm a bit confused by it because I honestly don't remember driving in a bus lane at all but was in Kingston that day, so I'm going to pop along today and have a look at the video evidence and also take some photos of the bus lane.

I'll post them here to help anyone else!



Hello

Just make sure they have evidence of your vehicle actually passing through the signs and don't admit to anything! You can also ask for a copy and signed statement by the officer, log re the incident (alleged) and a statement - all in due course! Last night, I saw several go through!

I think the only way to contest this is to show that the lane is unenforceable as per all the positive help from ck etc. Good luck . I will also be going there to measure the road legend soon.

Phillip

P.S.: I would also refer you to the Case no: CO/4368/2009 at the High Court of 26.4.2010 between Oxford C.C. v Bus Lane Adjudicator and Shaun Duffy where the Judge makes a clear definition at para. 53 as regards the purpose of diagram 953, the blue rondel, and its meaning with regard to the legislation concerning a moving traffic contravention. Please refer to ck's previous post re the Acts concerned. To go further, a PCN should have been issued quoting the correct Act and code 33(e), therefore, in view of this particular sign.
4eldred
They are sending me photos which should be here tomorrow, if I want to see the video I have to make an appointment to do it next week.

4eldred
Thanks. I've had a look at the bus lane on google maps and it really is a bloody mess, wouldn't surprise me if I had missed the signs and driven down it. Getting photos from council tomorrow and I will pop into Kingston to take my own pictures of the wrong signage etc. With that and the fact they ahve used the wrong legislation to issue the PCN I am hoping it should be an easy one.

Just quickly, should there still be an end of bus lane sign at the end of the bus gate?

Thanks smile.gif
philmorgan
QUOTE (4eldred @ Thu, 10 Jun 2010 - 15:17) *
Thanks. I've had a look at the bus lane on google maps and it really is a bloody mess, wouldn't surprise me if I had missed the signs and driven down it. Getting photos from council tomorrow and I will pop into Kingston to take my own pictures of the wrong signage etc. With that and the fact they ahve used the wrong legislation to issue the PCN I am hoping it should be an easy one.

Just quickly, should there still be an end of bus lane sign at the end of the bus gate?

Thanks smile.gif


Hello

I do believe so, and according to clark kent aka g and m on another forum. Bus Lanes.com is an excellent site and so is Ticket fighter. They do all the hard work and research. RBK clearly state it ends at Brook Street - I have their own diagram and ck posted the Order - yet they start it again left of roundabout towards Primark with the new roundel! I have seen less troublesome signs in France, and that's saying something! I am not that bothered about the pedestrian signs (for crossings) as I may be wrong; however, to quote the Dept for Transport site re Bus priority - the way ahead: "On approach to a contra flow bus lane the sign to diagram 877 should be used to advise all other vehicles that there is a no entry to the bus lane ahead." Clearly, there is none! Yet another argument to use re no prior warning! According to the Dept for Transport's specimen layout, this would mean the diagram 877 advisory sign should be situated by the pub! But, as you know, there are so many other signs, too! Have just e-mailed RBK re this last argument, pointing out that the signage is wholly inadequate and non-compliant, therefore. Also, the 877 sign indicates with a black arrow, that traffic should go left or right! Of course, there is a no left hand turn into the Car Park! This whole situation is a mess! I am only quoting the government department! So, unless there is a variant for the 877 sign, maybe the no left hand turn is illegal, too!? That's the turn into Union Street as you approach eastwards from the High Street, just beyond the pub. I'm off now to practise "The Devil's Trill" by Tartini!

Phillip
philmorgan
Hello guys and dolls. I have spent a lot of time researching some directly relevant cases i.e. where the signage and road markings do not agree. I have found them from PenaltyChargeNotice.co.uk (which is a sister site of Bus Lanes.com).

This is what I did:

1. Type in "1048.4 road sign" and press enter.
2. Go to page 2 where there are two entries re PenaltyChargeNotice.co.uk and click on both of them for the following cases involving Harrow:

There are three cases which cover two contraventions as follows:

Case No 2070041654; Case No 2060500165; Case No 2070152950.

With regard to the last two, the same adjudicator heard both, I believe. Anyway, no matter which contravention occurred, the adjudicator held in all three that the lane was unenforceable because the road markings were incorrect to the sign used! Exactly our predicament, isn't it boyo! Sorry, I am Welsh.

So, I am about to send yet another e-mail to RBK citing these cases and spelling out that the Roundel used, ie. diagram 953 MUST be accompanied by road marking diagram 1048.4..
All three cases involve London Borough of Harrow on a road called "Camrose Avenue". Obviously, matters became a bit prickly for the Borough concerned - or even harrowing! Enough of these horticultural puns! What could I invent out of Eden!?

Phillip

Hello guys and dolls. I have spent a lot of time researching some directly relevant cases i.e. where the signage and road markings do not agree. I have found them from PenaltyChargeNotice.co.uk (which is a sister site of Bus Lanes.com).

This is what I did:

1. Type in "1048.4 road sign" and press enter.
2. Go to page 2 where there are two entries re PenaltyChargeNotice.co.uk and click on both of them for the following cases involving Harrow:

There are three cases which cover two contraventions as follows:

Case No 2070041654; Case No 2060500165; Case No 2070152950.

With regard to the last two, the same adjudicator heard both, I believe. Anyway, no matter which contravention occurred, the adjudicator held in all three that the lane was unenforceable because the road markings were incorrect to the sign used! Exactly our predicament, n'est pa!?

So, I am about to send yet another e-mail to RBK citing these cases and spelling out that the Roundel used, ie. diagram 953 MUST be accompanied by road marking diagram 1048.4..
All three cases involve London Borough of Harrow on a road called "Camrose Avenue". Obviously, matters became a bit prickly for the Borough concerned - or even harrowing! Enough of these horticultural puns! What could I invent out of Eden!?

Phillip
4eldred
Ah, excellent Phil, thanks so much for your hard work. I have to agree, the signage really is a mess there and I really drove down there without a clue it was a bus lane/gate. I've got my photos through and I am obv driving down the road, but I reckon with all the signage problems (especially the contra-flow signage being AFTER the start of the bus gate) and the fact the wrong legislation is stated on the PCN we should be fine.

Ironically, they have sent me a diagram of the junction which shows quite a few wrong things, like the placing of the contra-flow sign! Haha.

I quite enjoy a bit of a fight anyway biggrin.gif

WIll post the pics in a minute...
philmorgan
Hello mate! yea 1048.4 or 1048.1: does not matter. The sign and road legend do not tally!

Phillip

P.S.: This is much better than teaching, or even Bus King!

I like a fight too and enjoy the force of argument! have you read those cases?

Phillip
philmorgan
Yea basically:

1. No PRIOR warning (877)

2. Road legend is incompatible with road sign.

3. Road sign and legend are in wrong places.

4. Legislation

I note you got the same package as I did, though my PCN is dated 17th May, alleged contravention was 11th May. I was not driving at the time! I am the owner!

Oh well, if they carry on, I know some nice pubs in London!

Phillip

P.S.: Keep the receipts though for the drinks and send to RBK!
4eldred
philmorgan
Got all this, thanks. I bet someone might be out painting a new legend, soon. Good job we have the pictures!
4eldred
So there are none of these:









And the legend should be 1048.1 NOT 1048, right? (TSM Ch.5 para 16.11).


Am I getting this right?

Also in the photo I am following right behind a bus so I reckon that's how I missed all the signs!
philmorgan
Thanks. We have enough evidence to fight this. You would have missed the sign behind a bus and there was no prior warning sign in any case. Does the video evidence show you pass through the sIgn? This is important. Anyway, we are going to argue non-compliance re the signs and wording of the PCN. Best get your informal appeal in BEFORE 14 days, though.

I feel more confident after seeing those cases!

Phillip

P.S.: Their rondel is correct(953) BUT the 1048 legend Bus Lane" IS NOT! IT MUST HAVE THE CYCLE AS POSTED AND, INDEED, TAXI ADDED AS WELL!
4eldred
Thanks Phil, read those cases and feel much better biggrin.gif

I will also argue non-compliance with road markings and incorrect code on PCN.

I haven't actually seen the video as I need to make an appointment and go in, so I am not actually sure, but I think I will make the informal appeal on what we have and if it is rejected I will then go in and see the video or order a copy (for which I presume there is a charge).

Let's stay in touch about it all though!

I will send you my letter via private message when I have drafted it smile.gif
4eldred
Hi Phil,

I have sent you a copy of the letter I plan to send to our friends at Kingston.

Would be interested to hear your comments smile.gif

philmorgan
Hi

No problem. You can e-mail RBK if you need to do this fast. Just go to their website and go to Parking Appeals Section which has a pro forma and box in which you can do your stuff. Your case will then be put on hold. I have sent them at least five, since I am adding arguments as I increase my research. I think I have just about exhausted this now. (CK has written to the Councillor responsible so they have probably twigged we are "all for one"! in this.)

With regard to the incorrect code, you would be arguing that they should be enforcing under a different Act of 2003. They will just reply and state that it would be illegal for them to use 33(e) as it does not apply i.e. only to a moving traffic contravention. With respect to viewing the video, I wouldn't bother at this stage, at all, since this is not going to assist your arguments at the moment. (I wouldn't even bother getting into debates about whether it is a bus lane, bus gate or anything else - the Adjudicator can do that if need be - since the main strenghth of the argument lies in the inappropriate/insufficent signage, lack of warning, the proximity to the junction, the incorrect placement of the start of the road-marked "Bus Lane", its incorrect signage since this is supposed to be a contra flow, the incorrect placement of the 953 sign, the remnants of other markings by the junction - all of which is confusing. Finally, I should mention the case numbers re Harrow. They might reply by stating that these do not set a precedent but I should just stick to our guns and plod on. If this goes to PATAS, it will cost them a lot of time, money and you can require the operator to attend as a witness. They will not want all this, surely? (I note it's the same number as on mine!). The main thing is to articulate as many arguments as seem valid as possible so that they will have to respond very carefully if matters progress in terms of the enforcement process. As you have researched already - and I have found it fascinating and a challenge - many of these shared arguments are already fairly-advanced and have been used at PATAS. I do believe that I am quite new to this site and Bus Lane contraventions, but I was a teacher for 25 years even though I now busk for a living! Since gaining residence ("custody" is the incorrect term) of my 2 children in 1998, I have learned quite a bit about the law. Also, my best friend was a solicitor, though he hasn't had much to do with this one yet; but, he got off two parking PCN''s recently, merely by a postal application.

I don't really know how to operate around this site yet but can give you my e-mail which is: kingfill25@msn.com

Having said all that, I do believe that the more people who challenge this, the better. You can rest assured that, having been involved with much litigation for at least 14 years, most of it far more serious than this, I would not be challenging it unless there were merits involved re winning. Furthermore, this could - and should, in my view - develop into a story, which is not my main impulse for taking RBK on. Clearly, this particular road-layout is problematical and has historical problems associated with its enforcement. The trouble today is, most people do not have the time or inclination to fight their corner, apart from all of us on this site!

Finally, you can always add, change, retract or modify your arguments at any time throughout the process. As far as I am concerned, even if I lose at PATAS, I will continue the legal process by seeking a judicial review at the High Court. Let's hope RBK are accessing this site, which I expect they are!

Kind regards

Phillip
(Gem Busk)

P.S.: I have no time for all this "cloak and dagger" shenanigans!

P.P.S.: To see the wood for the trees, remember to articulate that the Council's failure to correctly sign the commencement of the lane according to statute is the direct cause of alleged contraventions at this particular location! But do not admit it! Had not read your last message but will do in a minute. Your letter is great my suggestions are purely matters of formality and I am sorry I am so arrogant!
philmorgan
With regard to the issues of signage and road legend, page 137 of the Traffic Sign Manual, Chapter 3, is self-explanatory! This is what Eden Street should look like! Please also note the text about adding taxi to the diagram 953 re bus gates. But, as I wrote last night, there is no need to bring that debate into the equation at the moment. (Page 136 also includes info about sign 960 at the other end of the lane - perhaps there should be two according to Dept for Transport) Anyway, forget this one for the moment!

Phillip

Enjoy the game!
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.