Hi there all, just registered, in need of some advice.

Please see attached PCN. I have already represented stating that the original 2 pictures did not provide any evidence of me being in a bus lane. In these 2 original pictures, you could not see the bus lane beneath the car, or any signs to indicate that this stretch of road is a bus lane. They have replied stating that the PCN still stands, and they've provided 6 new pictures which are even less clear. You can barely recognise the car (Silver Yaris mk1, 2 cars behind the bus).

Also, the council state that I 'gained an advantage by jumping the queue'. How petty is this notion? Admittedly, I trundled past a few cars, but that wasn't the reason why I was in the bus lane. It was simply because I was turning right on a road I'd never been down, and was positioning myself early in preparation for the turn. I certainly didn't expect to see a small strip of offside bus lane, which seemingly didn't need to be there! As you can see; the cars in front and behind did the same thing, probably with the same idea.

Can I dispute this on the grounds of any the following? ...

1. Lack of evidence (unclear/inconclusive pictures).
2. That the bus lane is uneccessary.
3. That my monoever was inconsequential.

Thanks, Bob



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Post up the original PCN, and your representation. Get pictures of all signage: poles and road legends And e-mail them for the TMO, plus plans for the said location. Do not be fooled that this is an FOI request: it isn't. Tell them nicely you require it and fast! Plus the plans and ask them whether there was any DfT authorisation. Their orders may be on the web?

You can't be arguing the lane is unnecessary if there is an order - and there will be one, as there has to be one! The only way out of this is on the paperwork IMO. So, post everything up asap, please.

Also, can you Google us to the exact location?

Cheers for the reply Scaramouche.


Google the following for the location - 6 Shepherds Bush Road, Hammersmith W6


I'll post a scan of the original PCN when I get home later. Thanks

No problemo. Suggest you start your journey of appeal here: ticketfighter.co.uk

I see there is this, but does it apply to the road?: http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Images/58_PublicNot...cm21-129941.pdf

Best to e-mail them as I think this applies to a different stretch of road: all I could get from the net.

Check out the sign as I think the glaziers have been in

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sour...=12,167.36,,1,5

This is how it should look

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/5/made

What the hell's that!? DfT glaziers, must be. Get on to them fast, OP. Can't see a warning sign before of this lane, save for the normal lane well before?

I noticed this from the ticketfighter checklist. Looks very promising to me.










Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Problem with the grounds:

From the 1996 LLA Act:

(4)The grounds referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above are—

(a)where the penalty charge notice was served pursuant to the said section 4 or, where an enforcement notice was served, that the recipient—

(i)never was the owner of the vehicle in question;

(ii)had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or

(iii)became its owner after that date;

(b)that there was no breach of an order or regulations of the type described in subsection (2) of the said section 4;

©that at the time the alleged breach of such order or regulations took place the recipient was not in charge of the vehicle.

From the amended Act 2000:

SCHEDULE 2 Amendments to section 4 (Penalty charge notices under Part II) of and Schedule 1 (Enforcement notices, etc., under Part II (Bus lanes) of this Act) to the London Local Authorities Act 1996

1In subsection (2) of section 4, after “with respect to a vehicle” the words “, by the owner of the vehicle,” are inserted.

2In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1—

(a)in sub-paragraph (1)(a) the words “or paragraph 4(1) below” are left out;

(b)at the end of sub-paragraph (b) the word “and” is left out;

©sub-paragraph (1)© is left out;

(d)at the end of sub-paragraph (i) the word “or” is left out;

(e)paragraph (ii) is left out.

3In paragraph 2 of Schedule 1—

(a)in the heading the words “penalty charge notice or” are left out;

(b)in sub-paragraph (1) the words “a penalty charge notice has been served under section 4 (Penalty charge notices under Part II) of this Act, or paragraph 4(1) below or a person on whom” are left out;

©in sub-paragraph (3) the words “penalty charge notice or” are left out;

(d)in sub-paragraph (4)(a) the words from the beginning to “enforcement notice was served” are left out;

(e)after sub-paragraph (4)(b) insert “; or”;

(f)the following sub-paragraph is substituted for sub-paragraph (4)©—

“©that at the time the alleged breach of such order or regulations took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner.”;

(g)sub-paragraphs (7), (8) and (9) are left out.

4In sub-paragraphs 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b) of Schedule 1 the words “penalty charge notice or” are left out.

5In sub-paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 the words “a penalty charge notice or” where they appear the first time are replaced by the word “an”.

6Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 is left out.

7In paragraph 8 of Schedule 1—

(a)in sub-paragraph (1) the words “a penalty charge notice or” are replaced by the word “an”;

(b)sub-paragraph (2) is left out.

8In paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 the words “a penalty charge notice or” are replaced by the word “an”.

Therefore, to my understanding the grounds should be these:


(a)where the penalty charge notice was served pursuant to the said section 4 or, where an enforcement notice was served, that the recipient—

(i)never was the owner of the vehicle in question;

(ii)had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or

(iii)became its owner after that date;

(b)that there was no breach of an order or regulations of the type described in subsection (2) of the said section 4;

“©that at the time the alleged breach of such order or regulations took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner.”;

Therefore, this renders the PCN non-compliant since it fetters your options to defend. I am unhappy about the statement about the enforcement notice, too, but will need to think about that: "was served"! Also, see this other link recently started to view a more compliant PCN: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=56415&hl=

OP, we need to see the other side of the PCN and all docs. Get cracking on the other stuff as these things are not easy.

Hello Bob

I have exactly the same ticket. Just received on 4/11/2010. I am so annoyed, you want to turn right at a HUGE roundabout, essentially to head out to the M4 which is a big road, so you get into the right hand lane and what --- it turns into a bus lane for the length and half of a bus ... just so they can ticket you and thieve 60 or 120 quid off you.

Are there any grounds to appeal or do we just have to give into this mugging? I think sometimes I would rather be mugged, it seems more honest! Absolute b@£$%%! And as for that kind offer of "if you pay now with no fuss we halve it" --- take your effing blackmail and shove it up your ba*k@£$%. Theiving b@£$%^s!

Here is my ticket. Please let me know how I can fight this! If there is any way, I will take it.

I don't know how to put an image on - but essentially my ticket looks exactly the same as yours..... (in fact I think I can put the image - see if it works, I guess)

Hello Scaramouche

I hadn't seen your reply before I posted (it took me that long to organise the scanning/posting of the PCN image :-) ) but there is nothing much on the backside of my notice just simply telling you how to pay and the address but I will scan it and attach it if I can (mine is ripped - because the bottom part is what you send back if you do pay) but there is nothing essential missing.

chjones: please start your own thread but stay in touch.


bob: need all the stuff.

Thank you Scaramouche I will do. I have no idea why this sort of thing makes my blood boil, so much!

Because, as my son said last night: "Nobody watches the watchers!" I got him off one last May! Cheers!

I've posted the back of the sheet. There was only 1 piece of paper to my suprise. It doesn't show a great deal, just my reply and ways to pay.

What do you mean by other stuff? Am I not just going to point out that the bus lane was not adequately sign-posted? And possibly highlight the lack of defendant options?

TMO, pics of signs and signage etc. plans.

I will re-iterate what has been said before. This is not a single bus-lane that switches from one side of the road to the other. It is TWO separate bus lanes. There have been cases where people have received two PCNs when going from one stretch of bus lane to the other, the most recent being this one : PCN CCTV Motorcycle in a bus lane - Hammersmith - no reg no

I have to admit that we (Pepipooers) haven't thought to check the validity of the bus lane sign before (to my knowledge). I suspect H&F have DfT approval for the variance, but it won't hurt to ask DfT if authorisation has been sought and given.

What do you mean here?

If you go back to my previous post and follow both links

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...st&p=525911


look carefully at the sign on the street, now compare it to the sign contained within the 'traffic sign regulation general direction' (the other link). You will notice there is an extra window on the bus.

Prescribed signs as those contained within the TSRGCD can only be erected. Any other variation and EA will need DfT authorisation. 

Its more fundamental than that, surely?

Where in the TSRGD is there a variation allowing for the bus lane tapered start to be on the right rather than the left?
Or did I miss it?

When, and if, the OP obtains the TMO, I am sure we will all be fascinated. Or should I say, if an when, because I have been looking too much at that lane!

The PCN states:

DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE

...........If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28-day period, an Enforcement notice may be served etc. etc.


However, I seem to recall that the legislation only allows an Enforcement Notice to be issued consequent upon a 2-part (not 1-part) test:

1. — (1) Where—
(a) a penalty charge notice has been served with respect to a vehicle under section 4 (Penalty charge notices under Part II) of this Act or paragraph 4 (1) below; and
(b) the period of 28 days for payment of the penalty charge has expired without that charge being paid; and
© representations have not been made in respect of that penalty charge notice under paragraph 2 below;

Can't see © on the PCN.

HCA

4 Penalty charge notices under Part II

(1)Where a council, on the basis of information provided by the use of a prescribed device, has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable under this Part of this Act with respect to a vehicle, they may serve a penalty charge notice on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle.

(2)For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a penalty charge is payable to a borough council with respect to a vehicle if the person in charge of the vehicle acts in contravention of or fails to comply with an order under section 6 or 9 or regulations under section 12 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in so far as provision is made thereby for the reservation of all or part of a carriageway of a road as a bus lane.

(3)A penalty charge notice under this Part of this Act must state—

(a)the grounds on which the council believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

(b)the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

©that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(d)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;

(e)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an enforcement notice may be served by the council on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;

(f)the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent;

*************************************************

and this, from PATAS site: http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk...enforcement.htm

*************************************************

Unfortunately, save for PATAS, the legislation is silent with regard to making informal representations, or the "right" to do so. As is stated, formal representations may only be made after the EN is served i.e. after the 28 day period beginning with the date of notice of the PCN. Let's hope they mess up, as RBK have done on the Eden Street thread, since their EN is riddled with errors! For your interest, and views: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...100#entry523292

Ok, so far we have -

1. Lack of pre-warning sign.
2. Non-compliant sign, which features an additonal bus window.
3. Restricted options for defence.

4. Possible TMO result. I sent my TMO request to H&F and they forwarded it to the highways department. Is this correct?


Thanks again

4. ! Yes. When it arrives, someone will give you instructions as to how to upload it onto the forum, and then onto this thread.

My point is that the PCN does not comply because it does not state that an enforcement notice cannot be served if reps have been made. Whether the PCN states this elsewhere I don't know but considering that this is page 1 with a big sign saying Do Not Ignore then this segment carries weight in the construction of the PCN, and the necessary information's not there, is it?


HCA

I see; but, the EA is not bound, according to LLA Act 1996, to consider any representations before an EN is served, as PATAS states. Most EA's do consider informal reps., though they are not legally obliged to do so, and then reset the discount period from the date of acknowledgement and/or rejection. In Kingston recently, they have taken months even to respond at the initial stage.

The PCN does not need to state that "an enforcement notice cannot be served if reps have been made" according to the above, in my view.

Have faith: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-n...00252-27644419/

Attached TMO just received from H&F ...

By the way, this PCN is in my girlfriend's name, but I was actually driving. Is that worth mentioning, or will it not make the slightest difference?

I assume she must be the registered keeper of the vehicle, so she is liable to pay the penalty charge, not you. It would only make a difference if she could prove that you took the vehicle without her consent. Forget it!

Hi Scaramouche, could you clarify this one please. I'm nearly ready to post my reply.

Which option have they denied or restricted?

Just check with the PCN.

1. The letter states: "If you do not pay, we will send an Enforcement Notice to the keeper"

The law states: From part II, Bus Lanes, para 4(e)

that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an enforcement notice may be served by the council on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;

This is a complete misstatement of the law.

2. The PCN is flawed because it is missing the ground re there was no breach of an order or regulation.

Also, it states this on page 1: "The Council may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the enforcement was served." IMO, this heavily implies they are intending to send one.

The law states from Schedule , para 1.:

(1)Where—

(a)a penalty charge notice has been served with respect to a vehicle under section 4 (Penalty charge notices under Part II) of this Act or paragraph 4 (1) below; and

(b)the period of 28 days for payment of the penalty charge has expired without that charge being paid; and

©representations have not been made in respect of that penalty charge notice under paragraph 2 below;

the council concerned may serve a notice (in this Schedule referred to as an “enforcement notice”)—

(i)on the person who appears to them to have been the owner of the vehicle when the conduct giving rise to the service of the penalty charge is alleged to have taken place; or

(ii)where the penalty charge notice has been served under paragraph 4 (1) below on the person on whom that notice was served.

3. If you care to read the couple of paragraphs in the letter re bus lanes and signs, they have shot themselves in the foot as they have not mentioned warning signs,

Tactic: forget the order and DO NOT MENTION THAT YOU HAVE IT IN ANY CORRESPONDENCE!

Have a nice day H&F:

Dear Sir or Madam

I do hereby make this FOIR re all bus lanes in the Borough, and one specific one in particular, and would appreciate a reply by e-mail within the 20 working day period.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully


1. How many Penalty Charge Notices with the current wording have been issued throughout the whole Borough?

2. How much revenue has been collected from the same?

3. How many have been successfully challenged and at what stage?

4. How many have reached PATAS and, if applicable, what are their reference numbers and results?

5. How many PCN's have been issued re Shepherds Bush Road, Southbound Offside and any other lane(s) in this road?

6. How much revenue has been collected from 5?

7. How many PCN's have been successfully challenged re 5?

Just finally received a reply to my representation which I sent off 7-8 weeks ago.

H&F have rejected my call my cancel their PCN. Please see their letter attached.

They are now demanding £120. Should this not still at least be £60? I have appealed twice, but within the 14 days.

Is it worth a PATAS appeal?

In the first page of the letter, it assumes you are the registered keeper. Wait for the Enforcement Notice as the penalty is now £120 in any case. If they reject your response to that, then it's PATAS time.

Their letter does not fully address your issues, which is yet another argument to be used. They are not listening.

Their response :

1. How many Penalty Charge Notices with the current wording have been issued throughout the whole Borough?

14,483 bus lane PCNs have been issued since 01/01/2007

2. How much revenue has been collected from the same?

£915,714.01 has been collected from bus lane PCNs issued since 01/01/2007

3. How many have been successfully challenged and at what stage?

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this information is subject to a Refusal Notice.

I can confirm that we hold information falling within the description specified in your request. However, we estimate that the cost of complying with your request would exceed the appropriate limit. S.12 of the Act recognises that a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if the process of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit - as set by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees Charges) Regulations 2004 this is 18 hours. For requests which will exceed 18 hours to administer, the authority may refuse the request or levy a charge at £25 per hour for staff time.

The administration costs include:

(a) determining whether it holds the information,
(b) locating the information, or a document which may contain the information,
© retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the information, and
(d) extracting the information from a document containing it.

In order to determine which cases had been successfully challenged and at what stage we would need to read the records of approximately 1,202 cases to determine the reason why they were closed or cancelled. We would need to extract the numbers of those which were subject to a successful challenge and the stage at which this took place. It would take about 3 minutes to check each case and we therefore estimate a total of just over 60 hours to provide the information.

4. How many have reached PATAS and, if applicable, what are their reference numbers and results?

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this information is subject to a Refusal Notice.

I can confirm that we hold information falling within the description specified in your request. However, we estimate that the cost of complying with your request would exceed the appropriate limit. S.12 of the Act recognises that a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if the process of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit - as set by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees Charges) Regulations 2004 this is 18 hours. For requests which will exceed 18 hours to administer, the authority may refuse the request or levy a charge at £25 per hour for staff time.

The administration costs include:

(a) determining whether it holds the information,
(b) locating the information, or a document which may contain the information,
© retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the information, and
(d) extracting the information from a document containing it.

In order to provide the reference numbers for those cases that have reached PATAS we would need to read the record of approximately 6, 789 appeal cases to identify those relating to bus lane appeals. It would take about 1 minute to check each case and we therefore estimate a total of just over 113 hours to provide the information.

Some statistical information relating to bus lane appeals is published on PATAS’ web site and can be access using the following link:

http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/annualreports.htm

5. How many PCN's have been issued re Shepherds Bush Road, Southbound Offside and any other lane(s) in this road?

11,050 PCNs have been issued since 01/01/2007

Shepherds Bush Road, Northbound - None

Shepherds Bush Road, Southbound - 286 PCNs have been issued since 01/01/2007

6. How much revenue has been collected from 5?

£604,930.39 has been collected for PCNs issued in the Shepherds Bush Road, Southbound Offside bus lane since Jan 2007
£10,780 has been collected for PCNs issued in the Shepherds Bush Road, Southbound bus lane since Jan 2007

7. How many PCN's have been successfully challenged re 5?

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this information is subject to a Refusal Notice.

I can confirm that we hold information falling within the description specified in your request. However, we estimate that the cost of complying with your request would exceed the appropriate limit. S.12 of the Act recognises that a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if the process of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit - as set by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees Charges) Regulations 2004 this is 18 hours. For requests which will exceed 18 hours to administer, the authority may refuse the request or levy a charge at £25 per hour for staff time.

The administration costs include:

(a) determining whether it holds the information,
(b) locating the information, or a document which may contain the information,
© retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the information, and
(d) extracting the information from a document containing it.

In order to provide this information we would need to read the records of approximately 845 cases to determine the reason why they were closed or cancelled and extract the numbers of those which were subject to a successful challenge. It would take about 3 minutes to check each case and we therefore estimate that it would take 60 hours to provide the information.

If you are dissatisfied in any way you may write to the Information Manager, Information Management Team, 3rd Floor, The Smart Space, Hammersmith Town Hall, London W6 9JU

Once you have exhausted the internal review procedure you may appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF, Telephone: 01625 545 700, http://www.ico.gov.uk


Yours sincerely




Senior Information Management Officer
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
Information Management Team/Finance & Corporate Services
3rd Floor, The Smart Space, Hammersmith Town Hall
King Street
London W6 9JU
DL: 020 8753 2455

www.lbhf.gov.uk

Director of Finance & Corporate Services: Jane West

Thanks for replies Scaramouche.


This says it all really. It shows that this small stretch of bus lane does not have adequate warning. This must be the most notorious bus lane for its size in the UK.


1. How many times can you represent/argue your case with the council before you are forced to make a PATAS appeal? They dont seem to make this clear.

2. Would my appeal be based again on inadequate warning signage (as there is one missing 30-40m in advance of the start), and the lack of response to this point? Also that the PCN figures support this? Also that their response makes an assumption about the registered keeper, although by not challeging that before I have almost admitted to being the vehicle's keeper?

Bob

From PATAS website re appeals process: http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk...enforcement.htm

We just resubmit everything and hope for some more errors on their EN.

Will chase up their replies re PATAS cases: bolloxissimo.

I have recived an enforcement notice. Please see attached and help spot any errors or oversights.

Regards, Bob

I am reading the EN as you view! I have seen many posts on this forum which criticise the tick one ground option, and am in the process of checking. More to follow.

OK. I have just reread the thread and will put something together, Bob. Can you just confirm who exactly is the registered keeper?

Just sent to DfT:

Dear Miss

I write simply to ask whether there has been any DfT authorisation for this offside lane the details of which are:

off-side lane, from a point 57.80
metres south of the northern
boundary of Brook House, Nos.
229 - 243 Shepherd's Bush
Road to a point 12.80 metres
south of the southern boundary
of Brook House, Nos. 229 - 243
Shepherd's Bush Road .

I also ask whether any special authorisation has been given for:

1. A sign to diagram 958, with the images reversed and 5 windows in the bus.

2. The absence of a sign to diagram 959 at the inception of this lane.

3. The apparent absence of the legend to diagram 1048 for the whole of the lane preceding the offside lane.

4. The absence of a sign to diagram 964 re the end of the onside bus lane.

I attach the following link for your convenience:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sour...=12,167.36,,1,5

Thank you

Yours

Here is a draft. Will edit/clean up later in terms of highlights etc and would welcome any constructive comments, but think it encapsulates most points on the thread.


Dear Sirs

I acknowledge receipt of the Enforcement Notice re PCN................................ and do refer to all correspondence between us concerning this protracted matter. I enclose the former document with this letter as my formal challenge on the following grounds:

1. The PCN includes grounds which do not tally with those contained in the EN, thereby rendering it non-compliant, since it fetters my options to defend. The council has chosen to include the grounds on the PCN i.e. the ones it has. Indeed, it further states: "The Enforcement Notice will allow formal representations on the following three grounds."

Also, it states this on page 1: "The Council may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with date on which the enforcement was served." In my opinion, this heavily implies clear intent to send one.

The law states from Schedule , para 1.:

(1)Where—

(a)a penalty charge notice has been served with respect to a vehicle under section 4 (Penalty charge notices under Part II) of this Act or paragraph 4 (1) below; and

(b)the period of 28 days for payment of the penalty charge has expired without that charge being paid; and

©representations have not been made in respect of that penalty charge notice under paragraph 2 below;

the council concerned may serve a notice (in this Schedule referred to as an “enforcement notice”)—

(i)on the person who appears to them to have been the owner of the vehicle when the conduct giving rise to the service of the penalty charge is alleged to have taken place; or

(ii)where the penalty charge notice has been served under paragraph 4 (1) below on the person on whom that notice was served.

2. Similarly, the EN includes more grounds but instructs to tick just one box - "Please select one by ticking the box" - which also fetters my options to provide a proper defence. Also, the grounds are inadequately expressed as per the LLAAct 2000 amendment, which should be as follows:

(a)where the penalty charge notice was served pursuant to the said section 4 or, where an enforcement notice was served, that the recipient—

(i)never was the owner of the vehicle in question;

(ii)had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or

(iii)became its owner after that date;

(b)that there was no breach of an order or regulations of the type described in subsection (2) of the said section 4;

“©that at the time the alleged breach of such order or regulations took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner.”

3. The letter to me dated 4th November contains similar procedural impropriety as follows: "If you do not pay, we will send an Enforcement Notice to the keeper"

The law states: From part II, Bus Lanes, para 4(e)

that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an enforcement notice may be served by the council on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;

This is a complete misrepresentation of the law.

4. The same letter also states that there are two bus lanes in this part of Shepherds Bush Road; however, if this is the case, there should be a sign to diagram 964 marking the end of the onside lane before the offside lane commences. There is none.

5. The letter states (segue) that on the approach to Hammersmith Broadway, the bus lane (sic) switches to the offside lane. This wholly contradicts the statement in 4 above, is unacceptable in terms of this matter and clearly corroborates the fact that many motorists are totally confused by this road arrangement.

6. The signage is inadequate and does not comply with the law i.e. TSRGD 2002. I have already mentioned the sign to diagram 964 issue; however there are, apparently, not enough legends to diagram 1048 re the onside lane, there is no sign to diagram 959 at the start of the offside lane and, last but not least, the positioning of the sign to diagram 958 is wholly inadequate in terms of warning motorists of the offside lane restriction: it is far too close to the restriction and I do note that the road legend to diagram 1049, solid white line, stops at the bus stop, creating further confusion. Moreover, the images are reversed to appear on the right and the image of the bus is non-compliant as it has an extra, 5th window.

Therefore, in view of the above, I require that the said Notices be cancelled forthwith, and with immediate effect. Should the Council fail to do so, I shall not hesitate to escalate to PATAS, which would be entirely the Council's responsibity, and shall be seeking costs.

Yours faithfully

@ HCA and Scaramouche.

Re posts 21,21,25 and 26.

HCA refer to the amendments to the act posted by scara in post#9. The reference to reps having been made has been removed.

Scara. Fortunately there is still a right to make an informal challenge, I believe.

Sch 1 para 2 - amendment. Not sure what they intended by removing the words 'penalty charge notice or' from the heading. however, as sub paras (1) and (3) survived intact then I read that as a right to informally challenge?

On the inadequate grounds list. I haven't checked but fairly sure no requirement to actually list those on PCN. However, since they choose to I agree they most certainly must get it right by listing all 5.

-

The second two red bits are those that I noted. I have not checked for others that may no longer be as quoted. You may wish to.

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

Thanks. It's a nightmare, this LLA Acts legislation. Would have thought, as EN is now served, OP might as well send something. I can do no better than I have done by putting my thoughts together as I have. Tomorrow, could edit and tidy up. Would be a great shame if DfT have authorised this absolutely crazy lane. But still arguable.

Actually more now.

Main body original para 4 (3) (g)

(g)the effect of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act.

the ''effect'' is that a recipient of a PCN may make represenations! (to a PCN as well) H&F fail to tell you this don't they? In which case they fail to satisfy the above?

This was amended in 2000 Act. As far as I understand, council only obliged to consider reps. after Enforcement Notice served. Sleep time.

Registered keeper is my partner. I was driving at the time of the 'contravention'.

Cheers for top replies.