Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] Kidbrooke Park Road bus lane PCN
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - December 2013
Date of the NIP: - 43 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 45 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - Kidbrooke Park road
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 0
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - Driving back from Dover into London, and seems like I've got a PCN for driving through this notorious bus lane. I do not even recall doing it, possibly because I had turned left onto the road - even the 'contravention' pictures shown on the tfl website show the left indicator still on at the start of the bus lane, and that the signs are so poor!

Also, I only received the Enforement Notice - never received the first notice. I called tfl today to ask why I'd been sent thie EN without the initial notice, and they said I should make a representation.

Need guidance on what to do. I've never had a bus lane contravention before and am very careful about these things!

NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - No
Was there a valid reason for the NIP's late arrival? - No

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The first NIP to the Registered Keeper must arrive within 14 days unless there is a valid reason why that was not possible, for example a recent change of details.

    This link will take you to the advice provided by the RAC's legal team.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 15:20:24 +0000

I think this has been posted in the wrong place, even though I used the wizard. Sorry! Trying to rectify it now - help :s
Contact a moderator.
This needs moving to the council tickets forum
OK, here it is, and the OP needs to post up the PCN and provide some narrative on the circumstances. Maybe the OP can explain too, why he/she used the NIP Wizard, because a Penalty Charge Notice is not a Notice of Intended Prosecution.
Firstly - apologies again for the mixup - it isn't a NIP I have, but went through the initial questions and was directed to NIP Wizard. This is all new to me, not very good with technology, so I apologise.

Secondly, hope someone can help with this.

I received an Enforcement Notice on 13 Jan 2014 about going through a bus lane on Kidbrooke Road. I didn't even remember the occurrence, but having looked at google maps and the route I was taking, seems like I turned left onto the road and that's when I drove in the lane. From the picture 'evidence' that TfL upload online, my left indicator is on at the beginning of the lane, so I do think that was the case.

This is the first notice I've had asking for £165. I thought you get once before at half that amount, so I called TfL customer services who said a notice was sent on 09 Jan 2013. When I explained I haven't received this, they said I should make a representation online.

Having read the forums on Kidbrooke Road, I can see it is notorious for unfair fines.

I would really appreciate some guidance on what I should do next and what to include in the representation. Never had a bus lane fine before, so definitely would contest it.

Thank everyone in advance. Images attached.

Not sure where you get £165 from.

The EN is for £130, the same as the PCN, and if you don't pay within the defined 28 day period, it goes up to £195. You should have got a PCN through the post before this EN. If the PCN was sent on 9th Jan I think they are out-of-time, but even if not, are abusing the process, (no surprise there, then!!).

In addition, there is a period after issue of a PCN when you can pay the discount, so sending an EN four days later is highly irregular. In parking offences you could now argue "procedural impropriety", but as this is a bus lane PCN, you would have to appeal on something else, so if the list is all the statutory grounds for appeal, it would have to be "other mitigating circumstances". I am not familiar with the London regulations on bus lanes, but poor administration cannot be ignored.

In addition, as you have now lost the discount, you might as well appeal this and all the way to PATAS, and make them work for their money !
Thank you Incandescent and Hippocrates

(Got the values of the fine confused)

I've had a look at the case that Hippocrates has posted - the grounds on that case are bad weather and poor signage.

I don't have grounds for weather conditions being bad, so I will appeal on poor signage and the fact that I didn't receive the first notice (which was actually apparently 9th Dec Not 9th Jan - my apologies again).

I'll post a draft of what I plan to send - your corrections would be much appreciated!

Thanks again

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: 2120305842
Appellant: Mr
Authority: Transport for London
PCN: GT33280395
Contravention Date: 09 Feb 2012
Contravention Time: 19:47
Contravention Location: Kidbrooke Park Road
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Being in a bus lane
Decision Date: 07 Sep 2012
Adjudicator: Michael Nathan
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons: This is a reserved decision following a personal hearing on 28 August 2012. The allegation in this case is that the Appellant's vehicle was in a bus lane at Kidbrooke Park Road. Enforcement of a penalty charge for a contravention of this type may not be pursued if the bus lane concerned is not marked and signed in accordance with the legal requirements.

I have considered the submissions of both parties to the proceedings as to the issue of whether this bus lane is so marked. The Authority in its letter to the Appellant of 22 May 2011, in response to his request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, concedes at numbered paragraph 1 that the start of this bus lane was not marked in accordance with diagram 1010 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD), the Authority stating that this part of the bus lane did not have the "standard dimensions" given the layout of the area.

I am satisfied that the beginning of this bus lane should be marked in accordance with diagram 1010 of the TSRGD. There are no permitted variants of this marking. In the absence of any evidence that the Authority has obtained the Secretary of State's authorisation for the marking that is in place, I am not satisfied that this bus lane is marked in accordance with legal requirements. The penalty charge is therefore unenforceable. The appeal must accordingly be allowed.

I do not propose to comment on the relevance of the other matters raised by the Appellant in this appeal.
Bad Toad
I would definitely choose to go with a previous winning appeal in line with the one Hippocrates suggests above , he is after all, Board Illuminati.

However, not wishing to pee on your possible bonfire it seems to me that Kidbrooke adjudications (winning or otherwise) depend on a few other factors:

1/ Whether the adjudicator had sex the previous night.
2/ Which side of the bed they got out of.
3/ Whether Mars is in conjunction with Uranus.
4/ Which way the wind is blowing.

Listen to Hippocrates, in this instance, he is your friend.
QUOTE (Bad Toad @ Thu, 23 Jan 2014 - 12:21) *
I would definitely choose to go with a previous winning appeal in line with the one Hippocrates suggests above , he is after all, Board Illuminati.

However, not wishing to pee on your possible bonfire it seems to me that Kidbrooke adjudications (winning or otherwise) depend on a few other factors:

1/ Whether the adjudicator had sex the previous night. icon_redface.gif
2/ Which side of the bed they got out of. icon_hang.gif
3/ Whether Mars is in conjunction with Uranus. excl.gif
4/ Which way the wind is blowing. unsure.gif

Listen to Hippocrates, in this instance, he is your friend.

Or, as Nigel Wise might say, what day of the month it is! laugh.gif
Pretty much a copy paste from other cases, just included a statement about the dates at which I received the Enforcement Notice.

Will send if I get the blessings of Board Illuminati.

Thank you !!


Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to appeal against PCN no: xxxxxxx, dated: 13 Jan 2014.

My grounds for appeal are based on two issues.

Firstly, I received an Enforcement Notice on 15/01/14, for an alleged contravention that occurred on 01/12/13. This notification was received 45 days after the alleged contravention, and demands £130 in payment for an alleged contravention. I emphasise that I have not received any correspondence from TfL with regards to the above prior to this, and feel this demand of payment is wholly unreasonable.

Secondly, that for there to be a breach of the bus lane order or regulation the restrictions provided for in that bus lane order or regulation must be adequately and/or lawfully signed. Failure adequately and/or lawfully to sign the restrictions means that no breach of the order or regulation has taken place.

Transport for London’s highway engineers are provided with clear guidance on the provision of traffic signs within the Traffic Signs Manual, which confirm the correct signs and markings of a Bus Lane.

The Government Offices for the English Regions have published a document Traffic Management And Parking Guidance For London which states in section 2.99:

“Dilapidated, missing or incorrect traffic signs can only be seen as an indication that the relevant authorities or agencies have little concern for road users.”

My grounds for claiming that the 'Bus Lane' is not adequately and/or lawfully signed are as follows:

1) The start of the Bus Lane is incorrectly marked according to the Traffic Signs Manual
Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual states in paragraph 17.5
“The start of the lane is marked with a broken line to diagram 1010, the same width as the 1049 marking, and laid at a taper no sharper than 1:10. The lane should not start in such a position that the taper would extend across a side road junction.”

From the photograph attached (Kidbrooke_Rd.jpg) it is clear that the taper is greater than 1:10.

Also from other images sourced from Google(link below) it appears that the taper extends across part of the side road junction.

2) Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual states in paragraph 17.7
“Deflection arrows to diagram 1014 should be placed 15 m and 30 m upstream of the start of the taper. The arrows should be 4.5 m long for speed limits up to 40 mph, 6 m for 50 or 60 mph, and 9 m for 70 mph.”

From these images sourced from Google Maps link below, it can be clearly seen that only one upstream arrow is present. And even that arrow is not at the position required by the Traffic Signs Manual.
Kidbrooke Park RD, Greenwich, London SE3, United Kingdom - Google Maps

3) As per Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3, Section 15.9:

"Advance indication of a with-flow bus lane
is provided by the sign to diagram 958. Where the
speed limit is 20 mph or 30 mph, the sign should be
sited 30 m in advance of the lead-in taper formed by
the road marking to diagram 1010, with a minimum
clear visibility distance of 45 m. Where the speed limit
is 40 mph, the sign should be sited 45 m in advance
of the taper with a minimum clear visibility distance
of 60 m."

As can be clearly seen in the image below sourced from Google Maps, the 30 m advance traffic sign with a clear visibility distance of 45 m does not exist.
Kidbrooke Park RD, Greenwich, London SE3, United Kingdom - Google Maps

This is another failure to meet the requirements of the Traffic Signs Manual by TFL.

4) The start of the Bus Lane is incorrectly marked according to TSRGD:
TSRGD diagram 1010 is used to signify the start of Bus Lanes.
The sign used does not appear to be of the correct dimensions (1,000mm for each line separated by a gap of 1,000mm). The sign should be laid diagonally to indicate the start of the Bus Lane, it appears to be laid in an arc.
TSRGD indicates “Permitted Variants None”

I further claim that the enforcement process is not being conducted in a lawful manner. My reasons for this are as follows:

5) The PCN mentions the location of the alleged contravention as "Kidbrooke Park Road" along with "Camera Operator Number RNC/097". There are a number of bus lanes on this road and it is therefore necessary for TFL to state which one is involved in the alleged contravention in order to discharge your statutory obligations. You have not done so.

It is not appropriate for TFL to rely on me interpreting your images and Camera Numbers and infering from them the location in which I am alleged to have committed a contravention. Any event it is TFL's obligation to "state" certain matters and this means "provide in words". You have not done so.

Under paragraph 3 (a) of S4 of the London Local Authorities Act 1996 a PCN is required to state "the grounds on which the council believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle". This PCN does not do so. Part of the grounds must by definition be to accurately describe the location in which the alleged contravention occurred.

Notwithstanding the above, the balance of this appeal is based on my inference as to the location and the provision of my arguments is not to be taken as a waiver or estoppel of my right to amend my representations should TFL seek to argue that the location I have inferred is in fact incorrect.

6)The pictures of the alleged contravention supplied on the PCN do not conform to The Bus Lane Enforcement Camera Handbook published by the Home Office.
This states as an “operational requirement” in item 5.1.2 that:
“Every image of the offence shall show, in addition to the offending vehicle, in the order given: the date in days, month, and year, the time in hours, minutes, and seconds, the day of the week, location and frame count from the beginning of the recording. The data shall be imprinted on the image or included in the violation record at the time the offence is recorded.”
The images do not show all the required data and do not show it in the order given.
Only “approved devices” can be used for CCTV enforcement. The failure to show the correct information and in the correct order must mean that the device used was not approved and therefore not lawful and the images are inadmissible to show any contravention or alleged contravention. The failure of the PCN to show lawful images renders it void and therefore there is no evidence of a breach of the bus lane order or regulation. TFL stating in the PCN that the said device was an "approved device" seems to be an incorrect representation of facts.

7) Despite this particular road in question, Kidbrooke Park Rd coming up as one of the Top 10 most confusing TFL roads up for review, as can be seen from websites like in London Motorists Action Group and in the BBC News

BBC brought out this story on 30th July 2008. Why hasn't any visible action been taken in this regard almost 2 years after the story was reported on BBC that TFL is reviewing this road amongst others ?

Should these representations be rejected then please treat this as a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the following documents:

a) A copy of the bus lane order or regulation giving effect to the Bus Lane.

b) A copy of the Safety Audit for this road layout.

c) A copy of the engineer’s scale diagrams showing the layout of this Bus Lane, the road markings and the signage (including warnings of camera enforcement).

d) Copies of any approvals of deviations of signage from TSRGD.

e) Logs of maintenance visits verifying existence and condition of the signs.

f) Certification of type approval of the CCTV device.

g) A copy of the Camera Enforcement logbook recording the alleged contravention.

h) Copies of the still images showing all the required information in the correct order.

i) The number of PCNs issued by TFL in respect of this location.

j) The number of PCNs issued by TFL in respect of this location and cancelled by you following informal challenges.

k)The number of PCNs issued by TFL in respect of this location and cancelled by you following formal appeal to you.

l) The number of PCNs issued by TFL in respect of this location and cancelled following appeal to a PATAS adjudicator.

m)The number of PCNs issued by TFL in respect of this location and not pursued by you for any other reason.

n) The average monthly penalty revenue raised by TFL in respect of this location (north and south-bound and on both sides of the railway bridge). [Note that the aerial photo shows the pinch-point bus lanes on the south side of the bridge only.]

o) The total penalty revenue raised by TFL at this location since 31-07-2008 when this road has been reported by BBC to be up for review.

p) Number of compaints received with respect to this location from Motorists, both formal and informal and all records of action taken if any.

Please note that I am copying myself in this email to keep a record of date and time at which my appeal was sent to TFL.

Expecting a fair consideration
Thanking you
I would personally request the items "in order to fully prepare for adjudication" rather than as a Freedom of Information request
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 © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.