Motorcycle in bus lane, confusing sign

Senior members will confirm if this is still a valid argument in May 2024 or not.

While councils have made some attempts to get their house in order, we still regularly use these same grounds to this day. We haven't lost a single London council bus lane PCN case since we won your case against Ealing in October 2022; how time flies!

@Peter222 please follow the guidance from Hippocrates, he's a bus lane veteran.

2240270679: in complete agreement for future reference.

To: Hammersmith and Fulham Council

Re PCN:

I make these formal representations  against the Enforcement Notice on the following grounds

1.  I am in possession of the special DFT authorisation for this offside bus lane and it is clear that you have departed from the agreed plan of the layout of the signage, in particular the 958 sign.

2.  Notwithstanding that there is the said authorisation, I refer you to this extract from a High Court decision:
R(Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010]EWHC 894 (Admin) Mr Justice Beatson confirmed at para. 65:
Para 65.  The Defendant's submission that the fact that signs are prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient for securing adequate information as to the effect of an order is made available to road users is clearly correct. If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed;
I argue, therefore, that your departure from the DFT authorised plan by placing the 958 sign AFTER the taper line substantially exacerbates your problem concerning enforcement. In any event, most of the signage in place directly contravenes the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter Three in terms of their very meaning. Furthermore, there is a plethora of signage and, indeed, placed in positions which again contradict the said TSM. I rely upon case no: 2240270679 in this regard. I also say that you have added extra signage which is non-compliant with TSRGD 2016.

3. I put you to strict proof that the camera at the said location has the correct VCA approval.

4. The Enforcement  Notice limits to one ground of representations.

5.  Service and delivery are two entirely different concepts and “delivery” is not mentioned in the Act. The Enforcement Notice substantially departs from the statutory scheme in terms of 4 and 5.

In light of the above, I request that you cancel the PCN and EN forthwith.

Signed

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

Yesterday's outcome:

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/hammersmith-and-fulham-being-in-a-bus-lane-shepherds-bush-rd-southbound-offside-/msg34058/#msg34058

2240270679: in complete agreement for future reference.

Reviewed and refused unfortunately.  However, appeal for this case just registered.

Job done. 2240418124. Good to meet you, sir.

Thanks entirely to the expertise, knowledge and generosity of Hippocrates, my appeal was allowed. He knew the law better than the adjudicator, who had to look it up!

Lovely to meet you too.

Thanks again Hippocrates, my hero of the moment!
Peter

Decision attached

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thanks entirely to the expertise, knowledge and generosity of Hippocrates, my appeal was allowed. He knew the law better than the adjudicator, who had to look it up!
 

That's why I wasn't mentioned!   

See you in Kos mate. There is a spare room going in June. Serious.

As for the DFT authorisation: I am playing the right notes but not necessarily in the right order! He got the point.  Mucking about with 959B signs and/or 958 signs and their meaning and positions. Quite ridiculous. This authorisation is a complete travesty of what TSM Chapter Three states.

The Appellant then sent another email to the same effect on 25 October 2024. This was clearly not
within the prescribed time period to which the Enforcement Authority were entitled and thus of itself
could not be relied upon

Really?  25, 28, 29. In any event, the requirement to attend was combined with the submissions which were filed on 19th October from Kos.

Outcome.

Thanks entirely to the expertise, knowledge and generosity of Hippocrates, my appeal was allowed. He knew the law better than the adjudicator, who had to look it up!

Lovely to meet you too.

Thanks again Hippocrates, my hero of the moment!
Peter

Decision attached

(Attachment Link)

Case Details
Case reference   2240418124
Appellant   Peter Webber
Authority   London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
VRM   FY64AAU
PCN Details
PCN   HZ82020359
Contravention date   15 Apr 2024
Contravention time   17:19:00
Contravention location   Shepherds Bush Road Southbound
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Being in a bus lane
Referral date   -
Decision Date   29 Oct 2024
Adjudicator   Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.

Reasons   
A contravention can occur if a vehicle is in a bus lane during operational hours, other than as permitted or exempted.


The Enforcement Authority’s case is based on closed-circuit television (cctv) images.


Paragraph 7(6) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities Act 1996 provides that nothing in sub-paragraph (1) or (4) [record produced by a prescribed device, certification etc] above makes a document admissible as evidence in proceedings under paragraph 6 above [Adjudication by Traffic Adjudicator] unless a copy of it has not less than 7 days before the hearing, been served on the appellant; and nothing in those paragraphs makes a document admissible as evidence of anything other than the matters shown on a record produced by a prescribed device if that person, not less than three days before the hearing or within such further time as the traffic adjudicator may in special circumstances allow, serves a notice on the council requiring attendance at the hearing or trial of the person who signed the document.


In this case the Appellant submits that he served such notice on the Enforcement Authority by email on 19 October 2024. The Appellant says that he received an automated reply to the effect that it could not be delivered, although this does not appear to have been produced.


The Appellant then sent another email to the same effect on 25 October 2024. This was clearly not within the prescribed time period to which the Enforcement Authority were entitled and thus of itself could not be relied upon.


However, the response form the Duty Parking Services Officer states:

Please be advised that it would be up to the adjudicator to decide whether they would want the council to attend the hearing.


This is not a correct statement of the law and it appears clear that the Enforcement Authority would not attend on foot of the Paragraph 7(6) notice.


The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the admissible evidence actually produced by the parties and applying relevant law.


Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.