Ref: PCN VRM
I challenge as follows:
1. The video does not show any upright signs allegedly passed.
2. The locus as stated on the PCN is inexact.
In light of the above, please cancel.
******
BTW, their website is none too famous either. The last case won they sent the wrong certificate and did not bother to attend. I gave them more than ample notice. Please sign my petition which deals with this issue.
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2240492648
Appellant Ambereen Mujtaba
Authority London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
VRM EK70VGP
PCN Details
PCN BZ80924907
Contravention date 23 Aug 2024
Contravention time 17:48:00
Contravention location Ripple Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Being in a bus lane
Referral date -
Decision Date 10 Dec 2024
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
Mr Phillip Morgan has attended the hearing today as the authorised representative of the appellant.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being in a bus lane.
Approval from the Secretary of State for the type of prescribed device used for this bus lane enforcement is a requirement under paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) in order for the camera evidence to be admissible in these appeal proceedings.
The Council submits a case summary with their evidence for the appeal. That evidence includes a Certificate relied upon by the Council as evidence of type approval of the prescribed device. The Certificate is an unsigned document on blank paper dated 29 March 2022. The document is headed in bold type and capital letters TRANSPORT ACT 2000 and underneath CERTIFICATION OF “APPROVED DEVICES” UNDER ARTICLE 2(b) OF THE BUS LANES (APPROVED DEVICES) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2005.
I considered the same type approval evidence in appeal no. 2220486482 [Mr Davy Georges Duthieuw v London Borough of Ealing]. My decision in that appeal was that the Certificate was not a valid approval of the device for the purposes of the 1996 Act. I refer to the relevant parts of that decision at paragraphs 42-61.
On the evidence before me, there is no valid approval of the device for the purposes of the 1996 Act. It follows that there is no admissible evidence of the appellant's vehicle being in a bus lane and the appeal is allowed.
