E mail sent.
So:
Dear Hammersmith and Fulham
Re PCN: HZ81783446
I challenge the PCN 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 that,
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.
3. There is no End of Bus Lane sign visible pertaining to the previous with flow bus lane.
4. The grounds on the PCN are incomplete.
In light of the above, which clearly expresses this total confusion of signage, I request that you cancel the PCN forthwith.
Name
Registered keeper
Address
************
I added no 4 to play Devil's Advocate. E mail me and I will explain. It's a trap basically to test their response.