Free Traffic Legal Advice

The images are flattened too.  2240515018

The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle used a route restricted to certain vehicles (local buses and cycles only) when in Camrose Avenue on 29 September 2024 at 16:31.The Appellant denies the contravention and through his representative has advanced a number of points.I have considered the evidence and I find that this PCN cannot be upheld for the following reason:First, I am not satisfied that the Authority has sufficiently proved the signage at this location.Second, the library photographs produced in the Map/Site evidence at 'J' in the evidence tree are undated, and I find that this weaken their evidential weight.Third, in the CCTV footage the back of two circular sign plates can be seen between the two routes. There is no evidence in relation to what these signs are.Further, the photographs on the Notice of Rejection do not show the signage and neither does the PCNIn light of this finding I am not required to resolve any other issues between the parties.The appeal is allowed.

This is not a bus lane! You have entered the wrong details. It is a bus gate and their website is ok re this contravention.

The Appellant is appealing a Penalty Charge Notice issued in respect of using a route restricted to certain vehicles.
The Appellant was represented by Mr Phillip Morgan who has attended the hearing in person. The Appellant and her husband, who was driving on the day in question, attended by telephone.

The Enforcement Authority relies upon photographic capture of the vehicle, a copy of the PCN, a copy of the relevant legislation, further photographic evidence and correspondence.

It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that she and her husband were not familiar with the location. They saw no advance warning signage and tell me that the road appeared to be a straight, "normal" road.

I have carefully considered all the evidence in this matter.

The CCTV footage relied upon by the EA shows the vehicle driving towards the camera. The signage facing the vehicle is not visible but there is clear "BUS GATE" marking on the carriageway.

The EA has provided photographic evidence of the signage which it contends faced the driver as he approached the restriction. This shows what appears to be blue and white bus, cycle and taxi only signage, although the photographs are of poor quality, and an advance warning sign denoting a width restriction. The quality of this evidence is such that the dates of these photographs cannot be readily determined. However, having expanded the photographs on both my screen today, and on Mr Morgan's laptop, it appears that they date back to 2021.

Whilst it is not reasonable to expect an EA to provide contemporaneous photographs of the signage upon which it relied, it is nonetheless incumbent upon that EA to provide photographs which can be found to accurately show the signage at a location, within a reasonable time of the date of the alleged contravention. This cannot be said of the photographs provided. Changes may occur to signage - obstructions/damage and so forth - and the EA must demonstrate that all relevant signage was prominent, unobscured and unambiguous. I find that this has not been done in this case.

I note that, on the CCTV footage of the incident, the back of what the EA contends is the restriction sign on the footway is visible. This sign appears to be a rectangular, "landscape" sign. The corresponding sign in the 2021 library photographs appears to be a square, or possibly "portrait" sign. Notwithstanding the possibility that this discrepancy may have been caused by a camera distortion, I cannot be satisfied to the requisite standard that they in fact show the same sign.

For these reasons, I allow this appeal.

Not sure what you mean by this? Did I do something wrong?