Author Topic: Harrow Code 33E Route restricted for Buses/Cycles/Taxis - Camrose Avenue (Again!)  (Read 688 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AceKingPin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hello,

Having read several posts on this site, I'm another recipient of a PCN from Harrow Council (PCN HR74437020 (a 33E), Reg GJ03ZYY, contravention on 7/1/24 at 0049, Camrose Avenue Bus Gate). I've requested the CCTV footage online, been told to wait up to 24 hours for it.

PCN photos here:



I have made a representation citing poorly lit signage before finding this forum and some of the other reasons, and have received a notice of rejection. I currently have 14 days from 21/2/24 to pay the reduced 65.

Notice of Rejection here:


I'm aware of the following strong arguments so far:

1. "I bring a collateral challenge on the basis that the PCN is unenforceable because the taken without consent ground clearly fetters to theft by its very wording that a crime report be provided. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not take into account that a relative, or friend, may have taken the vehicle without the owner's permission so that the owner would not necessarily, if at all, report the matter to the Police in such circumstances or, indeed, make an insurance claim. I refer to Chidi Egenti v London Borough of Islington Case No 2110212199 which corroborates this argument."

2. "The Authority has not proved the signage at this location. 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. The photographs on the PCN do not show the signage of which only the back can be seen."

3. Otherwise its reasonable excuses (as posted by another user) as follows:

a) Adequacy of Signage: The signage indicating the bus gate on Camrose Avenue is inadequate, particularly during nighttime conditions when visibility is reduced. The lack of sufficient illumination and clarity on the signage did not provide the necessary alert to the approaching bus gate restriction. This inadequacy is heightened by the fact that the only advanced warning signs visible were related to a width restriction, not a bus gate.

b) Late Disclosure of Restriction: The positioning and timing of the bus gate signage did not afford adequate time to safely maneuver out of the bus gate lane. Due to the flow of traffic and for the safety of all road users, I was compelled to proceed through the bus gate to avoid a potential traffic incident. This decision was made in the interest of safety, given the immediate traffic conditions and the sudden appearance of the restriction.

c) Faded Road Markings: The road markings indicating the bus gate were noticeably faded and not observable during the night. The bus gate's red road surface did not offer a sufficient approach distance to safely realign the vehicle, contributing to the confusion and the eventual contravention.

d) Inconsistent Road Treatments: The absence of standard double yellow, red lines, solid white line, which are typically consistent with bus gates and bus lines, contributed to the confusion. Additionally, the bus gate's unconventional placement compared to standard practices in London further misled me as a driver.

e) Lack of Pre-warning Signs: The presence of a pre-warning sign before the crossroad or near the central island would have provided crucial additional time to adjust vehicle positioning. The sudden appearance of the bus gate restriction, without adequate pre-warning, significantly increased the risk of a traffic incident.

Would forum members suggest I take this to appeal? If so, are you able to assist or provide any wording that might help me with making a formal appeal?

Many thanks for any help or guidance you can provide.
cc @MMV Redux

Kind regards,
« Last Edit: February 21, 2024, 11:11:27 am by AceKingPin »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1551
  • Karma: +44/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Have you looked at the London Tribunals Statutory Register ?
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals
Search under "Camrose Avenue" and a date range. I would start with cases from 1st Jan 2023.

Be aware that the register only contains a tiny percentage of the PCN issued, as most people just cough-up, not wanting to lose the discount.
Like Like x 1 View List

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
I would PM MMVRedux. A shame you did not include the technical argument re TWOC.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

MMV Redux

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
OP---The bus stop sign has a large "L" so this means you were travelling in the same direction where there have been signage issues.

Ask them for a photo of the signage you passed since it's not on their still photos nor the video.

Mike
Like Like x 1 View List

AceKingPin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thanks you @Incandescent - lots of refusals, but being glass half full (for now), I filtered on the 'allowed' outcomes, and found some additional compelling reasons given by those adjudicators:

"There appears to be no advance warning of the bus gate restriction adjacent to the width restriction. A vehicle, driving along the road in the dark upon noticing the width restriction, has no advance warning of the bus gate restriction ahead and may well, in those circumstances, be taken by surprise by it. A driver who is looking out for the width restriction ahead, is likely to be concentrating on that restriction alone and this difficulty would be exacerbated at night. In addition, there is no evidence before me as to the lighting of the relevant signage during hours of darkness."

"I have seen evidence of the signage on the approach to the bus gate. There are advance warning signs of a width restriction and the bus gate has 2 blue signs placed on either side of the bus gate entry. The distance from which the image is taken does not clearly show what is displayed on those signs. The Appellant is challenging the adequacy of the signage. I find that the Enforcement Authority have not provided clear evidence of the signage placed at the entrance to the bus gate."

Both the above also supported by: "The Council has attempted to plug this gap in their evidence by serving Google images taken in daylight in October 2022. However despite attempting to enlarge the images, I am not able to clearly see the signs at the restriction. The legend on the signs is not clear either at normal size or when enlarged by up to 400%."

So I've gone onto Google and seen the following 2 images attached, to which this reference is made.

I've not looked to see if the above arguments have a high failure rate in past decisions though.

AceKingPin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thanks also @Hippocrates - should I have included TWOC at Challenge stage? I've contacted MMV Redux

AceKingPin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thanks @MMV Redux, I've emailed the council to ask for photos so let's see what happens

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Thanks also @Hippocrates - should I have included TWOC at Challenge stage? I've contacted MMV Redux
It would have better as they would have had to consider it. But, it may be added later.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"
Like Like x 1 View List

AceKingPin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Received the photo from Harrow Council as follows, do you think I've got a case for poor quality photographs provided that don't allow reading of signage?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

MMV Redux

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Not on the signage--looks like they've got their act together.

Mike

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Where's the video? 
« Last Edit: February 24, 2024, 12:44:49 am by Hippocrates »
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

AceKingPin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Still awaiting the CCTV, I've just chased them up again, does it normally take this long to provide?
« Last Edit: February 26, 2024, 12:40:00 pm by AceKingPin »

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Fraid so.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

AceKingPin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hello, can I ask on the basis of all the evidence in this thread so far (still awaiting CCTV), whether you'd think I should appeal this PCN or whether I should just pay the 65 whilst I still qualify for the discount? Many thanks

AceKingPin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
So, after another prompting email today, I finally received the CCTV footage. It's revealed something that could be relevant, my driving path. I didn't realise I'd literally just turned onto Camrose Avenue from St Brides's Avenue, when I encountered the bus gate, so didn't knowingly see any warning of this or have in my view, sufficient time to react. My driving path is shown below:



So on this route I don't think I would have passed the width restriction warning, and I would have come straight up against the bus gate with very little context of knowing what was the right path to take.

Does this change anything in your opinions? @Hippocrates @MMV Redux @Incandescent? Is it worth me challenging the PCN, and if so, what are the best grounds?

Many thanks in advance for any help you can provide.