Free Traffic Legal Advice

The PCN alleges contravention 33E - USING A ROUTE RESTRICTED TO CERTAIN VEHICLES BUSES CYCLES AND TAXIS ONLY.

I reject this allegation. No contravention occurred for the following reasons:

1. The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016, which supposedly underlies the allegation, does not, in fact, restrict traffic using the inside lane between the traffic island and the footway to buses, cycles and taxis only. Instead the restrictions which it defines apply in each direction between the traffic island and the central median strip. This is because the Council made a mistake in 1999 when consolidating bus restrictions into a single TMO.

The Harrow (Prescribed Routes) (No. 2) Traffic Order 1976 was the original TMO for Camrose Avenue. It defined both the width restriction and the bus-only restriction (as they then were). The latter applied:
Quote
on the south-eastern side of the north-easternmost island site [and] on the north-west side of the south-westernmost island site

In 1999 Harrow consolidated the various individual TMOs into two TMOs, one for width restrictions and one for bus-priority restrictions.

The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 1999 defined "prohibited lengths" between "the eastern island" and "the southern kerb-line" and between the "western island" and the "northern kerb-line". All traffic was banned here unless permitted under another TMO.

The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999 defined the areas of road to which bus-restrictions applied as:
Quote
Westbound: the carriageway to the south of the southern traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale Avenue;
Eastbound: the carriageway to the north of the northern traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale Avenue.

Thus the 1999 consolidated orders transformed the north-eastern traffic island into "the eastern traffic island" in the width-restriction order but "the southern traffic island" in the bus-priority order. Likewise, the orders transformed the south-western traffic island into "the western traffic island" in the width-restriction order but "the northern traffic island" in the bus-priority order. The mistakes in the bus-priority order have been repeated in subsequent TMOs up to and including the current ones.

Inspection of a plan of the site shows that the entire south-western traffic island (which splits eastbound traffic) lies to the south of the entire north-eastern traffic island (which splits westbound traffic). There is only one possible interpretation of "southern traffic island" and it is what the 1976 TMO referred to as "the south-westernmost island site". No amount of creative interpretation can turn "southern" into "western" or "northern". The bus-priority TMOs contain mistakes in their compass-points. The consequences must be allowed to play out.

The TMOs are local legislation. They define the restrictions which apply. The signage is placed to show the effect of the TMOs. The presence of signage purportedly restricting the lanes between the traffic islands and the footway to buses, cycles and taxis does not create such a restriction. Nor does the placing of signage assist the courts in interpreting what the TMO means. The TMOs themselves do that.


2. The Council has failed to provide adequate information about the restrictions which it imposes. Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR) requires the placing of such traffic signs as the Council
Quote
consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road

In R (Oxfordshire CC) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin), Beatson J found:
Quote
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; see James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676.

In James v Cavey, Winn LJ wrote (Ashworth and Widgery JJ concurring):
Quote
The short answer in my view which requires that this appeal should be allowed is that the local authority here did not take such steps as they were required to take under that regulation. They did not take steps which clearly could have been taken and which clearly would have been practicable to cause adequate information to be given to persons using the road by the signs which they erected. ...

This paragraph was quoted with approval by Burnton LJ at paragraph 36 of the judgment in R (Neil Herron et al) v The Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWCA Civ 905 (Aikens LJ and Sir David Keene concurring). It remains current jurisprudence binding on the High Court as well as on tribunals and adjudicators.

The assessment of the adequacy of the signage therefore covers not only signs which were present but also signs which could have been placed but which had not.

The first signage of a bus restriction which motorists see are the blue roundels (diagram 953) at the restrictions. Long before this, there are notices of the width restriction ahead, including on side roads warning of the width restriction if motorists turn towards the restriction. Those advance notice signs show one of the effects of the width-restriction TMO: the width-restriction which applies to the outer lane at the restriction.

But the width-restriction TMO actually applies restrictions to both lanes westbound and both lanes eastbound. In the inside lane, it allows vehicles which are permitted by other TMOs. The Council asserts that the bus-priority TMO allows buses, cycles and taxis in the inside lanes. It follows that, as far as the Council is concerned, the effects of the width-priority TMO include permitting buses, cycles and taxis to avoid the width restriction in the outer lane. Yet the Council has chosen not to show these as effects of the width-restriction TMO. This means, for instance, that drivers of vehicles with 8 or more seats for passengers (the definition of "bus"), such as those used by schools and care homes, are not told that they can bypass the width restriction in the outer lane.

If the full effects of the width-restriction TMO were shown in advance, motorists who are not driving buses would be aware that a bus restriction lay ahead in the inside lane while a 2m width restriction applied to the outer lane (such a sign has only been prescribed since 2016; before then, special permission would have been required).

Motorists would also be aware of the bus restriction ahead if signs to diagram 877 were placed 20m before the restrictions. This sign, which shows that the inside lane turns into a bus lane at the junction ahead, has been available since 1975.

Since 2016, more explicit "lane gain" signs have also been available under Schedule 12 of TSRGD 2016. These can be configured to show that a single lane splits into two lanes ahead and the restrictions which apply to each: in this instance, that the inside lane is for buses, cycles and taxis, while the outer lane has a 2.0m width restriction. These signs can also show where turns can be made into side roads.

In an important report into the bus gate on John Dobson Street, Newcastle, the Chief Adjudicator observed:
Quote
5.17. ... Buses can reasonably be anticipated on a bus route, in both directions, and in bus lanes. There will inevitably be frequent times when a driver is following a bus, which is also likely to stop at a bus stop. Therefore, the presence of buses must be factored in to sign design and engineering.
When bus lanes start, there is a dashed white line (diagram 1010) 250 or 300mm wide diagonally across the lane which tells motorists that the lane is about to become a bus lane. This isn't present for bus gates, so upright signs such as diagram 877 are vital.

As it is, there is no advance signage on Camrose Avenue of the bus restriction. The first indication motorists see are the blue roundels to diagram 953. These are not advance notice signs: they are regulatory signs which must be placed at the restriction. Those on Camrose Avenue are 600mm diameter. Appendix A to Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual specifies that, where the 85th percentile speed of private cars using the road is between 21 and 30 mph, this sign should be 750mm in diameter. As the Appendix notes:
Quote
It should be borne in mind that smaller signs are likely to be seen later, and do not become legible until drivers are closer to them, with less time to react.


3. The Council asserts that the restriction is correctly and clearly signed and can be seen at any time of the day. By default, councils are entitled to the Presumption of Regularity. This holds that councils do things correctly in accordance with the law and that what they say is true. The previous two points have shown that Harrow Council have:

•   made mistakes in drawing up the 1999 bus-priority TMO which have been repeated ever since;
•   placed advance signs for the width-restriction TMO which failed to comply with Regulation 18 of LATOR 1996;
•   failed to provide advance signage of the bus-priority restriction.
I shall now demonstrate how some signage which has been placed (and on which Harrow rely) is not as prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). This makes the placing of those signs ultra vires. While the signs are indeed present on the highway, administrative law dictates that the misfeasor (Harrow Council) cannot use those signs in making its case.

It follows that the adjudicator must disregard the signs in assessing the adequacy of the signage. This is quite different to the latitude granted by the judgment in R (Neil Herron et al) v The Parking Adjudicator to minor defects in the signage of zones. That case was concerned with a parking zone where there are many signs across the zone. The court held that defects in a few signs, which were remote from the site of the alleged contravention, did not invalidate the zone as a whole. Here we are concerned with whether individual signs have been placed lawfully.

The signs in question are two curved white arrows on the carriageway before the restriction. Harrow calls these "directional white arrows" which "give motorists guidance as to the lane they should be travelling in".

These arrows are known technically as "deflection arrows". They are defined as diagram 1014 at Item 14 in TSRGD 2016 Schedule 11 Part 4. The description is:
Quote
(a) direction in which vehicular traffic should pass a road marking [followed by a list];
(b) obstruction on the carriageway ahead;
(c) reduction in the number to traffic lanes in the carriageway ahead; or
(d) path to be taken by vehicular traffic to avoid a route for tramcars only
Of these, (d) is irrelevant, as is (c). As regards (b), it would be stretching the meaning of “obstruction” to regard a traffic island as an obstruction. That leaves passing one of the specified road markings.

The relevant road markings specified in TSRGD 2016 are:
Quote
Schedule 9 Part 6
    Item 7: boundary of a mandatory cycle lane (diagram 1049B);
    Item11: boundary of a bus lane (diagram 1049A);
    Item 23: white line markings which must not be crossed and where it is prohibited to stop (diagram 1013.1);
Schedule 11 Part 4
    Item 23: white hatching with broken boundary between opposing directions of travel (diagram 1040);
    Item 24: white hatching with a solid boundary at an offside reduction in width (diagram 1040.3);
    Item 25: white hatching with a broken boundary at a nearside reduction in width (diagram 1040.4).
None of these is present on Camrose Avenue. The markings in front of the traffic islands are to diagram 1041, which is very similar to diagram 1040 but has chevron hatching rather than diagonal hatching.

As there is no relevant road marking, the signs to diagram 1014 are not as prescribed in TSRGD 2016.

Section 65 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 empowers Councils to
Quote
cause or permit traffic signs to be placed on or near a road
Section 64 defines "traffic signs" as signs specified by regulations (i.e. TSRGD) or authorised by the relevant authority (i.e. specially authorised by DfT). Harrow has not obtained special permission to place diagram 1014 in a non-prescribed way on Camrose Avenue.

It follows that the signs have not been placed in accordance with the powers granted to the Council. The Council acted ultra vires in placing those signs. They must not be considered as present on the carriageway when assessing the adequacy of the signage.

4. The alleged contravention is not proved because the video does not show any alleged upright signage passed.

5. I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it is missing mandatory information as provided at Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable.                                       
               
Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (iii):

(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

Therefore, it follows that the statement: If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make  representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable. adds to the lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the required information was included or not, it is also arguable that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still no clarity due to the missing information.

6. In my case, the time for anticipating the sign was not enough, also due to the fact that it was dark. Therefore, it was too late for me to drive into the width limit. There was also a car behind so it was too dangerous to reverse out.

Notice of Rejection of Representations. Your case comes under the London Local
Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
Penalty Charge Notice number:IY00688508
Date of contravention: 08 Oct 2025
Location: CAMROSE AVENUE
Vehicle registration: G26XXX
Thank you for writing to us.
We have carefully considered what you say but we have decided not to cancel your Penalty
Charge Notice (PCN).
We sent you a PCN because our camera evidence shows your vehicle disobeying a sign and
using a route that was only for buses, cycles and taxis. The sign is blue and round, with a white
picture of the vehicles allowed.
Please be advised that the signage at the location is on both sides of the road, and in
accordance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.
The route in question is a section of Camrose Avenue where only buses, taxis and pedal cycles
are allowed to drive through; it does not include the whole of Camrose Avenue. It is an 6'6"
restriction, and should a driver feel that their vehicle would not pass through it, they are required
to seek an alternative route.
We have noted the comments made in your representation. You state the alleged contravention
is not proved because the video does not show any alleged upright signage passed. Whilst
we have taken into consideration the mitigating circumstances described, unfortunately, they
do not warrant cancellation of the PCN. The CCTV footage clearly shows your vehicle driving
through the buses, taxis and cycles lane and the signage was correctly displayed.
The signs clearly advise motorists of the approaching width restriction in advance and the
words "BUS GATE" are painted on the carriageway itself. The signage is lit from dusk til dawn
and vehicle headlights further illuminate the signs and road markings.
There is no legislation for there to be advanced warning signs for the buses, taxis and cycles
only lane. There are directional white arrows on the road to give motorists guidance as to the
lane they should be travelling in.
It is unfortunate that you were unfamiliar with the rules that were in force. However, having
viewed the full CCTV footage, we are satisfied the driver had ample time to get into the correct
lane of traffic.
You can view CCTV evidence of your case online at https://www.harrow.gov.uk/pcn
You have these choices:
• You can pay the discount charge of £80.00. You have 14 days from the date of this letter
being served to do this.
• You can pay £160.00 if you miss the discount period. You have 28 days from the date of
this letter being served to do this.
• You can appeal to the Parking Adjudicator using the enclosed form. You have 28 days from
the date of this letter being served to do this. The Adjudicator can ask one side to pay costs
if he or she believes, for example, that they have been wholly unreasonable. However, the
Adjudicator rarely asks either side to pay costs. The Adjudicator is independent and both
sides must accept the Adjudicator's decision. If you lose your appeal, you will have to pay
the full charge rather than the discount charge (unless the Adjudicator decides otherwise).
If you do nothing
If, after 28 days, you have taken no action, we may send you a Charge Certificate increasing
the charge from £160.00 to £240.00. You will then have 14 days to pay the increased charge.
If, after the 14 days, you have not paid the increased charge, we may apply to the County
Court to recover the money - plus court costs - from you.
How to pay:
• online at www.harrow.gov.uk/pcn and click 'Pay'.
• by phone on (020) 8424 1220
Yours sincerely
Parking Representations Office
[\quote]