Free Traffic Legal Advice

I must say, I am very surprised that somebody who I assume lives and drives in and around London, does not know about restricted bus stops, which are all over London, and have been for many years. The contravention is one of stopping, as per your PCN, and this bus stop, unlike others which we have successfully achieved PCN wins at London Tribunals for, seems very well signed indeed, with the broad yellow line, and a total of three signs advising of the restriction, here is the first one at the start of the bus stop: -



If you look on your GSV link you will see them. At 10 seconds, the time could be considered de minimis, but all London councils are very greedy for money, so will inevitable refuse any representations you submit. You do have the absolute right in law to test the matter at London Tribunals, if the council reject any representations you submit, but it would be with the full PCN penalty in play.

Thanks, maybe a stupid question but should there be another sign facing the traffic direction to give more advanced warning? The sign on the map is quite small & if driver missed that before dropping off someone then it will be too late anyway?

Also can the 10 seconds minimus be considered as a grace period?

There is no requirement for a sign facing the traffic direction, because the broad yellow line gives that warning.

There is no grace period; a stop of 1 second is a contravention, but there is the de minimis point that is valid in law, but is subjective; your de minimis, is the council's maximus, so you have to convince an adjudicator.

Thanks, but is there any grounds at all for me to appeal here please 🙏?

How about that yellow sign which mentioned drop off point with an arrow pointing towards the direction of the bus stop? That can be confusing, no?

The Drop-Off signage continues beyond the bus stop and takes you further down the road and left at the roundabout, eventually leading into a buses only area, so not sure how that would work.....

We saw a lot of cases here when Greenwich first built/monitored this stop.

I think some cases were won on lack of camera authorisation but that ship has probably sailed.

The most reason tribunal case was won but note is was from last August.

Greenwich has a recent record of not bothering to contest cases but that may have changed.

--------------

Case reference   2250505269
Appellant   Minh Dang
Authority   Royal Borough of Greenwich
VRM   LB65 TZK
   
PCN Details
PCN   GR23966616
Contravention date   09 Aug 2025
Contravention time   15:20:00
Contravention location   Millennium Way
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   17 Mar 2026
Adjudicator   Richard Young
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons   1. This appeal relates to a PCN issued by Greenwich Council on 18 August 2025. The alleged contravention, said to have occurred at 15:20 on 9 August 2025, was that the appellant’s vehicle stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand. The location was the Millennium Way bus stop.
2. The matter was listed for a virtual hearing on 14 March 2026. There was no appearance on the part of the enforcement authority but the appellant attended and set out her case. I reserved my decision.
3. The video evidence shows the appellant’s vehicle stopping. The area has markings stating that it is a “bus stop.” The only signage visible in the video footage is unrelated signage pertaining to use of the pavement. I have had regard to the photographs produced by the enforcement authority relating to signage said to be at the location concerned. I can see from those that the bus shelter and signage would be further up the bus stop from where the vehicle is seen stopping, and therefore just out of range of the video evidence.
4. The appellant’s position is that, at the time she stopped, she did not think that the bus stop was in use because there was no one standing by it and also no signage relating to it. The appellant subsequently, and after receiving the PCN, checked the position using Google Maps and that website indicated that “North Greenwich – Millenium [sic] Way Stop F” was “permanently closed.” The appellant has produced a screenshot of the website dated 3 September 2025 which I note is reasonably contemporaneous to the claimed contravention. I do not attach any weight to the spelling error as it is a not uncommon one.
5. The case summary from Greenwich states that: “Google Maps does not confirm if a bus stop is open or closed to buses, the signs indicated at this location state 'No Stopping at any time except buses'. This does state buses can stop at this location and the road markings of 'BUS STOP' clearly states to a driver of a vehicle that is not a bus, that they DO NOT stop or park at or near a bus stop marked on the carriageway or bus stop lay-bys unless otherwise indicated by signs.” The notice of rejection stated that: “This bus stop is operational 24 hours a day seven days a week.” It also stated that: “The Highway Code tells drivers: "You MUST NOT stop or park on a bus stop marked on the carriageway or bus stop lay-bys unless otherwise indicated by signs". There are no signs displayed at this bus stop, which means it is enforced all the time.” Unlike the notice of rejection, the more recent case summary does not spell out whether the bus stop is actually in use or not.
6. Whilst I take the point about Google Maps not being at all determinative, it is the only evidence I have as to the status to the bus stop and the enforcement authority has not suggested that it is wrong, relying instead on the points about road markings and signage. Whether the stop is in use or not would be a matter of record that the enforcement authority would know. Further, the case summary does not suggest that the appellant’s position is wrong as such. I therefore find, on the available evidence, that the bus stop was at the time of the contravention a bus stop that was not in use. The enforcement authority could have provided evidence that it was in-use but has not.
7. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether signage was in place as at the date of contravention or not. The appellant says that there was none and the enforcement authority says that there was, relying on undated photographs.
8. I find that, whilst there was signage at the bus stop at some point, there was not as at the date of contravention. The appellant’s position on signage has not changed; she stated in her representations dated 3 September 2025 that: “…there was also no visible sign plate at the location of the alleged contravention.” This is also important because the enforcement authority was on notice about the point and yet still failed to produce dated or otherwise more reliable photographic evidence relating to the signage. My finding that there was no signage at the bus stop is supported by my finding that the bus stop was not in use. A bus stop that is not in use would not require signage.
9. I acknowledge that rule 243 of the Highway Code states: “DO NOT stop or park: … at or near a bus … stop…” (emphasis original). Although I note that the policy reason for the issue of PCNs of this nature is to avoid buses being obstructed, I also accept and find that, whilst the bus stop was out of use, it was still a bus stop. It had not been removed altogether nor repurposed. The appellant does not claim to have been misled as her evidence was that it was a bus stop, but one that was out of use. However, I find that the enforcement authority has not established by way of reliable evidence that this bus stop had, at the date of contravention, signage advising of the specific restriction relied upon in the PCN. The existence of road markings, clearly visible in the video evidence, is not material as they do not convey the basis of the restriction relied upon. For the same reason, the more general “No Stopping at any time except buses” time plates that may have been in the same area are not material because they do not convey the restriction either.
10. There is no substance to the appellant’s point about the roadworks: she told me that these were before the bus stop and, in any event, did not press the point before me. Further, the suggestion that the PCN was issued with inaccurate location cannot be sustained. The location on the PCN specified the bus stop concerned and so could not have been more specific. The point made by the appellant about the road being clear and no obstruction having been caused is supported by the video evidence, but this, being mitigation, would not be a reason of itself for this appeal to prosper.
11. This appeal is allowed.
 

also can anyone opine on the yellow drop off point sign plate? that's very near the bus stop and with an arrow pointing towards it, to be honest that is the main reason why i thought we can stop at the bus stop for drop