Author Topic: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Close  (Read 302 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Snudge88

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I received a PCN from Royal Borough of Greenwich this morning, regarding a bus lane infraction at the start of the month.

Video here:

https://youtu.be/-bxrq_YZPQs

PCN Front:


PCN Rear:


Street View: https://maps.app.goo.gl/vmwRmwWpbBir9wdW6

I get the feeling that it's open-and-shut. The driver informs me that they veered into the bus lane to avoid an incredibly snug-looking 6'6" width restriction (a 2017 XC60 is 1.891m in width, so there's no argument that it shouldn't have been there) as there was no viable alternative route.

Is there any get-out, or should I be telling the driver to stump up with the fine?

This started life as a thread on PePiPoo with a couple of responses - they can be read here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=153906
« Last Edit: April 14, 2024, 11:56:12 pm by cp8759 »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
PM sent.


Dear Greenwich

I challenge this PCN.................as follows

1. The infraction is de minimis.
2. The white line is substantially broken in two places which clearly demonstrates a failure to maintain the signage.
3. The actual 959 sign is questionable with an extra plate at the bottom of it.
4. There is no evidence of an advanced  warning signage in the video (958).
5. I put you to strict proof that the camera is properly approved.

Yours

Registered keeper
Address


*********************

All online and no need for you to attend at all. I would not improvise upon what route you took and let them prove there is sufficient warning signage in place.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2024, 11:32:47 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"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

Snudge88

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
PM sent.


Dear Greenwich

I challenge this PCN.................as follows

1. The infraction is de minimis.
2. The white line is substantially broken in two places which clearly demonstrates a failure to maintain the signage.
3. The actual 959 sign is questionable with an extra plate at the bottom of it.
4. There is no evidence of an advanced  warning signage in the video (958).
5. I put you to strict proof that the camera is properly approved.

Yours

Registered keeper
Address


*********************

All online and no need for you to attend at all. I would not improvise upon what route you took and let them prove there is sufficient warning signage in place.

Thanks Hippocrates

Appeal lodged and, based on what I've read elsewhere, I shall eagerly await my automatic rejection.  I assume it's still the case that RBG aren't routinely responding to or attending Tribunal appeals?

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
In the two cases we won last winter, they did not;  however, they now have a new Interim Parking Manager and they may turn up. But, there are several avenues yet to be explored.

I have to say: that manoeuvre was brilliant! All wheels through the gaps in the white line! I am  not being sarcastic. I could not have done it on my Yamaha XJ 650 Turbo!
« Last Edit: April 12, 2024, 11:02:42 pm 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"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4876
  • Karma: +113/-4
    • View Profile
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
This is the same council who stated in their two NORs in the cases we won  that they had a VCA certificate when they didn't - not even the old one!
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"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

Snudge88

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thanks for the advice so far, folks.  The wholly-expected dismissal of my appeal arrived this morning:





I've omitted Page 3 as it was merely payment information and their sign-off.

Of particular amusement was their stance that their breach is de minimis and is therefore of no consequence, yet my de minimis breach is entirely relevant and enforceable(!).

Insofar as the certification of the camera is concerned (para 5, page 2) I assume this is where the previous points regarding RBG not keeping a record of the make/type of the camera are highly relevant?

Any recommendations on next actions gratefully received.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2024, 05:02:54 pm by cp8759 »

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Wait for the Enforcement Notice and we can draft some stronger representations. Please do not contact them at all at this stage.
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"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Snudge88

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Wait for the Enforcement Notice and we can draft some stronger representations. Please do not contact them at all at this stage.

Thanks Hippocrates, will do.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4876
  • Karma: +113/-4
    • View Profile
Well this is getting more and more interesting, following the ICO's Decision Notice I made a fresh information request on 12 February:

There is a bus lane CCTV enforcement camera on Charlton Church Lane at the junction with Barney Close.

I would like to request a copy of any evidence which confirms that the camera at that location is a device covered by certificate EADM058.


They sent me this on 11 March:



So I made a perfectly reasonable request for an internal review:

I hereby request an internal review of the handling of this information request.

You have sent me a copy of certificate EADM058, which I did not request and had already.

My request was not for a copy of the certificate, my request was for any information confirming certificate EADM058 applies to the CCTV camera on Charlton Church Lane at the junction with Barney Close. As this information is not stated on the face of the certificate there must be information somewhere else to show that this particular certificate applies to that particular camera.

In the alternative if the council has no information to confirm that certificate EADM058 applies to the CCTV camera on Charlton Church Lane at the junction with Barney Close, please could you confirm that no information is held in that regard.


I chased a response on 10 April and the answer was:

Please accept our sincere apologies for a delay in providing a response to your Internal Review request. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause. The service providing you with your response has been chased today and they do remain committed to responding to your request as soon as possible.

The obvious suspicion now is that they have no idea whether that certificate covers the camera in question, at the tribunal they just say it is but they don't know if it's true or not, they just make it up.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Noted with thanks cp. All this will be discovered at the Tribunal I surmise!  If they turn up.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2024, 11:00:47 pm 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"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

Snudge88

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Notice of Enforcement received today:







I assume that the next step will be to make further representations - essentially a copy-and-paste of my original appeal?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2024, 04:19:01 pm by cp8759 »

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Why not provided that cp8759 has nothing more to add re the camera issue?

Simply, but wait first:

I acknowledge receipt of the Enforcement Notice and require you to consider my initial challenge as my formal representations against it. Please cancel both documents as the contravention did not occur.

Yours
« Last Edit: May 22, 2024, 11:12:42 pm 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"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4876
  • Karma: +113/-4
    • View Profile
Go with Hippocrates's suggestion, at this point we just need the notice of rejection so that we can get this in front of an adjudicator.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Snudge88

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thanks once again, all.

Predicable notice of rejection duly received this morning:

https://i.imgur.com/5v74SBl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/5Fn4PwL.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/PmhhJgJ.jpg

The remaining pages comprise the four-page London Tribunals Environment & Traffic Adjudications appeal form.

Any advice as to how best to word my appeal would be most gratefully received.