Free Traffic Legal Advice

I received a PCN from Royal Borough of Greenwich this morning, regarding a bus lane infraction at the start of the month.

Video here:



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

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?

This is relevant: https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2024/4028421/ic-263068-c0w8.pdf

Further investigations are underway.

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.

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.

Noted with thanks cp. All this will be discovered at the Tribunal I surmise!  If they turn up.

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

Thanks once again, all.

Predicable notice of rejection duly received this morning:

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.