Author Topic: Tower hamlets PCN 33H - using a restricted route for buses and cycles only  (Read 446 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

I been busy of late. Extra reps. can always be added. Website only has general box and my conflation argument. Sorry: 6 cases tomorrow so back after them.
hi sorry to chase just seeing if you have any thoughts on my case , thanks

Hi guys,

if anyone has a similar experience, would be great to share thank you

The 3 cases quoted above should give you plenty of ammo.
Bus driving since 1973. My advice, if you have a PSV licence, destroy it when you get to 65 or you'll be forever in demand.

As far as I understand it:

There is nothing to corroborate the OP's claim regarding stopping and exiting:'I realised by the time i reached the zebra crossing (short way in) stopped and reversed back out. This part has been removed from the clip.';

They have made formal reps to which they have not yet had a response.

OP, is this correct? 

Which TWO signs are these?  I see only one in the vid, and that one quite high, presumably to enable visibility of the 20mph restriction which was originally on a post directly beside it in 2024, and which they moved back.
The post on the right with the "unicycle" attached to it, is the original post that the RH sign was attached to in the OP's gsv photo. You can see a yellow blip next to it on the DYLs in the vid and in that GSV.
I wondered why the vid doesn't show the RH sign, can only assume it did when the camera was installed, but it is not there anymore.
Would be good to get a recent pic showing it missing, or perhaps moved, but showing the unicycle post and it's relevant position to the other posts

Had a job in Leyton this morning so popped to the site and took a pic;
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bs2sVO7vNjC3yxwe4cLOr7s4CYQfnSgh/view?usp=drive_link

There is now a RH sign, it is on the "unicycle" post, minus the unicycle.
Pic taken from the route the OP took i presume, as the vid doesn't show turning.
High sign on left sits in the sight line of the chimney. Time 21.18 so dusk so sign not visible and unlit. No RH sign in vid.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

What the photo shows is the absolutely absurd height of the sign on the left. If this was the only sign there when the OP drove past it, then that height should be a major point in the evidence because it is totally out of the sightline of the driver who should not have to be looking at sign positioned in the sky. The new sign on the right is correctly positioned.

Thanks a lot and thanks Rob for the updated picture.

Quote
What the photo shows is the absolutely absurd height of the sign on the left. If this was the only sign there when the OP drove past it, then that height should be a major point in the evidence because it is totally out of the sightline of the driver who should not have to be looking at sign positioned in the sky. The new sign on the right is correctly positioned.
Hi, both signs are there and yes the left side sign is quite high


Quote
Had a job in Leyton this morning so popped to the site and took a pic;
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bs2sVO7vNjC3yxwe4cLOr7s4CYQfnSgh/view?usp=drive_link

it is on the "unicycle" post, minus the unicycle.
Pic taken from the route the OP took i presume, as the vid doesn't show turning.
High sign on left sits in the sight line of the chimney. Time 21.18 so dusk so sign not visible and unlit. No RH sign in vid.
There is a RH sign I believe the video isn't wide enough to catch it, When i entered the bus lane i was entering straight on (no turning from either side road)

Quote
As far as I understand it:

There is nothing to corroborate the OP's claim regarding stopping and exiting:'I realised by the time i reached the zebra crossing (short way in) stopped and reversed back out. This part has been removed from the clip.';
They have made formal reps to which they have not yet had a response.
OP, is this correct?
I definately stopped, paused to check rear view and reversed back out (no U turn) I requested the full video they said If I want the full video I need to submit a freedom of information request

Update
Council have rejected my appeal today (as expected) I would like to go to the tribunal but i'm not sure what i need to do next, I believe its a gamble as If i lose I pay £160 but i do feel this charge is unfair so willing to risk it

they didn't respond to my complaint I didn't use the route, they said entering it triggers the PCN (Code 33 - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles)
Gov.uk

Next steps
This letter is a formal Notice of Rejection therefore, before the end of the period of 28 days
beginning with the date of service of this Notice of Rejection ("the 28-day period") you must
either:
- pay the Penalty Charge; or
- appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators ("ETA").
« Last Edit: July 27, 2026, 01:12:14 pm by Movieman9000 »

Please show the NOR.
@Incandescent!

I AM ABLE TO TAKE ON MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. I HATE RETIREMENT.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"

Please show the NOR (Notice Of Rejection).
« Last Edit: July 28, 2026, 10:20:51 am by Movieman9000 »

Date of NOR?
@Incandescent!

I AM ABLE TO TAKE ON MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. I HATE RETIREMENT.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"

Date of NOR?
NOR Date 27 July 2026, recevied via email
« Last Edit: July 28, 2026, 03:36:28 pm by Movieman9000 »

Date of NOR?
NOR Date 27 July 2026

Hang on a minute. When and how did you receive it?
@Incandescent!

I AM ABLE TO TAKE ON MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. I HATE RETIREMENT.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"

What they've conceded and what they've claimed
They've conceded it was a genuine error. More importantly, they've made a specific factual claim I can dispute: "the footage clearly shows the vehicle entering and continuing travelling within the restricted area until the video footage stops."

Surely "until the video footage stops" is significant. They're not saying the footage shows me completing the restriction or exiting at the far end. They're saying the footage ends while i'm still inside. That is not the same as a completed contravention.

Surely the evidence is incomplete, it shows me entering and then?


Code 33 - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
- there was no use of the route and i gained no advantage by entering.

Their legal argument

They're arguing the contravention is complete at the point of entry — that any vehicle crossing the restriction line has committed the offence, and what happens afterwards is irrelevant.

Whether you used 100 ft or 500ft, you used the route. You do not have to traverse the whole route.

IMO, their interpretation is correct and your argument goes to mitigation only which the adjudicator may not consider.