Free Traffic Legal Advice

In an attempt to secure a third pint 

Case 2210730102 Adjudicator John Hamilton date 27 Nov 2021

Unfortunately, the law is clear that it is unlawful to enter a bus lane for any period of time. Some authorities choose not to enforce penalty charges if vehicles are only in a bus lane for a very short distance. However there is no national ‘20 meter rule’. No ‘20 meter rule’ is included in any law or regulation and it has never been envisaged that this ‘rule’ should be included in regulations regarding bus lane enforcement. The Department of Transport's views is that regulations, by definition, must include a clear-cut definition of what a bus lane contravention is.

The enforcement of bus lane restrictions including any application of a 20 meter rule is entirely a matter for each individual local authority. This authority clearly does not apply any such rule.

As stated above, it is the responsibility of motorists to ensure they are aware of the law and the restrictions in force where they choose to drive. The law does not allow motorists to drive in bus lanes during restricted hours. The appellant mistakenly believed there was a legal exception that allowed her to do so for a short distance. Unfortunately ignorance of the law is not a legal basis upon which I can allow this appeal. I am therefore satisfied that the Authority has shown a contravention occurred.


2210717352 Gerald Styles 29 Nov 2021

I have seen the CCTV clip which shows the bold white delineating the bus lane which was in force. Ahead of where the appellant van starts to enter the lane a surface arrow is laid and the bus lane bold line ends.

Whilst there is a limited exemption covering a vehicle simply crossing the bus lane for a required purpose of turning left it is my decision this case is not covered by any exemption.

I am satisfied the appellant van changed lane prematurely. It was not simply crossing the bus lane but travelling down it. The appellant explanation given about vehicle size has not persuaded me to cancel this penalty charge.

I am satisfied the evidence provided proves the alleged contravention and I have recorded this appeal as refused.

2210715958 Richard Thompson 01 Dec 2021

The Enforcement Authority maintain that the CCTV footage supplied shows that the contravention occurred. They assert that the guidance or rule claimed by the Appellant relating to Transport for London does not apply to Waltham Forest and that each local authority is entitled to have its own rules for enforcement. Further, if the Appellant is referring to what some motorists call the ’20 metre rule’ then this is only a guide and not a rule for enforcement. The solid white line should not have been crossed until it changed to a dotted/dashed white line on the approach to the roundabout.

2210609327 Andrew Harman 01 Dec 2021

ANY entry into a bus lane amounts to a breach of bus lane controls however brief that entry is. The '20 metre rule' relied upon by the driver
There is no minimum distance the Enforcement Authority must prove before the contravention is established. The contravention occurs as soon as any part of the vehicle is in the bus lane


2210718719 Michael Burke 02 Dec 2021

There is no minimum distance the Enforcement Authority must prove before the contravention is established. The contravention occurs as soon as any part of the vehicle is in the bus lane.

221075428A John Hamilton 03 Dec 2021

The appellant accepts his vehicle entered the bus lane but says that the Authority has not followed the relevant guidance and applied what is sometimes called the "20 meter rule” that people believe allows vehicles to travel in bus lanes for short distances.
Unfortunately, the law is clear that it is unlawful to enter a bus lane for any period of time. Some authorities choose not to enforce penalty charges if vehicles are only in a bus lane for a very short distance. However there is no national ‘20 meter rule’. No ‘20 meter rule’ is included in any law or regulation and it has never been envisaged that this ‘rule’ should be included in regulations regarding bus lane enforcement. The Department of Transport's views is that regulations, by definition, must include a clear cut definition of what a bus lane contravention is.
The enforcement of bus lane restrictions including any application of a 20 meter rule is entirely a matter for each individual local authority. This authority clearly does not apply any such rule.

2210870305 Michael Burke 24 Jan 2022

There is no entitlement to use a bus lane for up to 20m and the degree of encroachment plainly goes beyond what could be dismissed as ‘de minimis’ or trifling.

2220046934 John Hamilton 22 Feb 2022

The appellant accepts his vehicle entered the bus lane but says that he was following the road markings and did not drive more than 20 meters within the bus lane.
Unfortunately, the law is clear that it is unlawful for any part of a vehicle to enter a bus lane for any period of time. Some authorities choose not to enforce penalty charges if vehicles are only in a bus lane for a very short distance. However there is no ‘20 meter rule’ allowing vehicles to drive in bus lanes for short distances.

2210880659 Michael Burke 26 Feb 2022

The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was in the bus lane during the hours of operation. Ms Hussain does not in fact dispute this but she points out that this was for less than 20m and argues that guidelines suggest a minimum encroachment of 20m before enforcement. She also argues that she was misled by a gap of approximately 1ft in the thick white line. She has provided a photograph as supporting evidence.

The moment that road or kerb markings are painted the process of erosion begins. The fact that markings are not in pristine state does not of course mean that restrictions cease to apply. Whenever the quality of the markings is in dispute the test applied is whether they remained substantially compliant, clear and adequate to inform the motorist who gave the question the appropriate degree of attention.

I have been able to consider Ms Hussain’s photograph together with the enforcement camera footage and Google Streetview. having done so I am satisfied that there was a short gap in the thick white line (with another even shorter one where a trench crosses) but this is not unusual and I am not satisfied this created any substantial confusion at this location. The thick white line then resumed and there is a large white arrow which together with the end of the thick white line clearly indicates the point at which the motorist may cross into the left-hand lane.

The enforcement camera footage shows Ms Hussain crossing the thick white line a few metres before its end. This is a case of poor lane discipline rather than gaining an advantage. However, I am satisfied the degree of encroachment went beyond what could properly be considered ‘de minimis’ (too trifling for the law to recognise as the contravention). As such the brief duration of the contravention amounts only to mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion but Adjudicators have no power to direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.

2220115924 Teresa Brennan 21 Mar 2022

Miss Oratayo argues that the contravention did not occur. She states that the local authority has failed to provided evidence of the whole of her car in a bus lane. The appellant also states that she made a manoeuvre at the end of the bus lane.

The local authority has not provided any photographs of the bus lane signs. In the absence of this evidence, I cannot be satisfied that the bus lane was clearly signed.

2220258400 John Hamilton 14 May 2022

I do not accept the appellant has provided sufficiently cogent evidence to support her theory that enforcing the bus lane restriction at this location is a corrupt money making scheme. If motorists complied with the law and observed the Highway Code then no income would be generated.

A representative is expected to proffer cases for and against.  Appeal filed today.

@Glitch: I sincerely hope that I will not end up paying half as I need the money for your 3 pints. 

Mission accomplished in less than 007 minutes.  Costs application to follow.

Excellent. Well done!

Quote from: Hippocrates on January 02, 2024, 06:07:45 pm

Mission accomplished in less than 007 minutes.  Costs application to follow.

A BIG thank you to you @Hippocrates, you were instrumental! I was amazed at your attention to detail. I was going to rely on de minimis, but adjudicator was not happy with the evidence pack itself, all wrapped up in a blink of an eye..

Hae I missed something ? I see no "killer appeal" in this thread, and one that may get a costs order !

Appeal allowed for Case 2230524078 Adjudicator Belinda Pearce date 2 January 2024

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

The formal NOR dated 31st October 2022 states this:  However, if you serve a notice on us not less than three days before the hearing date, we cannot rely on such evidence without the person(s) who signed them attending. The three day limit may be varied by the Adjudicator in special circumstances.

And they failed to attend. Absolutely incredible.

I know I'm being a bit thick here but why did they have to attend?

Para. 7(6) at Schedule 1 states that if the officer who signs the witness statement re camera evidence does not attend, that evidence is inadmissible.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/9/schedule/1/enacted

Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) or (4) above makes a document admissible as evidence in proceedings under paragraph 6 above unless a copy of it has not less than 7 days before the hearing, been served on the appellant; and nothing in those paragraphs makes a document admissible as evidence of anything other than the matters shown on a record produced by a prescribed device if that person, not less than three days before the hearing or within such further time as the traffic adjudicator may in special circumstances allow, serves a notice on the council requiring attendance at the hearing or trial of the person who signed the document.

They were given almost a month's notice and from the outset they stated they were not going to do so!  Absolutely incredible!  See their NOR.

The formal NOR dated 31st October 2022 states this:  However, if you serve a notice on us not less than three days before the hearing date, we cannot rely on such evidence without the person(s) who signed them attending. The three day limit may be varied by the Adjudicator in special circumstances.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=145245&pid=1798106&mode=threaded&start=400#entry1798106

And:
Case Details
Case reference   223046581A
Appellant   Reena Modi
Authority   London Borough of Merton
VRM   DN67 XSA
PCN Details
PCN   MT86832023
Contravention date   14 Apr 2023
Contravention time   09:59:00
Contravention location   The Broadway
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Being in a bus lane
Referral date   
Decision Date   20 Nov 2023
Adjudicator   Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons   At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant was represented by Mr Philip Morgan, who attended in person, and by the driver Mr Dinesh Modi, who attended by telephone.
The Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not represented, either in person or by telephone.
A contravention can occur if a vehicle is in a bus lane during operational hours, other than as permitted or exempted.
This Penalty Charge Notice was issued under Section 4 of the London Local Authorities Act 1996.
Paragraph 7 in Schedule 1 to the Act provides that nothing in sub-paragraph (1) or (4) [record produced by a prescribed device] above makes a document admissible as evidence in proceedings under paragraph 6 above unless a copy of it has not less than 7 days before the hearing, been served on the appellant; and nothing in those paragraphs makes a document admissible as evidence of anything other than the matters shown on a record produced by a prescribed device if that person, not less than three days before the hearing or within such further time as the traffic adjudicator may in special circumstances allow, serves a notice on the council requiring attendance at the hearing or trial of the person who signed the document.
The Appellant received the Enforcement Authority’s evidence on 14 November 2023 and on that day by email to the Enforcement Authority at PCN.debt@merton.gov.uk, and copied to the Tribunal, required the attendance of the Enforcement Authority’s officers Miss Lee and Mrs S P Matheou, who certified the device.
At 07:56 today, 20 November 2023, the Enforcement Authority indicated by email to the Appellant and the Tribunal that it would not be attending.
The Enforcement Authority therefore cannot reply upon the evidence produced by a prescribed device. That is the basis upon which this Penalty Charge Notice was issued.
Accordingly, this appeal must therefore be allowed.
Authority Response