Free Traffic Legal Advice

OP, you seem to have been aware that the sign had been there "for years". Doesn't that suggest that the prohibition was "adequately conveyed"?

These specific questions may be better not cluttering the PCN thread.

Whether or not a sign is adequate is a subjective choice.
Facing the wrong way would point to it being inadequate but it is one of a series of signs along a relatively long stretch of clearly marked bus lane (Big white line and red tarmac)
Coupled with that this doesn't seem to be a case of driving into the bus lane but parking in it?
And parking alongside the sign though without the video we cannot be sure.
May also have been parked alongside a waiting restriction sign as the bus lane coexists with parking bays (complimentary times).

Taking that lot into consideration, I would not be surprised if an adjudicator decided the signage was poor but adequate and that the driver simply failed to check signage when they parked.

Differing matter if someone was to drive past the sign, into the bus lane and then thought oops and pulled out again, especially as it is a timed bus lane and markings have only just restarted after the crossing.

One should never think that one sign being wrong is a get out of jail card.
It all comes down to the full picture and the nasty term that is often used, substantially compliant.

Not that WF seem too bothered about signs being maintained as a scoot down the dates that the google car passed shows.
That is in favour.

Complaint.... raise one against the council using their formal complaints procedure.
But they may simply say that as it is a live PCN they cannot comment.
Better to wait for the outcome and then, if in your favour, raise the complaint.

These specific questions may be better not cluttering the PCN thread.

Whether or not a sign is adequate is a subjective choice.
Facing the wrong way would point to it being inadequate but it is one of a series of signs along a relatively long stretch of clearly marked bus lane (Big white line and red tarmac)
Coupled with that this doesn't seem to be a case of driving into the bus lane but parking in it?
And parking alongside the sign though without the video we cannot be sure.
May also have been parked alongside a waiting restriction sign as the bus lane coexists with parking bays (complimentary times).

Taking that lot into consideration, I would not be surprised if an adjudicator decided the signage was poor but adequate and that the driver simply failed to check signage when they parked.

Differing matter if someone was to drive past the sign, into the bus lane and then thought oops and pulled out again, especially as it is a timed bus lane and markings have only just restarted after the crossing.

One should never think that one sign being wrong is a get out of jail card.
It all comes down to the full picture and the nasty term that is often used, substantially compliant.

Not that WF seem too bothered about signs being maintained as a scoot down the dates that the google car passed shows.
That is in favour.

Complaint.... raise one against the council using their formal complaints procedure.
But they may simply say that as it is a live PCN they cannot comment.
Better to wait for the outcome and then, if in your favour, raise the complaint.

In my case, there`s a pedestrian crossing before the bus lane, so you have "free" lane before and after that crossing.
It`s not a big long stretch of bus lane where one sign is not adequate.

So going back to my Original question, how can they get away with it where say if an adjudicator was to mention
that the PCN was totally wrong.

Once the appeal is done, i will raise this to WF and my Local MP.

Am I correct in saying that I should now wait for them to send me the enforcement notice after 14 days and make a formal representation to WFC again?

Then if that gets rejected they will send me another appeal form to go to the adjudicator?
Thanks

Quote from: S.M on November 08, 2023, 06:56:35 pm

Am I correct in saying that I should now wait for them to send me the enforcement notice after 14 days and make a formal representation to WFC again?

Then if that gets rejected they will send me another appeal form to go to the adjudicator?
Thanks

Yes

Video Please.

The template rejection is just that and doesn't cover your point on the sign being turned.
It seems to imply that you drove along the bus lane, the photos imply that you drove in and parked.

I don't know which one it is but the answer is critical and the video will show.

Markings for a bus lane cannot coincide with pedestrian crossing markings.
But that doesn't mean that the bus lane doesn't exist at the crossing.
Motorists are expected to know this.
It was one long bus lane with one sign turned out of many

Here's the video.
https://gemoo.com/tools/upload-video/share/578780036247695360?codeId=PYxVwa95pxj1L&card=578780032841920512
 For clarity, there's a break between the bus lane of around 50m and further down the road the signage is not properly set either

Thanks for video.
There is no break in the bus lane, simply in the markings as required by statute.

It confirms what I suspected, parked.
And shows what seems to be the driver taking a photo of the sign at about 23 seconds into the video?
If that is the case, I would grab the discount,
To me it shows that you may have erred due to the defective sign but not only checked the sign but photographed it.
Had you moved the motor then, I reckon a fair to good chance of a win.
But as it is, an adjudicator is going to see you checking the sign and ignoring it.
To me that is a loss.

Others may have different views.

What i mean by break is that the bus lane is not continuous. Shouldn't a bus lane sign be visible after each "break"? in this case it's a crossing and if you check further down there's another "break" due to a side road where they've put another sign (this one isn't properly visible either)

Shouldn't the sign be sufficiently visible in order for it to be enforceable? Bear in mind it was raining and at night. My assumption is that the previous stretch doesn't have any effect on this one as it is common occurrence in London where you may have different timings on different stretch. Please bear in mind i didn't actually park on a double yellow etc. It was an actual parking spot, a pay and display but not operational after 6.30pm

Here's a pic i took recently


And here's the Google map link 421 A112
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qDyWAMz9z1idzQW69

You are looking at it as a binary, yes or no answer.
But sign lore is subjective and can very much depend on circumstances.
There are circumstances where there MUST be a sign and it must be visible.
This is not one of them except that the authority have chosen to put a sign and as such, it should be visible.
That the authority have failed to maintain and times are not readily visible is all on your side.
But there is no statutory imperative that says that a sign must be there and must be visible.
Traffic Signs Manual doesn't require such a sign after a crossing and even after a break for a side road only says should, not must.

I may be being unduly pessimistic and have explained my reasons.
Others may disagree and believe your point of view is valid.
It is your choice but please make no mistake, it is not as cut and dried as you believe.

My apologies, I thought after every new stretch of Bus lane there must be a sign that is visible. I thought this was law. I have seen many places where on one stretch you have a bus lane at all times and right after a pedestrian crossing you have a timed bus lane.

If as you say traffic law isn`t required after a side road, what would happen if someone was to come out of the side road which further down and take a left onto the bus lane which has no sign? It just doesn`t make sense.

Let`s see what the others mention about this particular case. Thanks

OP, you have the absolute right in law to take them to the adjudicators at London Tribunals, but as you can see there is varying opinion on your chances. If the discount option has gone, it is obviously a no-brainer to do so, but if it's still available, you need to think carefully whether you should risk the extra £65.