Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Snudge88 on April 12, 2024, 08:26:56 am

Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: cp8759 on September 10, 2024, 07:19:31 pm
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p-dMF6yiEw0zCmH9-X8ttokkjR0jIRhc/view).
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Hippocrates on September 09, 2024, 07:01:31 pm
Costs awarded. Decision tomorrow. Most satisfying.
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Hippocrates on July 16, 2024, 07:51:36 am
Won.  ;D
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Hippocrates on July 11, 2024, 09:20:36 am
Possibly someone else has missed it!  ;D
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: cp8759 on July 10, 2024, 11:46:10 pm
@cp8759 Please be advised that the evidence must be provided 5 days before the hearing not 7 as you have stated. :o
@Hippocrates but paragraph 7(6) of Schedule 1 to the LLA 1996 says:

(6) 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 enforcing authority requiring attendance at the hearing or trial of the person who signed the document.

Has there been an amendment I have missed?
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Hippocrates on July 10, 2024, 12:40:06 pm
@cp8759 Please be advised that the evidence must be provided 5 days before the hearing not 7 as you have stated. :o
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Hippocrates on July 09, 2024, 06:35:55 pm
Lambeth cases rescheduled. This one: evidence arrives a day late and no witness statement re camera.  ;D
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Hippocrates on June 09, 2024, 12:45:10 pm
No, the RBK person. Xed swords many times with him.

The game is on: 15th July. An interesting day as a costs hearing v Lambeth on the same day.
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: cp8759 on June 09, 2024, 01:23:54 am
About time I met Mr Hoare again.  ;)  Formerly at Kingston.
@Hippocrates I take it that's not adjudicator Hoare you're referring to?

Great chap, I was late at a hearing once but was very receptive to a technical argument, when the council officer complained that their paperwork had never been challenged his words were to the effect of "well, the tribunal exists to determine challenges. And one could say that if a car is parked 30 seconds after the start of a restriction before it is moved why does it matter, and the council might state that the regulations say it matters. Now the boot's on the other foot, Mr cp8759 has identified a procedural impropriety and the regulations say that it matters".

@Snudge88 follow Hippocrates's advice and you can't go wrong.
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Hippocrates on June 04, 2024, 07:51:54 pm
So, reading their rejection, de minimis is OK for them but not for you ! Make sure you ensure the adjudicator sees this.
As JEdgar used to say on pepipoo: the NOR is pants.
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Hippocrates on June 04, 2024, 07:40:16 pm
Ok. I will PM the OP now. Do nothing and follow my advice to the letter.
From the NOR: There is no requirement for the specific camera to be approved  ff = Totalissimo boleauxissimo.

In light of this NOR, I am considering changing my username to Aristophanes.  ;D

About time I met Mr Hoare again.  ;)  Formerly at Kingston.
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Incandescent on June 04, 2024, 05:12:08 pm
So, reading their rejection, de minimis is OK for them but not for you ! Make sure you ensure the adjudicator sees this.
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Snudge88 on June 04, 2024, 03:37:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: cp8759 on May 27, 2024, 04:19:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Hippocrates on May 22, 2024, 01:22:49 pm
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
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Snudge88 on May 22, 2024, 12:51:49 pm
Notice of Enforcement received today:

(https://i.imgur.com/i5e9oWJ.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/jEqcxz6.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/3W7Odaq.jpg)

I assume that the next step will be to make further representations - essentially a copy-and-paste of my original appeal?
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Hippocrates on April 21, 2024, 06:19:38 pm
Noted with thanks cp. All this will be discovered at the Tribunal I surmise!  If they turn up.
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: cp8759 on April 21, 2024, 05:11:42 pm
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:

(https://i.imgur.com/ewZX5hB.png)

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.
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Snudge88 on April 17, 2024, 02:57:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Hippocrates on April 17, 2024, 02:48:45 pm
Wait for the Enforcement Notice and we can draft some stronger representations. Please do not contact them at all at this stage.
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Snudge88 on April 17, 2024, 02:39:28 pm
Thanks for the advice so far, folks.  The wholly-expected dismissal of my appeal arrived this morning:

(https://i.imgur.com/OLPX4PM.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/3FuHooH.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Hippocrates on April 15, 2024, 01:05:46 pm
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!
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: cp8759 on April 15, 2024, 12:02:36 am
This is relevant: https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2024/4028421/ic-263068-c0w8.pdf

Further investigations are underway.
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Hippocrates on April 12, 2024, 01:17:28 pm
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!
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Snudge88 on April 12, 2024, 12:58:22 pm
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?
Title: Re: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Clos
Post by: Hippocrates on April 12, 2024, 11:27:10 am
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.
Title: Royal Borough of Greenwich - Bus Lane Infraction, Code 34J - Being in a Bus Lane - Charlton Church Lane/Barney Close
Post by: Snudge88 on April 12, 2024, 08:26:56 am
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/y0ndX2z.jpeg)

PCN Rear:
(https://i.imgur.com/VIfRO3c.jpeg)

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