Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: ST_2023 on July 28, 2023, 11:50:00 am
-
Hi. We have your new thread and I will take care of it for you. Please do not shoot off representations without posting here. This is essential. It is late but I will draft tomorrow.
This thread is closed so post up the details I requested on your thread.
-
Hi All,
I have just had a fine come through my letterbox with exactly the same issue.
Would it be possible if I could get the appeals which were sent so i can edit them to my case.
My wife was in labour at the hospital nearby and i was using this route every day last week and now i am getting the letter come through potentially more than 1.
thanks
-
Don't mention the camera issue. They have a new certificate, but there's more to it than that. Can't say more for now.
With hindsight it was a good idea to do so because their responses constitute bolleaux. Unbelievable! And from a council who really should know better! Still, our hobby continues as do the jobs for the people in Nottingham et alia.
The Witness Statement of B Main refers to Parking Legislation 2007. I further certify:1. that this/these was/were produced in accordance with the Code of Practice for the Operation of CCTV Enforcement cameras.2. that the monitoring and recording equipment used at the location and time specified is an approved device under Article 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking & Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices) (England) Order 2007.3. that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all conditions subject to which approval was given were satisfied.
:D ;D ::) :P
Said person should be issued with another kind of certificate viz. P45.
-
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
-
I know I'm being a bit thick here but why did they have to attend?
-
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.
-
Innit! Just got home. See you soon at Penderel's Oak. Next time, please give me the bacon!
Drafting the costs application and will send to you for your perusal. Done. Please check for typos. Tis late.
-
Appeal allowed for Case 2230524078 Adjudicator Belinda Pearce date 2 January 2024
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
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 !
WF did not attend. Brief submissions including Glitch's points re TSM Chapter Three. Adjudicator had already decided - even before I took my hat off!
@ST: My pleasure - just seen this. Well done for staying the course. An absolute pleasure to meet you - for the first time!
Provision of undated images; failure to turn up when required (this was not a deciding factor); provision of a witness statement citing the wrong legislation pertaining to the certificate; complete bolleaux in the rejection letters re authorisation for cameras. They knew about para. 7(6) at Schedule 1 but chose not to attend probably to avoid any embarrassment in the end. And this authority had been urged to research the law by the C.A. at least a year ago.
They were sloppy, to say the least. More to follow. Anyway, my 24th adjudicator. :)
http://bit.ly/3EzlexX
However, I do register here that I find referring me to a list of certificates in
a web address to be an unacceptable manner of presenting evidence.
-
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 !
-
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..
-
Mission accomplished in less than 007 minutes. Costs application to follow.
Excellent. Well done!
-
Mission accomplished in less than 007 minutes. Costs application to follow.
-
@Glitch: I sincerely hope that I will not end up paying half as I need the money for your 3 pints. ;D
-
Have read the EP. Should be fun. :D ;D :) Cogitating all the issues at present.
-
A representative is expected to proffer cases for and against. Appeal filed today.
-
Whilst there are a couple of sympathetic/uninformed adjudicators there is a plethora of refused appeals where the adjudicators think the road markings and signs are fine, or still obvious.
Feels like something different and/or more compelling is needed to the improve chance of success.
The accurate measurement of the gap has not been used before and that might help. I think one adjudicator guessed it was only a foot long!
There have been 'end of bus lane' signs over the years but never in the right place.
GSV 2012 - sign 964 before bridge 2008-2012 (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5735728,0.0151812,3a,49.3y,122.6h,90.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1shI-EbyjqaQGAI5Ac4qycNg!2e0!5s20120801T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu)
GSV 2018 - Sign 964 after bridge 2014 - 2018 (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5732424,0.0154811,3a,75y,71.07h,87.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4mFm_MuYr5o07LKsqkGTEA!2e0!5s20180301T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
GSV 2019 - 964 sign removed 2019 - current (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5736445,0.0151153,3a,16.8y,128.89h,87.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sq-HHsDdEXhP4gBy_BZ_F-Q!2e0!5s20190401T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Traffic sign Manual Chapter 3 section 9.3.9 states:
The end of a with‑flow bus lane will usually be obvious through the termination of the diagram 1049A marking. If considered necessary due to observed driver behaviour, an upright sign to diagram 964 (S9‑4‑11, see Figure 9-5) may be sited as shown in Figure 9-1.
The End of Bus Lane sign (Diagram 964) is not mandatory but it is clearly needed here due to 'observed driver behaviour' compounded by the 2m gap. Is the end obvious? They only observe the final 30 odd metres of the 186 metres (not 183 I'd mentioned earlier)
In some cases there have been no photos of the bus lane and associated signs. Either missing or they've used stock photos rather than contemporaneous images. Worth checking LWBF evidence pack. there are no signs in the CCTV.
Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, Section 9.3.13 states:
It is important to ensure that the marking to diagram 1049A is terminated correctly, so that drivers turning left can
move across to do so safely without needing to cross the continuous line.
Diagram 1049A is the continuous thick white line
The TMO describes where the bus lane starts but if the bus lane wasn't there I'd be very confused following those directions.
[attachimg=1]
I realise this is mostly clutching at straws when you're possibly up against an adjudicator who sees a wheel over the line and says you're banged to rights regardless of any other evidence. Need to generate more luck!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
In an attempt to secure a third pint ;D
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.
-
Copy of the TMO
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I have e mailed the OP to file the appeal pronto. I agree: scattergun approach is necessary in this case.
-
We can see from previous cases that the 20m 'rule' doesn't exist in legislation but it does live in the heads of one or two Adjudicators and many appellants.
At best it appears to have been a guideline in the past but seems to have passed into mythology.
Always worth a try given recent successful appeals with Monica Hilien.
I cannot see how they can ignore the lack of maintenance of the roadmarking it hasn't been refreshed for years. At 2 metres the gap is longer than the recommendation for a dashed line (somewhere in Chapter 3 I think).
End of bus lane sign is needed due to observed behaviour. Some adjudicators think it's mandatory but it's only a recommendation.
My cynical self tells me it's a deliberate ploy by LWBF to issue vexatious PCNs.
There is no need for this bus lane, certainly not 'at any time' and they managed for years without a camera.
Might want to look at the TMO. I found the description of the start position confusing. Be interesting to get LBWF to explain it.
-
A quick search on the mythical 20m rule brings me to a familiar website.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=96116#:~:text=The%2020%20metre%20rule%20%2D%20The,issues%20a%20Penalty%20Charge%20Notice.
Seen this today too.
-
And here are the October 2022 guidelines on bus lane enforcement for councils outside London.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bus-lane-and-moving-traffic-enforcement-outside-london/traffic-management-act-2004-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities-outside-london-on-civil-enforcement-of-bus-lane-and-moving-traffic-contravention
There is no mention of a 20 metre rule.
Whatever guidance was referred to in the letter from Mr Philipp Nelson in November 2014, is unknown, because London councils & TfL enforce bus lanes using London-specific legislation and there is no guidance from government, so it must be some internal London councils document.
-
A quick search on the mythical 20m rule brings me to a familiar website.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=96116#:~:text=The%2020%20metre%20rule%20%2D%20The,issues%20a%20Penalty%20Charge%20Notice.
-
There is certainly nothing in law or any regulations that defines what is essentially a de minimis rule. De minimis is always something that is subjective and depends on individual circumstances. I too, once read that adjudication, (gosh, was it all those years ago !!), and thought that this was just a little unnannouced internal TPT rule to bring some consistency to minor bus lane intrusions.
-
Done. 8)
-
Up it to 3 pints and I can also look for cases where the adjudicator has denied the existence of the '20m rule' 😁
-
@ Glitch: excellent research. Many thanks. Make that two pints!
-
22205552 Sean Stanton-Dunne Decision Date 17 Sep 2022
'I note that there is no end of bus lane sign to indicate precisely where the bus lane ends so that the motorist is entirely reliant upon the faded white arrow directing traffic to the left hand lane for the turn at the roundabout. I am not satisfied that the end of bus lane markings are adequate and I also find that the incursion into the bus lane by Mr Moghul's car was so minimal as not to amount to a contravention of bus lane restrictions.'
2220555224 - exactly same as above but different contravention date.
2220212523 - Monica Hillen Decision Date 20 Apr 2022
The Enforcement Authority’s evidence is the CCTV recording which shows the vehicle enter the bus lane after a break in the white line. It travels for no more than 10 meters to the arrow indicating the left lane was for vehicle turning left.
The Enforcement Authority have not shown the end of the bus lane in that they have failed to supply evidence to show where the bus lane ends. A bus lane must have a sign indicating the start and end.
In addition there is a 20 metre rule that should normally be observed before any PCN should be issued and in this case the vehicle clearly was not driven in the bus lane for this distance. In this case the appellant simply made a permitted left turn across a bus lane for no more than 10 metres before turning left.
On the evidence I find there was no breach of the bus lane restrictions. The bus lane was not signed in accordance with the requirements. The Enforcement Authority have failed to prove their case to the required standard.
2220078238 Belinda Pearce Date 23 Mar 2022
The Enforcement Authority adduce undated images of signage notifying motorists of a restriction; it is not possible to correlate the images to the contemporaneous footage.
Further, it is not possible to determine whether signage was in place implementing the terms of the Traffic Management Order and notifying motorists of the restriction.
Evidentially I cannot be satisfied that the contravention is proved, accordingly this Appeal is allowed.
2220091451 Sean Stanton-Dunne Date 17 Mar 2022
Mr James says that his car only entered the bus lane at the end to make the left turn. I have looked at the CCTV footage submitted by the Council. This shows that Mr James’ car entered the bus lane approximately 2 car lengths short of the arrow directing traffic to pull over to the left for the left hand turn at the roundabout. I am satisfied that the incursion into the bus lane by Mr James’ car was so de minimis as not to amount to a contravention of bus lane restrictions.
2220102784 Anju Kaler 10 mar 2022
The CCTV footage shows the vehicle drive to the left and, it is alleged, into the bus lane before it is permitted to do so. The Enforcement Authority relies on the footage and the site plan, stating that the vehicle should only enter the bus lane at the point where indicated by the arrow on the road and where the solid white line becomes a broken white line. The beginning of the white arrow can be seen on the footage.
It is clear from the footage that the solid white line appears to be broken before the arrows painted on the road. It may be that the paint of the white line has faded, but it does give the motorist the appearance of a broken white line. The arrows on the road cannot be seen when there are other vehicles in front, as in this case. there is no upright sign indicating when vehicles may move across. The entire paintwork on the road shows a lack of maintenance.
The markings are unclear and misinform the driver as to when the bus lane ends and when vehicles can move across.
I allow the appeal.
222007655A Monica Hilien 02 Mar 2022
I would estimate that the vehicle only entered the bus lane no more than 8-10 metres of the remaining stretch of that bus lane. However as the Enforcement Authority have not provided any evidence to show the end of the bus lane I cannot be satisfied the part where Mr Shah drove was indeed a valid bus lane. The Enforcement Authority must show the signage at the start and end of a bus lane. They have not done so. Even if they had it is it is apparent the white line finishes no more than a few meters along.
For completeness I should add that there is a 20 metre rule that should normally be observed before any PCN should be issued and in this case the vehicle clearly was not driven in the bus lane for this distance. In this case the appellant simply made a permitted left turn across a bus lane for no more than 10 metres before turning left.
I find on the evidence as presented there was no breach of the bus lane regulations. The appeal is allowed.
2210844790 Sean Stanton-Dunne 06 Jan 2022
Miss Selby says that her car only entered the bus lane at the end to make the left turn at the roundabout. I have looked at the CCTV footage submitted by the Council. This shows that Miss Selby's car entered the bus lane approximately 1.5 car lengths short of the arrow directing traffic to pull over to the left for the left hand turn. I am satisfied that the incursion into the bus lane by Miss Selby's car was so de minimis as not to amount to a contravention of bus lane restrictions.
-
No harm trying the mythical 20 metre rule.
I'm sure there are more recent examples of adjudicators allowing it. However, others have thrown it out.
I'll have a trawl through the register (again).
Traffic signs Chapter 3 section 9.9 states that:
‘If considered necessary due to observed driver behaviour, an upright sign to diagram 964 (S9 4 11, see Figure 9-5) may be sited as shown in Figure 9-1'
Given they only focus on final 33 metres the observed behaviour will be 99.9% people clipping the end. That surely needs a sign!
LBWF have said there isn't one to reduce street clutter. That's Bolleaux. They can't place a sign on the bridge. They've had them either end in the past (look at GSV) and now not at all. They should move the end back to before the bridge.
-
One of Kevin Moore's decisions as far as I recall mentioned the said "rule". As far as I am concerned it is mere fantasy.
Found it: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=97260&pid=1053293&mode=threaded&start=#entry1053293
Case No. 2130253836
-
I'll buy you a pint after the hearing! ;D
-
The state of the line. Not been maintained for years as shown on previous years on Google maps.
(https://i.ibb.co/wW9R9g2/IMG-0014-1.jpg)
Shows how close the end of bus lane is to the traffic lights.
(https://i.ibb.co/LJQSnDs/IMG-9994-1.jpg)
This bus lane is 183 metres long but they only have the camera focussed on the last 30 metres or so (without giving it away by showing the end).
I wonder why that is??? Kerching £1.4m p.a.
(https://i.ibb.co/7CvpxQY/IMG-0021.jpg)
-
You are a star! ;D Many thanks.
-
Sent you a dropbox link.
As a taster the gap in the 'continuous thick white line' is 2 metres long. I had estimated 1.3m on Google Maps.
When is a continuous line no longer continuous?
(https://i.ibb.co/G52vZs1/IMG-9998.jpg)
-
Yes. Anything in particular?
I'm thinking a close up of the gap in the line, hopefully with an accurate measurement thrown in.
A view from the last 20 metres towards the lights.
The refreshed road markings at the lights.
Anything and everything that will help the case please. Cheers up front! Much appreciated.
-
Yes. Anything in particular?
I'm thinking a close up of the gap in the line, hopefully with an accurate measurement thrown in.
A view from the last 20 metres towards the lights.
The refreshed road markings at the lights.
-
@ Glitch. Please can I take you up on your offer re photos? You have my e mail address. Thanks.
-
Hi all, I have received a response from LBWF today via post following my appeal. Please see attached. What are the chances of further going to tribunal and winning this?
Solid white line which runs to the end of the bus lane!
-
There is also no 20 metre rule.
At one time the TPT used such a figure, but there is nothing in the legislation or regulations, it is up to individual adjudicators whether to consider a de minimis argument or not. As far as I know, London Tribunals and before them, PATAS, never mentioned any rule. De minimis is subjective, so one adjudicator may well disagree with another.
20 metre rule argument was used in this case, I thought that might have some importance, but if that is going to be detrimental, happy to remove it.
Sarah-Jane Mendonca v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2210480049, 06 September 2021) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RhyBA-cF3Jh_yqpadQuYpPSiSX6ter5T/view)
Thanks for putting up this link. So there are people around who consider there IS a 20 metre rule, but it is nowhere to be seen in any of the legislation or regulations. The key line of the decision is this: -
"There is a 20 metre rule that should normally be observed before any PCN should be issued"
Well, this is the first time I suspect any council has heard about this so called rule ! Interesting, though, because it can be quoted to support trivial (de minimis) intrusions into bus lanes.
When this decision was made, the same adjudicator was unaware of the camera authorisation issue I highly suspect.
-
Just sent a message to you.
-
Please see your messages. And then e mail me back. Thanks.
-
I guess it is me who is representing! The NOR indicates they know the procedures so I do expect them to turn up.
@Hippocrates - could you please advise me on the next steps and if I'm required to action anything?
-
If you need any photos or measurements let me know.
They have repainted all the road markings around the Green Man roundabout recently, but the end of the bus lane markings are untouched and look worse than ever.
An FOIR needs to be formulated pronto.
-
I guess it is me who is representing! The NOR indicates they know the procedures so I do expect them to turn up.
The NOR does not state this @ 5(a)(i):
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/9/schedule/1/enacted
Rejection of representations against enforcement notice
5 Where any representations are made under paragraph 2 above but the council concerned do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (10) of the said paragraph 2 (in this Schedule referred to as “the notice of rejection”) must—
(a)state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 8 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—
(i)the penalty charge is paid;
The 17 days deadline is most interesting.
-
I guess it is me who is representing! The NOR indicates they know the procedures so I do expect them to turn up.
-
If you need any photos or measurements let me know.
They have repainted all the road markings around the Green Man roundabout recently, but the end of the bus lane markings are untouched and look worse than ever.
I live nearby too and it is one of those bus lanes that makes no sense at all.
There`s only bus
- 257 during the day which runs every 8 minutes - 7 to 8 buses per hour.
- 55 at night for 4.5 hours - with 2 buses per hour.
>:(
-
If you need any photos or measurements let me know.
They have repainted all the road markings around the Green Man roundabout recently, but the end of the bus lane markings are untouched and look worse than ever.
-
Yes please @Hippocrates, @cp8759 kindly represent me at the tribunal. Please advise me on the next steps.
-
If you're going to appeal it's best to ask one of us to represent you, or you risk ending up like this guy (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/warwickshire-cc-pcn-code-24-not-within-markings-of-bay-lakin-road-warwick/).
-
Sorry that I have not been awake on this thread. It is up to you whether you wish to go to the Tribunal. I am happy to represent you. The Notice of rejection clearly implies that they are aware of the requirement for them to attend! If you feel you have a strong case re the signage, then I say go for it.
The advice is: No breach; I rely upon all my previous representations, both informal and formal, and full submissions will follow upon receipt of the council's evidence pack. I ask for a personal hearing.
-
Hi all, I have received Notice of Rejection of Representation. Should I just proceed to appeal on the basis that there was no breach of the bus lane regulation?
Please advise on the points that I could add under the details of appeal section?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Following is the response that I have drafted against the enforcement notice received. Views?
Dear Sirs,
I am writing in response to the Enforcement Notice issued to me regarding PCN: FR60075661. I kindly request that you reconsider my informal representations, as I am now making formal representations against the Enforcement Notice.
I have several reasons for disputing this PCN:
- The alleged contravention did not occur as described. My actions were in accordance with the traffic rules and road markings in place. I was merely attempting to merge into the exit lane to make a left turn, creating a situation that can only be described as de minimis. According to the regulations, a 20-meter rule should normally be observed before issuing a PCN for a bus lane violation. In this case, my vehicle clearly did not enter the bus lane for this distance. I simply made a permitted left turn across the bus lane, covering no more than 10 meters, before turning left at the roundabout.
- The video evidence provided does not clearly show any signs allegedly passed or violated. This raises questions about the accuracy and validity of the alleged contravention.
- The presence of a break in the solid white line within the road markings can be confusing and misleading to motorists. This can contribute to unintentional lane changes.
- The photographs included as evidence appear to be more helpful in indicating where my vehicle crossed over into the bus lane and the arrow indicating vehicles could enter the lane. This occurred almost immediately after my vehicle crossed over. Notably, there is no clear end sign visible in these pictures.
- I request that you provide strict proof that the camera used for monitoring and enforcement satisfies the admissibility criteria of evidence at the Tribunal, as outlined in Para 7(2) of Schedule 1 of The London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amended) and Part II. Ensuring the accuracy and validity of the evidence is essential in any case. (I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THIS POINT, CAN REMOVE IF NOT RELEVANT IN CASE THERE IS CHANGE IN LEGISLATION)
Furthermore, I would like to highlight that my vehicle entered the bus lane for no more than 8-10 meters of the remaining stretch of that lane. Additionally, at the time of entry, the bus, which was in the bus lane, had nearly completed its exit from the lane and had come to a complete halt in the main carriageway. I entered the bus lane with the sole intention of turning left at the junction, which was a mere 8-10 meters ahead of my vehicle. I did not undertake any vehicles, nor did I gain any advantage over other motorists.
Considering the circumstances and the lack of any significant violation, I kindly request that you cancel the PCN. I would like to emphasize that this is the first time I have received such a PCN, and I am committed to abiding by all traffic rules and regulations in the future.
I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to a favourable resolution. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information or clarification regarding my representations.
@Hippocrates - Any views?
-
See what Hippocrates thinks, but it looks fairly comprehensive to me. The most likely winning point is going to be requiring the council officers to attend the tribunal.
-
Following is the response that I have drafted against the enforcement notice received. Views?
Dear Sirs,
I am writing in response to the Enforcement Notice issued to me regarding PCN: FR60075661. I kindly request that you reconsider my informal representations, as I am now making formal representations against the Enforcement Notice.
I have several reasons for disputing this PCN:
- The alleged contravention did not occur as described. My actions were in accordance with the traffic rules and road markings in place. I was merely attempting to merge into the exit lane to make a left turn, creating a situation that can only be described as de minimis. According to the regulations, a 20-meter rule should normally be observed before issuing a PCN for a bus lane violation. In this case, my vehicle clearly did not enter the bus lane for this distance. I simply made a permitted left turn across the bus lane, covering no more than 10 meters, before turning left at the roundabout.
- The video evidence provided does not clearly show any signs allegedly passed or violated. This raises questions about the accuracy and validity of the alleged contravention.
- The presence of a break in the solid white line within the road markings can be confusing and misleading to motorists. This can contribute to unintentional lane changes.
- The photographs included as evidence appear to be more helpful in indicating where my vehicle crossed over into the bus lane and the arrow indicating vehicles could enter the lane. This occurred almost immediately after my vehicle crossed over. Notably, there is no clear end sign visible in these pictures.
- I request that you provide strict proof that the camera used for monitoring and enforcement satisfies the admissibility criteria of evidence at the Tribunal, as outlined in Para 7(2) of Schedule 1 of The London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amended) and Part II. Ensuring the accuracy and validity of the evidence is essential in any case. (I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THIS POINT, CAN REMOVE IF NOT RELEVANT IN CASE THERE IS CHANGE IN LEGISLATION)
Furthermore, I would like to highlight that my vehicle entered the bus lane for no more than 8-10 meters of the remaining stretch of that lane. Additionally, at the time of entry, the bus, which was in the bus lane, had nearly completed its exit from the lane and had come to a complete halt in the main carriageway. I entered the bus lane with the sole intention of turning left at the junction, which was a mere 8-10 meters ahead of my vehicle. I did not undertake any vehicles, nor did I gain any advantage over other motorists.
Considering the circumstances and the lack of any significant violation, I kindly request that you cancel the PCN. I would like to emphasize that this is the first time I have received such a PCN, and I am committed to abiding by all traffic rules and regulations in the future.
I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to a favourable resolution. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information or clarification regarding my representations.
-
I would just keep it simple and require them to consider your previous representations as the formal submissions against the Enforcement Notice.
-
Thank you @cp8759 and @Hippocrates for your responses. I will post the draft here before I submit. While in the process of preparing my appeal against this ticket, I intend to add references to similar cases where individuals have successfully appealed their bus lane contravention tickets. Can anyone advise which case closely resonates that can help in my appeals?
-
I agree. And make no comment whatsoever about their initial rejection.
-
I would just say something along the lines of "I require you to reconsider my informal representations as my formal representations" and see what comes back.
-
I am confused by the two posters? Redbridge? Just wait for the Enforcement Notice and simply state you are requiring them to consider your original challenge. There is little point in pointing out their failures to consider at this stage. Let them do that in the NOR.
I have received Enforcement Notice today which I have attached. Shall I basically just use the same defence that I have sent initially?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
"Certificates (although not required)" = :o :-\ :'(
What are they on? ;D
-
At the moment I'm pretty sure we're winning over 90% of cases, so the odds aren't so bad.
-
The OP will still be faced with the challenge of mounting a successful appeal, unless LBWF somehow trip themselves up.
It will be the usual tribunal lottery with this one.
-
As long as you challenge the Enforcement Notice within 14 days of the date of issue, they usually reoffer the discount, so there is very limited risk in carrying on.
-
I'm not sure how strong are my chances of taking it to tribunal and winning this appeal as I'm not in a position to lose and pay full penalty. If I have chances I want to know what are the strong points to contest??
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The Bus Lane PCN process is HERE (https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/bus-lane-pcn-enforcement-process)
You've had your informal appeal rejected.
You currently have a choice to pay at the discounted rate in the next couple of days, or wait for the Enforcement Notice, at which point you lose the discount.
Then you can submit your formal representation to Waltham Forest.
If Waltham Forest reject your representation then you can pay the full amount or take it to the Tribunal.
-
Hi all, I have received a response from LBWF today via post following my appeal. Please see attached. What are the chances of further going to tribunal and winning this?
Hi cp8759, just checking to see if you have had a chance to look at this?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I am confused by the two posters? Redbridge? Just wait for the Enforcement Notice and simply state you are requiring them to consider your original challenge. There is little point in pointing out their failures to consider at this stage. Let them do that in the NOR.
Got me Boroughs mixed up and got ahead of myself.
Best I leave it to the experts.
No worries - I often confuse my identities! Just send in the original reps. again.
-
I am confused by the two posters? Redbridge? Just wait for the Enforcement Notice and simply state you are requiring them to consider your original challenge. There is little point in pointing out their failures to consider at this stage. Let them do that in the NOR.
Got me Boroughs mixed up and got ahead of myself.
Best I leave it to the experts.
-
I am confused by the two posters? Redbridge? Just wait for the Enforcement Notice and simply state you are requiring them to consider your original challenge. There is little point in pointing out their failures to consider at this stage. Let them do that in the NOR.
-
Deleted
-
Deleted
-
Deleted
-
Hi all, I have received a response from LBWF today via post following my appeal. Please see attached. What are the chances of further going to tribunal and winning this?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Clearly a job for the Maestro.
-
I would also add some context for the Adjudicator to consider about the need to get in the left hand lane at the traffic lights.
(https://i.ibb.co/kmpwyhx/Green-Man-Roundabout.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xFyBsMD)
Other than southbound A12 you need to be in the left hand lane for all other exits.
Also make it clear that CCTV shows the very end of the bus lane and likely to clip the end.
-
99.999% LBWF will just reject as they always do.
If the OP is willing to take the gamble at Tribunal, or the opportunity arises in another case I would play on the break in the line getting bigger and the lack on the 'end of bus lane' sign. Although not mandatory Chapter 3 Road signs says:
9.3.9. The end of a with‑flow bus lane will usually be obvious through the termination of the
diagram 1049A marking. If considered necessary due to observed driver behaviour, an upright
sign to diagram 964 (S9‑4‑11, see Figure 9-5) may be sited as shown in Figure 9-1. The lane
should normally be stopped short of the Stop line at traffic signal controlled junctions
Observed driver behaviour shows people cutting across the last 10-15 metres. The gap in the line is large, getting larger and compounded by lack of sign it can be confusing for drivers.
You can see from GSV images over recent years that there is no maintenance and the gap is getting bigger - 16 months ago it was approx 1.3m.
If this one goes to tribunal I will go down there myself and get an accurate measurement.
When does a continuous thick white line become not substantially continuous?
Chapter 5 Roadmarkings - edge of carriageway (dashed white lines) Diagram 1010 - has a spacing of 1m (1000mm)
They make over £1m per year from this 183m long 'At all times' bus lane that has 6 - 10 buses per hour at peak times (06:00 - 20:00) and every 15 - 30 mins the rest of the time. The rest of Whipps cross road is single lanes. They can surely afford to fix a gap in the roadmarkings?
-
Don't mention the camera issue. They have a new certificate, but there's more to it than that. Can't say more for now.
Please e mail me what tricks you are devising at present.
-
Ah! I already appealed with below, lets see what I hear back from them.
Dear Sirs
Ref: PCN: FR60075661 VRM: EN59RHY
I challenge the said PCN on the following grounds:
1. The contravention did not occur as I merely attempted to merge into the exit lane to turn left thus creating a situation which can only be described as de minimis. There is a 20 metre rule that should normally be observed before any PCN should be issued and in this case the vehicle clearly was not driven in the bus lane for this distance. In this case the appellant simply made a permitted left turn across a bus lane for no more than 10 metres before turning left at the roundabout.
2. The video does not show any signs allegedly passed.
3. There is a break in the solid white line which is confusing.
4. The photographs provided are more helpful in relation to where the vehicle crossed over and the arrow indicating vehicles could enter the lane. This is clearly almost immediately after the vehicle crossed over. No end sign can be observed in those pictures.
4. I put you to strict proof that the camera used satisfies the admissibility of evidence at the Tribunal as provided at Para 7(2) of Schedule 1 of The London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amended) and Part II.
Please cancel the PCN, particularly also as this is the first time I have received such a PCN.
-
Don't mention the camera issue. They have a new certificate, but there's more to it than that. Can't say more for now.
-
The only consistent thing about Adjudicators is their inconsistency.
Some believe in the mythical 20m rule and at least one thought the 'End of Bus Lane' sign was mandatory.
On that basis I'd try all options in the hope something might stick and go for lucky dip on which adjudicator you get.
The lack of maintenance on the bus lane is so annoying. That gap in the 'continuous thick white line' has got bigger in the past few years.
They rake in at least £1m per year from this 183m long, pointless bus lane but they can't afford a lick of paint to make it fully compliant.
The context and layout of the junction is impossible to derive from the photos and video. You need (IMO) to be in the left hand lane for all the exits expect southbound A12.
The OP has entered the bus lane 12m-13m from the end. As is usual there's no bus to be seen. OP concentrating on traffic and lights 50m ahead and needs to be in LH lane.
There is no end of bus lane sign. It should have one because of driver behaviour. Those getting tickets invariably clip the last few metres and need additional clarity.
End of bus lane not clear to to ever growing gap, currently estimated between 1m - 1.5m. The meaning of 'Substantially compliant' is being stretched. How long does it need to be before it is non-compliant?
Yeah I hate this bus lane with a vengeance >:(
-
One of Kevin Moore's decisions as far as I recall mentioned the said "rule". As far as I am concerned it is mere fantasy.
-
There is also no 20 metre rule.
At one time the TPT used such a figure, but there is nothing in the legislation or regulations, it is up to individual adjudicators whether to consider a de minimis argument or not. As far as I know, London Tribunals and before them, PATAS, never mentioned any rule. De minimis is subjective, so one adjudicator may well disagree with another.
20 metre rule argument was used in this case, I thought that might have some importance, but if that is going to be detrimental, happy to remove it.
Sarah-Jane Mendonca v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2210480049, 06 September 2021) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RhyBA-cF3Jh_yqpadQuYpPSiSX6ter5T/view)
Thanks for putting up this link. So there are people around who consider there IS a 20 metre rule, but it is nowhere to be seen in any of the legislation or regulations. The key line of the decision is this: -
"There is a 20 metre rule that should normally be observed before any PCN should be issued"
Well, this is the first time I suspect any council has heard about this so called rule ! Interesting, though, because it can be quoted to support trivial (de minimis) intrusions into bus lanes.
-
One can always modify later. They do have a new certificate. Basically, they will ignore other cases anyway. The nature of the beast. The more important reps. are against the EN. Provided the challenge is not vacuous, I would include everything.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=145245&pid=1725100&mode=threaded&start=#entry1725100
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/list-of-certifications-granted-for-approved-devices
-
There is also no 20 metre rule.
At one time the TPT used such a figure, but there is nothing in the legislation or regulations, it is up to individual adjudicators whether to consider a de minimis argument or not. As far as I know, London Tribunals and before them, PATAS, never mentioned any rule. De minimis is subjective, so one adjudicator may well disagree with another.
20 metre rule argument was used in this case, I thought that might have some importance, but if that is going to be detrimental, happy to remove it.
Sarah-Jane Mendonca v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2210480049, 06 September 2021) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RhyBA-cF3Jh_yqpadQuYpPSiSX6ter5T/view)
-
Too good. 8) The part about waiting for confirmation I would omit.
Yes, I plan to omit when appealing but in the interim, I wanted to wait if cp8759 managed to close in on the camera certification and camera's compliance to issue fines.
-
There is also no 20 metre rule.
At one time the TPT used such a figure, but there is nothing in the legislation or regulations, it is up to individual adjudicators whether to consider a de minimis argument or not. As far as I know, London Tribunals and before them, PATAS, never mentioned any rule. De minimis is subjective, so one adjudicator may well disagree with another.
-
Too good. 8) The part about waiting for confirmation I would omit.
-
I have drafted below with the help of Schofeldt in PePiPoo forum to appeal:
Dear Sirs
Ref: PCN: FR60075661 VRM: EN59RHY
I challenge the said PCN on the following grounds:
1. The contravention did not occur as I merely attempted to merge into the exit lane to turn left thus creating a situation which can only be described as de minimis. There is a 20 metre rule that should normally be observed before any PCN should be issued and in this case the vehicle clearly was not driven in the bus lane for this distance. In this case the appellant simply made a permitted left turn across a bus lane for no more than 10 metres before turning left at the roundabout.
2. The video does not show any signs allegedly passed.
3. There is a break in the solid white line which is confusing.
4. The photographs provided are more helpful in relation to where the vehicle crossed over and the arrow indicating vehicles could enter the lane. This is clearly almost immediately after the vehicle crossed over. No end sign can be observed in those pictures.
4. I put you to strict proof that the camera used satisfies the admissibility of evidence at the Tribunal as provided at Para 7(2) of Schedule 1 of The London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amended) and Part II (**I will wait for your confirmation on this one**)
Further to this please see previous appeals for this contravention which were upheld in favour of the appellant.
Ashfaq Ahmad Chaudhry v London Borough of Merton (2130253836, 11 July 2013) and
Sarah-Jane Mendonca v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2210480049, 06 September 2021).
Please cancel the PCN, particularly also as this is the first time I have received such a PCN.
Yours faithfully,
ST
-
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4b1M2lnjD8
The relevant cases that can be cited on de-minimis are Ashfaq Ahmad Chaudhry v London Borough of Merton (2130253836, 11 July 2013) (http://bit.ly/2QMNNAY) and Sarah-Jane Mendonca v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2210480049, 06 September 2021) (https://bit.ly/3tswtlU).
I will make some enquiries about the camera certification, in the meantime I suggest you type up a draft in your own words for the informal representations and put it on here for review.
-
Hi cp8759, thanks for replying.
Please see attached PCN number and plate details.
Would you be so kind to share strongly worded template for appealing. As the alleged incursion was de minimis, does that stand a chance at all?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
This is not as time-sensitive as you might think: if you challenge the PCN today, the discount will be re-offered.
Assuming you don't pay, you will then be sent an Enforcement Notice demanding the full penalty, but as long as you challenge that within 14 days, the discount will be re-offered again.
Please give us the PCN number and the number plate so that I can post the video on here.
-
Hello,
I recently received a PCN (Penalty Charge Notice) due to a contravention (number 34) for allegedly being in a bus lane. The incident occurred while I was driving along Whipps Cross Road E11. As I approached the end of the bus lane, I needed to switch to the left lane in order to exit at the roundabout traffic lights. Regrettably, I began the manoeuvre a bit early and crossed the bus lane but there was no bus behind me. I want to emphasize that my intention was solely to merge into the correct lane and not to undertake any cars or disrupt traffic flow.
I am looking to contest this PCN on the aforementioned basis and would greatly appreciate any advice on how to structure my challenge effectively. While researching previous appeals made at this location, I came across references to 'approved devices' and succeeding, however my concern is if they have a new certificate or if this camera is still non-compliant to issue penalties.
Location: https://goo.gl/maps/ThZCPK5m9pdLo4ju9
https://walthamforestecho.co.uk/2022/08/03/waltham-forest-drivers-escape-fines-thanks-to-stranger-wielding-little-known-law/#article
Thank you for your assistance and understanding. Looking forward to your response.
Best regards,
ST
[attachment deleted by admin]