Good evening all,
I'm new to the forum but have today received the exact same Bus Lane Penalty Charge Notice as FREE PARKING did.
Looking at the on street signs the road is not signed as a bus lane but as a bus gate. Bus gate signage falls under moving traffic PCN’s. An example being sign 953 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/images/uksi_20160362_en_115) which would be contravention code 33 Using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses and taxis only).As far as I'm aware Oxfordshire County Council, R (on the application of) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin) (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/894.html) deals with that argument.
The sign used here is 953B (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/images/uksi_20160362_en_117) but this sign is not listed (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6294ddfa8fa8f5039a1bd695/annex-a-traffic-signs-subject-to-moving-traffic_enforcement.pdf) as a sign that can be enforced under the TMA 2004.
Please don't register anything, I'll drop you a PM.
@Free Parking would you like me to represent you at the tribunal?
This would be an easy one and I'm skeptical that they'll contest, but you never know.
The person who wrote that letter won't even know what a statutory ground for appeal is ! The statement is, of course, tosh, so you should forego the discount and register an appeal at London Tribunals.
Had the PCN been issued under the London-specific legislation for bus lane enforcement, then the statutory grounds would have been correct and complete.
2) An enforcement notice must include the following information—
(a)that—
(i)the recipient may make representations against the penalty charge in accordance with regulation 5 of these Regulations, but
(ii)any such representations made outside the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice is served (“the payment period”) may be disregarded;
(b)the nature of the representations which may be made under regulation 5;
(4) The grounds mentioned in paragraph (2)(b)(i) are—
(a)the alleged contravention did not occur;
(b)the recipient—
(i)never was the owner of the vehicle in question,
(ii)had ceased to be its owner before the alleged contravention occurred, or
(iii)became its owner after the alleged contravention occurred;
(c)at the time that the alleged contravention occurred, the vehicle in question was in the control of a person who did not have the consent of the owner;
(d)the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—
(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a hiring agreement, and
(ii)the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging their liability in respect of any penalty charge notice served in respect of any relevant road traffic contravention involving the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement;
(e)the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;
(f)there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority;
(g)the order which is alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle concerned, except where it is an order to which Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the RTRA 1984 applies, is invalid;
(h)if a regulation 10 penalty charge notice is served under regulation 10(2)(b) or (c) of the 2022 General Regulations, no person prevented a civil enforcement officer from—
(i)fixing a regulation 9 penalty charge notice to the vehicle concerned, or
(ii)handing such a notice to the owner or person in charge of the vehicle;
(i)the enforcement notice should not have been served because—
(i)the penalty charge has already been paid in full, or
(ii)the penalty charge has been paid, reduced by the amount of any discount set in accordance with Schedule 9 to the TMA 2004, by the applicable date as specified in paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 3 to the 2022 General Regulations.