Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: disheartened59 on October 15, 2024, 08:00:09 pm
-
I'm posting Harrow's Adjournment Evidence, which includes the image which I think is the one referred to. It bears the date 1 September 2024, but this isn't .exif data.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The sign, as shown in the site evidence produced by the Enforcement Authority, is that prescribed by Diagram 953 at Item 33 in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, being a permitted variant thereof, as indicating ‘route for use by buses, pedal cycles and taxis’.
What were the dates of this photographic evidence please?
-
Very interesting - pleased for your win @Bustagate even though they dodged the main principle behind the appeal.
Like you say
That leaves the material which I prepared as a source which others can mine for their own appeals.
And that might just be me. :)
I've got a few days before I need to submit my initial representation. I have differring circumstances to you in that it was during the day, and although there was an oncoming vehicle, I don't think a claim of evasive manoeuvre would cut the mustard.
When you've had a moment to take a breath be great to get your thoughts on my PCN here (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-avenue-bus-gate-33e-(april-2025))
Thanks
-
The appeal was allowed ... but the Adjudicator picked the reason which does least damage to Harrow (and to the future workload for Adjudicators):
because of a parked car on the offside, oncoming vehicles and the darkness of the night, he had to keep to the nearside to avoid hitting one of the oncoming vehicles and/or his own vehicle being hit from behind by the closely following vehicle.
a motorist may on occasion have to take action so as to avoid an accident, which may involve an unintentional contravention of a restriction
I find on balance that, at the material time, the Appellant was taking action within the meaning of the exemption provided by Article 5(1)(a) of the Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2026, as amended by the Harrow (Bus Priority) (Amendment No. 2) Traffic Order 2018
I did fear that putting up so many grounds for appeal provided an opportunity for the Adjudicator to select the least damaging one. That leaves the material which I prepared as a source which others can mine for their own appeals.
One issue which I had not considered was the very human one that the other participants in the case each had a reasonably comfortable life which they wished to preserve. While I was motivated by a sense of injustice, it turned out that the justice system was more concerned with self-preservation. "Keep calm and carry on" appears to be the motto, or perhaps it's "Don't rock the boat".
-
As I said, you have rattled a few cages.
-
An update on today's reconvened hearing. It was noisier than I had expected: Harrow's representatives intervened frequently with raised voices, often repeating what they had just said. That suggests to me that they considered that they were on the back foot.
Harrow's argument was, in essence, that they had complied with the requirement to place the regulatory signs (blue roundels) which indicate the presence of the bus restriction and that, in law, that sufficed. They appeared not to understand that a decision in 2010 in the High Court about a road in Oxford could be more significant in guiding Adjudicators than any number of adjudications about Camrose Avenue. I was surprised that the Adjudicator didn't appear to be familiar with the case.
I found it difficult to read what the Adjudicator was thinking. One thing which did seem to go down well was when I showed the signage at the northern end of Hammersmith Bridge Road where (until the closure of Hammersmith Bridge) there was a width restriction in the outer southbound lane next to a nearside bus lane. The sign showed the blue roundel on the inside, then a black dashed vertical line and then the width restriction. I suggested that this was what Harrow should have placed as advance signage instead of only width restriction signs.
I shan't be surprised if it takes the Adjudicator a few days to produce his decision.
-
I'm intrigued by the sentences:
There was no central line separating the two lanes and there was an arrow in the outside lane in the direction of the Appellant’s direction of travel. There were keep right and left signs on bollards either side of that lane.
Lane markings (which include the white hatching in front of the traffic islands) delineate lanes. Without lane markings, there is a single lane. That is precisely one of the issues on Camrose Avenue. Harrow removed the lane markings in 2008. Otherwise one could point to the absence of a sign to diagram 877, which shows that the inside lane is about to be dedicated to buses and other permitted vehicles.
As for "keep right and left signs on bollards either side of that lane", what is he talking about? Elsewhere (e.g. Headstone Lane) Harrow place Keep Left signs which they expect buses and permitted vehicles to pass on the right. Doing so is the contravention for which Harrow issues vast numbers of PCNs on Charlton Road. The correct approach (see Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/13 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c0650e5274a7202e19128/traffic-bollards-low-level.pdf)) is to leave the bollard blank as vehicles are permitted to pass the bollard on both sides. So far as I am aware, Harrow don't make this mistake on Camrose Avenue.
-
Well, it's certainly a "nice little earner" for the council !!
Case refused: 2250084160
The appeal was heard via a video link. The Appellant attended the hearing. The Authority was not represented.
The issue was about signage. The Appellant said that as he was following a bus, he could not see the restriction signs until a point at which he decided that stopping abruptly or changing lane would have been dangerous.
It is common ground that there was no advance warning sign. There was a width restriction warning sign but the Appellant would not have been influenced by it. The Appellant thought initially that there was no sign at all but accepted upon reviewing the Authority’s evidence that the signage was present.
I do not accept the Appellant’s suggestion that it was reasonable for him to think that the lane outside the bus gate was for traffic in the opposite direction. There was no central line separating the two lanes and there was an arrow in the outside lane in the direction of the Appellant’s direction of travel. There were keep right and left signs on bollards either side of that lane. These signs were facing the Appellant. This would not be the case if the lane was for traffic coming the other way. There were no vehicles to the outside of the Appellant’s as he approached the bus gate.
It follows that the question for me was whether the Appellant had the opportunity to see the signage ahead.
I accept that there was a bus ahead. The Appellant was not tailgating. I find that the Appellant could have seen at least one of the upright bus gate signs and the bus gate road marking in time to change lane safely.
I am satisfied that the contravention occurred. I refuse the appeal.
Another DIY appeal I am afraid.
-
Here are two further documents for the reconvened hearing:
- Annex E: Excerpts from TSRGD setting out prescribed uses of the curved arrows, width restriction sign and the BUS GATE road marking
- Revised Synopsis collating material from Harrow's Case Summary with that in the Synopsis of the Appeal, Harrow's Response and the Counter Response
Annex E seeks to demonstrate that Harrow's assertion
signage at the location [is] in accordance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016
is false.
The Revised Synopsis sets out the arguments which Harrow deploy, together with my responses seeking to pick them apart. It remains to be seen how these fare before the Adjudicator.
---------------------
One general point which I would make is that highway authorities do not have a completely free hand in deciding what traffic signs to place.
First, unless they obtain special permission from DfT, they must use only those signs defined in TSRGD 2016 and only in the ways that it prescribes.
Secondly, when they make a Traffic Regulation Order (which is necessary to impose bus or width restrictions), Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Order (Procedures) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18) (LATOR) imposes on the authority the duty to secure
(a) … the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road.
Thirdly, section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/122) place on highway authorities the duty
to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular ... traffic ... on the highway
The Department for Transport (DfT) publishes the Traffic Signs Manual (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual), which offers advice to highway authorities and others on the use of traffic signs on the highway network. Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c419a1240f0b61704aec4d7/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-1.pdf) sets out the principles for signage:
1.3.1. Traffic signs are placed by the traffic authority, through the powers provided by the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, to provide warnings, information and details of restrictions to road users...
1.3.2. In order to achieve safe and efficient operation of a highway network, it is essential that all signing provided is necessary, clear and unambiguous, and gives its message to road users at the appropriate time. The message must be quickly and easily understood at the point it is needed; neither too soon that the information might be forgotten, nor too late for the safe performance of any necessary manoeuvre.
The Traffic Signs Manual has a similar status to The Highway Code: it isn't the law, but it sets out what you should do and courts look to it as setting a benchmark of how people and organisations should behave. Schemes such as Camrose Avenue tend not to fit well into the framework set out in the various chapters of the Traffic Signs Manual. That's why they catch out so many motorists.
One key legal case concerned with the adequacy of traffic signs is R (Oxfordshire County Council) v. The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin). This was a judicial review of an adjudication and so sets precedent for adjudicators. The case turned on two issues: whether the area of road was a bus lane; and the adequacy of the advance signage. In paragraph 65 Mr Justice Beatson (as he then was) found:
If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed; see James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676. Such information is a requirement ...
So the main line of attack against these PCNs is that the signs did not provide adequate information, so no contravention occurred. On Camrose Avenue some of the signs are not as prescribed in TSRGD 2016, so are legally void. That helps establish that the signage is inadequate. The other main plank is to argue by analogy with the closest match in the Traffic Signs Manual to whatever is on the road at the site in question. If it's a bus restriction, that's section 9 of Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c4ace6ded915d38a0611abc/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-05.pdf).
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
It is; but, far in excess of the prescribed length (by the Chief Adjudicator) of a skeleton argument. 8)
-
This is incredibly in depth - amazing work - best of luck!
-
Basically they have no incentive whatever to improve matters, because it is such a nice little earner for them.
-
For those who are interested, I attach the main document submitted for appeal 2250053451, which is reconvening tomorrow with two representatives of Harrow Borough Council.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
That's a relief.
-
Harrow's of course.
-
Whose cages? Is that a warning?
-
I think they will as you have rattled a few cages.
-
They are meant to be attending. Whether they do is a different matter.
-
I see they are attending. I wouldn't mind observing. ;)
-
The hearing was adjourned and will reconvene on Tuesday 29th April.
I don't know how the Adjudicator will respond to my arguments. They are, in essence:
1. The TMO specifies that the bus restriction applies to a different section of road (to the north of the northern traffic island, which is the one for westbound traffic; or to the south of the southern traffic island, which is the one for eastbound traffic)
2. Some of the signage (curved arrows, width-restriction signs, BUS GATE road markings) has not been placed in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. Harrow cannot rely on that signage as forming any part of its argument that you have contravened the restriction. The blue roundels are smaller than recommended in the Traffic Signs Manual (600mm diameter instead of 750mm), so can be seen less well from a distance.
3. Harrow will go on at length about having placed advance warning of the width restriction but there is no advance warning of the bus restriction. The only indication of this is at the restriction. There is no difference in the legislation in terms of providing advance notice of one restriction against another. Harrow have created what is, in effect, a short nearside with-flow bus lane, for which there would be a lead-in taper (thick dashed white line before the start of the bus lane) which directs motorists away from the lane which is about to become a bus lane. That sets a benchmark for the signage appropriate to this situation. Other signage could be used, such as lane markings which went from the nearside kerb to the traffic island to show drivers where to go.
4. Drivers need to start moving out when the blue roundels come into sight. The absence of such signage (and the curved arrows don't count as they are unlawful and so void) makes the signage inadequate. By the judgement in [2010] EWHC (Admin) 894 if the signage is inadequate, no liability arises (see paragraph 65 of the judgement), so that's it.
-
Hi Bustagate
I have just fallen victim of the very same and have read your story with keen interest. What was the conclusion - what is the succinct appeal in the first stage?
Here is my PCN as wanted to confirm we're talking about the same situation Camrose Ave Busgate April 2025 (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-avenue-bus-gate-33e-(april-2025)/msg68253/#msg68253)
Many thanks
-
Harrow have now submitted their response to the Adjudicator. Among much boilerplate which they have scraped from the bottom of the barrel (some of which relates to road markings which they removed in 2008) there is a notable absence: they are silent on whether the curved arrows have been placed in accordance with TSRGD 2016. As these arrows form a substantial plank in their argument that they have provided adequate advance signage of the bus restriction and guidance to motorists where to go, the removal of this plank severely weakens their argument.
They have also not addressed my argument that the BUS GATE road markings have also not been placed in accordance with TSRGD 2016. That road marking is required to be placed within the restriction, not in advance of it.
As the "thick white demarcation line" and the "red asphalt paving" do not exist, they are left with no advance signage of the bus restriction and only the diagram 953's at the restriction itself. That compares with the advance signage for a nearside with-flow bus lane of the lead-in taper and the diagram 958 30m in advance of the start of the taper.
If Harrow have not withdrawn their argument about the "BUS GATE" road marking and the "white directional arrows" in your case, I suggest challenging them about false witness. Their failure to respond to these points when directed to by the Adjudicator in my case provides a strong indication that they are unable to sustain that argument and should not be deploying it in other cases.
-
I said that I would report what happened at the hearing on Thursday in which I was involved.
The Adjudicator appeared to be surprised by the challenges being made. When I said that the road markings were unlawful, he asked whether I meant that they were not as set out in the Traffic Signs Manual. I said no, they were not in accordance with TSRGD 2016. It was unlawful to place those road markings where Harrow had placed them. The time ran out and the hearing was adjourned to 29 April. The reason was:
The Adjudicator directs the Enforcement Authority to respond in detail the written submissions made by the Appellant and also address the particular point raised by the Appellant that the location images produced are incorrect in that they do not show the current position
As the road markings westbound are very similar to those eastbound, you may wish to ask for a postponement of your hearing until Harrow have responded in detail to the written submissions in Appeal 2250053451 and the Adjudicator has delivered his Adjudication.
-
Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18) (LATOR) places a duty on local authorities when they make a Traffic Order to place
such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road
Harrow have made separate orders on Camrose Avenue applying bus restrictions and width restrictions. The combined effect of those restrictions is that the following vehicles can pass through the restrictions:
- on the right: those less than 2.0m wide
- on the left: buses, pedal cycles and taxis
The advance notice signs which Harrow have placed only indicate the presence of the width restrictions. They do not indicate that the width restrictions can be bypassed by buses (and also taxis and cycles, but they can pass through the width restriction). The definition of buses is
a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers (exclusive of the driver); or a local bus
Buses therefore include minibuses, such as those used by voluntary groups, many of which are more than 2m wide and can be driven on an ordinary driver's licence.
Harrow's advance notice signs fail to convey the restrictions at Camrose Avenue, which Regulation 18 of LATOR requires. They therefore misdirect drivers of minibuses as to what the restrictions are. Advance notice of the bus restrictions as well as the width restrictions would also prepare other drivers for what they are about to encounter.
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/contents/made) (TSRGD 2016) offer greater flexibility than previous versions in providing advance notice of restrictions. In particular, they allow advance notice signs which show two restrictions side-by-side, such as on the left in the attached image. This sign is based on one which was used at the northern end of Hammersmith Bridge Road, where there is an almost identical configuration of a bus lane on the left of a traffic island and a width restriction to its right.
Although this advance notice sign is unusual (but so is the configuration of lanes on Camrose Avenue) and so may not be understood, it puts motorists on their guard. It prepares them for the next sign, shown on the right in the attached image. This sign is a "lane gain" sign which shows that a lane is being added on the right and that, after a junction on the left (Dale Avenue), the left-hand lane is restricted to buses, cycles and taxis. It is the sign which you didn't see when following the bus and which would have indicated to you that you should move out.
Instead, Harrow will say that
There is signage at the location, situated on both sides of the road, and in accordance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016.
The signs clearly advise motorists of the approaching width restrictions in advance... There is no legislation for there to be advanced warning signs for the buses, taxis and cycles only lane. In addition there are directional white arrows on the road to give motorists guidance as to the lane they should be travelling in
The "directional white arrows" are technically known as deflection arrows and are specified as Item 14 in TSRGD 2016 Schedule 11 Part 4 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/part/4/made). Harrow's use of them is not as prescribed in TSRGD 2016 (see the attachment AnnexD.pdf and note the quote at the end).
The width-restriction signs are 450mm in diameter. Those signs are Item 26 in TSRGD 2016 Schedule 3 Part 2 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/part/2/made). The possible sizes (see column 4) are 750, 900 and 1200mm diameters. It follows that the width-restriction signs are not as prescribed in TSRGD 2016.
The placing of the "BUS GATE" road marking (Item 15 of TSRGD 2016 Schedule 9 Part 6 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/part/6/made)) is also not in accordance with TSRGD 2016. This is more subtle: the marking is regulatory and is required to be placed inside the section of road to which the Traffic Order applies. It has been placed in advance of it.
Harrow's assertion that "the signage is in accordance with TSRGD 2016" is triply false. By acting outside TSRGD 2016, Harrow have acted ultra vires and cannot derive benefit from their unlawful actions. The adjudicator should not draw any inferences against you from any failure on your part to respond to those three elements of the signage.
Another thing Harrow will say in their evidence is
Additionally, restricted routes are identified by thick white demarcation line, the words "BUS GATE" are painted on the carriageway itself and - although not necessary to meet the regulations - the roadway is paved with red asphalt
The "thick white demarcation line" (which did not comply with TSRGD) disappeared when the road was resurfaced in 2021/22, as did the red surface-dressing. As already noted, the words "BUS GATE" should have been painted within the bus restriction, not in advance of it.
What Harrow have done on Camrose Avenue has been in effect to create a very short nearside with-flow bus lane. They couldn't create this as a proper bus lane because those require what is known as a "lead-in taper". This is a dashed thick white line on a 1:10 diagonal leading up to the start of the lane. This really does guide motorists away from the bus lane as it starts. There are rules about such tapers, one of which is that you can't have a junction within it. Another concerns visibility and the placing of advance signage. When the scheme was created, highway authorities needed permission from the Department to create bus lanes. Harrow knew that they couldn't meet the requirements, so they went ahead and did what they wanted, creating something which acted like a short bus lane but wasn't. The scheme was created without adequate signage and has never had proper signage.
Harrow are correct when they say that the blue roundels are where they are required to be. But that doesn't mean that those blue roundels on their own provide sufficient notice. For a normal bus lane you have all that other signage, including the lead-in taper, which means that by the time you reach the start of the bus lane you don't actually notice the equivalent of the blue roundel which marks the start of the bus lane.
Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/122) imposes the duty on all highway authorities to
secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) ... on ... the highway
By not providing the signage to indicate to motorists who may be following a bus that they need to move out, Harrow is failing to meet its statutory obligations. It is those statutory obligations which make irrelevant Harrow's assertion that there is no legislation requiring advance notice of bus restrictions. It is the combination of signage which must be adequate to enable motorists expeditiously, conveniently and safely to use Harrow's roads. Suitable signs exist. Harrow does not use them.
P.S. For those wishing to deploy this argument eastbound on Camrose Avenue, I have uploaded BusSign6.png, which gives the signs which I consider appropriate eastbound (the service road is less significant than Dale Avenue, so I haven't shown it).
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The chief points to note are:
1. As with all highway authorities, Harrow have a duty under s.122 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/122) to
secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic... on ... the highway
That means that they need to provide signage which does what it says, so ... no surprises when signs are suddenly revealed and you have to decide whether to slam on the brakes and yank the steering wheel or carry on.
2. what Harrow call "directional arrows" and which they claim show which way you're meant to go are actually unlawfully placed on the carriageway. They are known technically as "deflection arrows" (diagram 1014 TSRGD 2016 Schedule 11 Part 4 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/part/4/made) Item 14). If you trawl through the uses specified, you'll find that (apart from obstructions on the carriageway) they are used as warnings of other road markings and not as road markings in their own right. So they have no right to be there and Harrow's claim that you didn't follow their guidance is poppycock. It's their directional arrows which are poppycock, not your driving.
Sadly, Harrow have been at this for many years. The scheme was created in 1974 (yes, more than 50 years ago) and was designed for rising barriers (think of the red-and-white-striped poles at old-fashioned toll booths or car parks) across what are now referred to as "bus gates". These would have been readily visible and self-policing. The "gates" were never used and the scheme was ineffective for 30 years as a means of stopping large vehicles from using Camrose Avenue.
For some reason I haven't been able to establish, Harrow never did the obvious thing and imposed a lorry restriction (that's what they were in those days) or, later, an HGV restriction on Camrose Avenue. As the restriction is a width restriction, it isn't shown on trucker's atlases (they show height restrictions) and as there isn't an HGV ban, it's not really surprising that HGVs set off down the road and, when they reach the width restriction, go the only way they can.
In 2005 TfL paid Harrow to "upgrade" the restrictions and install CCTV as a means of making the scheme more effective "in preventing large vehicles abusing the bus gates". At least they put in advance notices of the width restrictions, so fewer HGVs reached the restrictions. There had never any problem associated with cars: the whole scheme was about stopping large vehicles. But once it had started spinning money, predominantly of course from car drivers, Harrow has never looked back. It's their highest-yielding site.
Unfortunately, this is all rather complicated and way beyond the effort most people are prepared to put into fending off Harrow's claims. It's so much easier to pay the £65 and move on. Anyway, I've got a hearing on Thursday and will post again then.
-
OP: please PM me and I will offer to represent you. And start your own thread.
-
Well, it's certainly a "nice little earner" for the council !!
-
4th April 2025
I have a tribunal coming up because of a "contravention" (i think the contravention was building the gate in the first place!) Anyway.... There are two things I am trying to find out before 22nd April 2025 when I am having a video link tribunal regarding the bus gate:.....
One:
What is the bus gate for? Is it a) a traffic calming device? Is it b) a way of letting the bus stop and let all the traffic pass for a few minutes? Is it c) a way to stop busses colliding with cars at that point ? Does anyone know ? Is it d) And I honestly don't mean to make a joke here) Is it a way for Harrow Council to make plenty of money?
d) I have found out that the bus "gate" attracts so many PCN fines that they council are making 100s of 1000's of pounds each year. The figures are out there so we don't need to discuss that now.....
Two:
How many accidents (even just small dents and scratches etc have there been at this point in the road? The width limit signs are just that.. they don't indicate a bus lane imminent.
Does anyone know of data requests from the Motor Insurers Bureau ( https://www.mib.org.uk/ ) ?
I would like to know if there have been accidents reported at the precise sopt. The bit where you have clocked the "BUS LANE" sign in the road and you have only got time to yank at the steering when while checking the mirror at the same time to avoid going through the bus lane. I personally will be argueing at the tribunal that the whole idea of having to make a last sub-second desicion while navigating the road for the first time is a DANGER to other road users. It requires either the safe option of driving through the gaate or an very counter intuitive sudden swap to the outer lane to the right.
In my case I was clearly at a safe distance from the bus ahead of me but all oncoming traffic was obscured buy the bus. The middle lane which I was supposed to have driven into could have had traffic coming in MY direction for all I could tell.
My level of forward observation is, I think, quite good. But nothing warned me of the impending bus lane only section. And to avoid it is asking the general population of good drivers to make a dangerous decision I think.
So I would like to say now I think we all ought to organise a petition (gather 50,000 signatures) for a legal submission to the house of commons (or where ever they go) to have the Council members who have enjoyed raking it in with traffic fine SACKED ! And the the road device to be removed and all drivers fined from the gate reimbursed.
I know this will not happen and that my tribunal will not succeed because of all the secret hand shakes that the council do with law enforcement. They desperately want the money from us car drivers to put into the Harrow coffers.
All people interested in a petition (there should be a way of finding out who all of the previous PCN victims were and contacting them for signatures) please use the message system to send me your emails. I'll try to organise something.
Kevin Peters.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
;D 2240515018
-
Updated link for the PCN letter
https://imgur.com/a/dXXqZ2r (https://imgur.com/a/dXXqZ2r)
There is no need to post anymore as I am taking care of this. ;D
-
Updated link for the PCN letter
https://imgur.com/a/dXXqZ2r (https://imgur.com/a/dXXqZ2r)
-
PM sent. Let's get on with this. Sorted.
-
Please see image link for PCN letter
https://imgur.com/a/dXXqZ2r
Link is for the the letter /email received today deciding not to cancel the PCN. And stating that the choices and timescales in the NOR letter still apply.
I have applied for a copy of the cctv by email tonight.
They have not supplied a copy of my initial representation so I have not been able to check the exact wording and inclusion of the reduction in the speed limit.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
PCN details
Using A Route Restricted To Certain Vehicles Buses, Cycles And Taxis Only
Date:
29/09/202429 September 2024
Time:
16:31
Location:
CAMROSE AVENUE
Payment due:
£130.00
Payment status:
PCN on hold
-
Many thanks
I have emailed Harrow the first one I did not include the car registration and my name in the subject, on receipt of the automated confirmation email stating these needed to be on the email
, I promptly sent a :) second email with these included. I hope to get the photos on properly later tonight. I have found further help.
Please see the images on Imgur https://imgur.com/a/si65sMS
(https://imgur.com/a/si65sMS)
-
parking.enforcement@harrow.gov.uk
-
I wrote what is on my original post. I requested the cctv which has been ignored but there is a short video on the PCN. I intended to contact them for the cctv but I cannot find a telephone number, email address, or postal address to do a written request.
I have the photos of the Rejection of Representation on the computer and am going to try and get them loaded on here tonight.[attach=1]
Above is the first page of the NOR only two paragraphs on the second page starting you can appeal.
I will try tomorrow to get the photos on properly.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Please show what you wrote and their NOR. I won a case recently against them for a member.
-
Thank you very much for the advices. I was unable to upload the pictures but I intend to upload them today.
I had my Notice of Representations rejected the letter dated 22 October and i have 28 days to appeal.
The pcn has a very short video.
I am inexperienced in the use of forums hence the delays.
I have just worked out how to modify and you are reading the proof!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Read this, and update your thread. No meaingful advice can be give unless we can see (1) the PCN, and (2) the video of the alleged contravention : -
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
-
I have received PCN HR75844074dated 02/10/2024, Offence Sunday 29/09/2024 16:31.
I live in Waltham Forest but have had to go to Harrow about 5 times in the last 2 years, the last time I got a pcn at the same place on a sunday and assumed I had missed a bus lane. My son is usually navigating but on this occasion he was not. On the 29/9 he was navigating and we were looking out for the bus lane we were in a stream of traffic at least 2 cars behind and a car in front and a primary school van in front of that. I could not see the sign soon enough to stop safely as did the car in front and also the car behind is shown in the photo to be past the start of the chevrons. And the 2 cars behind that are driing on the left hand side.
There is no other warning signs and in my opinion I need to be driving down this stretch of road at 20MPH to be able to safely avoid future penalty notices. I could have avoided the bus gate if I am prepared to not watch out for bikers.
My son did not even see the bus gate sign.
I intend to appeal and ask for the cctv, it looks like every car is driving to the left to allow space because there are cars parked on the opposite side of the road.
I am hoping the CCTV will support my case regarding the van, and the parked cars at the time of the incident.
I try to get as much information on the routes where I am travelling before setting off.
Advice needed before making appeal.