Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: brazilianx on April 23, 2025, 12:32:43 pm
-
Hey @Hippocrates
I'm 50/50 right now whether to cough up while I have the discount period... what do you reckon?
-
Just bumping this please @Hippocrates and @Bustagate thanks!
I have been rather busy with cases of late. I am out all day but I'll have a think and get back tonight hopefully.
-
OMG I have a PCN on at this section too....I will be reading everyone's posts to contest it..
The news article from 2023 shows that the Harrow Council makes £1.8M just fro this one road !!!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64394656
According to the Department for Transport Statutory guidance for Transport Management Act:
Local authorities should design their bus lane and moving traffic policies with particular regard to:
• managing the traffic network to ensure expeditious movement of traffic
• enable buses to bypass traffic queues and provide a substantial time saving for passengers
• should consider all sections of the community
• fair and appropriate enforcement of these restrictions
• the purpose of penalty charges is to persuade motorists to comply
• raising revenue should not be an objective of civil enforcement of bus lane or moving traffic contraventions, nor should authorities set targets for revenue or the number of PCNs they issue.
• a local authority has discretion to cancel a PCN at any point throughout the enforcement process. It can do this if the authority deems it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately.
• local authorities are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest.
• local authorities should approach the exercise of discretion objectively and without regard to any financial interest in the penalty or decisions that may have been taken at an earlier stage in proceedings.
-
Just bumping this please @Hippocrates and @Bustagate thanks!
-
Thanks @Bustagate - look forward to reviewing it
@Hippocrates I'm sure this will be helpful
Keen to determine next steps on this. Thanks all
-
The NoR contains the porkies which Harrow now know are porkies:
Please be advised that the signage at the location is on both sides of the road, and in accordance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
. . .
There are directional white arrows on the road to give motorists guidance as to the lane they should be travelling in.
I'll produce a further document similar to the one about the TMO highlighting Harrow's failure to respond to my challenge at my son's hearing to the signage's compliance with TSRGD 2016 and to Harrow's misuse of deflection arrows.
The deflection arrows (diagram 1014) are warning signs. TSRGD prescribes them for use only in advance of specific other signs. In the absence of those signs (and they're not present on Camrose Avenue) these arrows can only be placed on the carriageway with permission from DfT. They are NOT directional signs.
I am disturbed that Harrow are peddling known falsehoods. At my son's hearing they were merely ignorant. Now they're duplicitous.
-
Hello again @Hippocrates!
I, predictably, received the NoR this morning. Please see the complete document scanned, attached.
What do you suggest our next step is?
FYI @Bustagate
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
this is good, right?
Yes. Can be used later.
-
this is good, right?
-
https://lbhprduksfmepubsa01.blob.core.windows.net/parkingimages/HR76917592/Image3.mp4
Signage is a plethora and the arrow cannot be seen. Much worse than the video in 2240378030.
-
Not sure what you mean by this? Did I do something wrong?
Nope. They did by limiting to one ground.
-
Not sure what you mean by this? Did I do something wrong?
-
The law states "one or other grounds".
-
Challenge submitted as per attached
[attachurl=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Yes of course.
-
Hi @Hippocrates
So it's crunch time for me on this one...
based on all we now know from Bustagate's tribunal (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-avenue-appeal-2250053451/), and how the adjudicator went for the least helpful reason to allow the appeal, what are your thoughts on taking this all the way.
Can I count on your support if we go to tribunal?
Many thanks
-
Understood
I found the appeal you referenced above...
The Appellant is appealing a Penalty Charge Notice issued in respect of using a route restricted to certain vehicles.
The Appellant was represented by Mr Phillip Morgan who has attended the hearing in person. The Appellant and her husband, who was driving on the day in question, attended by telephone.
The Enforcement Authority relies upon photographic capture of the vehicle, a copy of the PCN, a copy of the relevant legislation, further photographic evidence and correspondence.
It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that she and her husband were not familiar with the location. They saw no advance warning signage and tell me that the road appeared to be a straight, "normal" road.
I have carefully considered all the evidence in this matter.
The CCTV footage relied upon by the EA shows the vehicle driving towards the camera. The signage facing the vehicle is not visible but there is clear "BUS GATE" marking on the carriageway.
The EA has provided photographic evidence of the signage which it contends faced the driver as he approached the restriction. This shows what appears to be blue and white bus, cycle and taxi only signage, although the photographs are of poor quality, and an advance warning sign denoting a width restriction. The quality of this evidence is such that the dates of these photographs cannot be readily determined. However, having expanded the photographs on both my screen today, and on Mr Morgan's laptop, it appears that they date back to 2021.
Whilst it is not reasonable to expect an EA to provide contemporaneous photographs of the signage upon which it relied, it is nonetheless incumbent upon that EA to provide photographs which can be found to accurately show the signage at a location, within a reasonable time of the date of the alleged contravention. This cannot be said of the photographs provided. Changes may occur to signage - obstructions/damage and so forth - and the EA must demonstrate that all relevant signage was prominent, unobscured and unambiguous. I find that this has not been done in this case.
I note that, on the CCTV footage of the incident, the back of what the EA contends is the restriction sign on the footway is visible. This sign appears to be a rectangular, "landscape" sign. The corresponding sign in the 2021 library photographs appears to be a square, or possibly "portrait" sign. Notwithstanding the possibility that this discrepancy may have been caused by a camera distortion, I cannot be satisfied to the requisite standard that they in fact show the same sign.
For these reasons, I allow this appeal.
-
Sorry. This one: 2240378030.
Just say the signage is not fit for purpose and the video does not prove the alleged contravention.
-
The images are flattened too. 2240515018
I've had a look at the adjudicator's findings - great result! Not sure what you mean by the images being flattened, though.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle used a route restricted to certain vehicles (local buses and cycles only) when in Camrose Avenue on 29 September 2024 at 16:31.The Appellant denies the contravention and through his representative has advanced a number of points.I have considered the evidence and I find that this PCN cannot be upheld for the following reason:First, I am not satisfied that the Authority has sufficiently proved the signage at this location.Second, the library photographs produced in the Map/Site evidence at 'J' in the evidence tree are undated, and I find that this weaken their evidential weight.Third, in the CCTV footage the back of two circular sign plates can be seen between the two routes. There is no evidence in relation to what these signs are.Further, the photographs on the Notice of Rejection do not show the signage and neither does the PCNIn light of this finding I am not required to resolve any other issues between the parties.The appeal is allowed.
This is not a bus lane! You have entered the wrong details. It is a bus gate and their website is ok re this contravention.
I haven't submitted anything as yet - but that would have been a schoolboy error.
So it's a moving contravention?
What's your advice for submitting the initial challenge and do you feel this is winnable?
Thanks
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Sure, wasn't sure how much to redact
Here are the particulars
Penalty Charge Notice No. HR76917592
Vehicle Registration Mark WO06LME
Date of this Notice 21/04/2025
From what I'm hearing the approach to take is essentially: the signage is unclear
How do we best log this in the initial challenge? What extra detail should be included?
Here's the form - is it a case of challenging on the grounds: The alleged contravention did not occur or The relevant designation order was invalid
(Attachment Link)
I've been following Bustagate's appeal (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-avenue-bus-gate-33e/msg68437/#msg68437) (Appeal 2250053451), which is pending an adjudicator decision next Tues 29th April 2025 and took his key points and then ran it through Perplexity to provide some supporting citations. Pls see attached. If he is successful then it is likely this approach will work. Keen to get your thoughts and next steps.
(Attachment Link)
Thanks!
This is not a bus lane! You have entered the wrong details. It is a bus gate and their website is ok re this contravention.
-
The images are flattened too. 2240515018
-
Sure, wasn't sure how much to redact
Here are the particulars
Penalty Charge Notice No. HR76917592
Vehicle Registration Mark WO06LME
Date of this Notice 21/04/2025
From what I'm hearing the approach to take is essentially: the signage is unclear
How do we best log this in the initial challenge? What extra detail should be included?
Here's the form - is it a case of challenging on the grounds: The alleged contravention did not occur or The relevant designation order was invalid
[attachimg=1]
I've been following Bustagate's appeal (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-avenue-bus-gate-33e/msg68437/#msg68437) (Appeal 2250053451), which is pending an adjudicator decision next Tues 29th April 2025 and took his key points and then ran it through Perplexity to provide some supporting citations. Pls see attached. If he is successful then it is likely this approach will work. Keen to get your thoughts and next steps.
[attachurl=2]
Thanks!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
We need the VRM and PCN details.
-
Hello
I can see from searching on this forum that there have been several victims of the Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E PCN.
This morning I became one (or my wife did).
Based on the history of these PCNs I'm not certain of our chances - but looks like there are some reasons to think this is beatable - so wanted to get the opinion of those that know. It looks like this particular Bus Gate has been well discussed - so hopefully there is some precedent on how to counter it.
I have uploaded a redacted copy of the PCN together with the video.
Here are the previous cases:
1 (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/33e-camrose-avenue-(/) / 2 (https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/re-harrow-camrose-avenue-bus-gate-33e/msg55483/#msg55483) / 3 (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-avenue-bus-gate-33e/msg66075/#msg66075) / 4 (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/33e-camrose-avenue-(/msg48474/#msg48474) / 5 (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-code-33e-route-restricted-for-busescyclestaxis-camrose-avenue-(again!)/msg16634/#msg16634)/ 6 (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-avenue-pcn-33e/msg57426/#msg57426) / 7 (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/camrose-avenue-33e-using-a-route-restricted-to-certain-vehicles/msg11302/#msg11302) / 8 (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/camrose-avenue-harrow-bus-gate/msg88/#msg88) / 9 (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-code-33e-using-a-restricted-route-headstone-lane/msg58160/#msg58160) / 10 (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-ave-bus-gate-33e-pcn-33e-using-restricted-to-certain-vehicles-bus/msg28137/#msg28137) / 11 (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-code-33e-using-a-route-restricted-to-certain-vehicles-buses-cycles-and-ta/msg15859/#msg15859) / 12 (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-ave-bus-gate-33e-pcn-33e-using-restricted-to-certain-ve-3287/msg38624/#msg38624)
Any help appreciated as £80 is more than we can afford right now.
Thanks in advance[attach=1][attach=2][attach=3][attach=4]
[attachment deleted by admin]