-
FYI I received my NoR this morning - posted here in the thread for my PCN
Link here NoR (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-avenue-bus-gate-33e-(april-2025)/msg73783/#msg73783)
-
Did Mr Greenslade invite or require their attendance?
-
As H C Andersen wrote (Reply #24), adjudicators don't like ambushes. The more opportunity Harrow have had to respond to a line of argument, and the more BS their response, the less an adjudicator needs to give Harrow further opportunity to respond.
With this particular line of argument, it was in my son's representations but they ignored it. The adjudicator asked them to provide a detailed response to the appeal document, which included the aerial view to show which was the southern and which the northern traffic island. Harrow did not mention it in their Adjournment Evidence. It was only at the reconvened hearing, when asked directly about it, that they produced their explanation.
-
Knowing that they would reject the challenge whatever I wrote, the reason I didn't include this was to keep some powder dry and not give them a chance to offer a BS response such that we couldn't use it again later on. That was my thought process.
-
Your representations didn't include that the TMO didn't apply to the area of road where you were. I'd be inclined to upload CamroseNote2b.pdf now rather than seek to add it at the appeal stage. If their system won't allow this, print it out and send it to them, with a covering note, by snail mail. Get a certificate of posting.
-
I submitted the initial challenge within the 14 day discount period on Monday and the PCN is on hold - please see attached.
Let's see what happens (but I think we know where this is going)
[attachurl=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thank you. Second draft attached.
What stage is Brazilianx at?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
+1. IMO @Bustagate should offer his services as a representative, not just for this location but globally on this forum.
-
Re: Reply#31
I attach my first piece of boilerplate. If it's not wanted, I'll take it elsewhere.
To be honest it looks pretty good, but I suspect that to get a substantive decision you'll need to argue it yourself at a hearing.
-
Re: Reply#31
I attach my first piece of boilerplate. If it's not wanted, I'll take it elsewhere.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Re: Reply #31
The point which I was making was that if an adjudicator holds that a highway authority has failed to carry out its duty under LATOR, this merely relieves the appellant of having to pay the PCN. The authority does not have to change its signage. It may choose to do so, as Harrow did on Camrose Avenue in 2010.
For the purpose of getting PCNs cancelled, it's better that they don't change the signage. That way you eventually can get costs orders against the council. Suggesting that the council should be incentivised to do everything correctly is somewhat misguided IMO.
If the council does everything by the book, has perfect signage, a perfect website, notices of rejection that show they have properly and fairly considered each and every issue raised in the representation, and a motorist with such a PCN comes here for advice, what then?
-
I suppose a writ of mandamus might do it
2004 called…
-
Re: Reply #31
The point which I was making was that if an adjudicator holds that a highway authority has failed to carry out its duty under LATOR, this merely relieves the appellant of having to pay the PCN. The authority does not have to change its signage. It may choose to do so, as Harrow did on Camrose Avenue in 2010.
While the Secretary of State has powers to require the removal of non-authorised signs and can rescind the authorisation of signs which have been specially authorised, he or she does not have the power to direct the authority to place any signs. I suppose a writ of mandamus might do it, but I can't see it happening.
-
In my view, this PD inherently favours the councils.
Of course it does.
And I have written to the CA stating so. Not only that, how on earth is the unrepresented appellant supposed to know all this, particularly when the Tribunal publishes you must send in your evidence 7 days before the hearing?
As they say, the litigant who represents himself...
I have a case pending in which the council only served their evidence 8 days before the hearing. So, how much time is allowed for me and/or my client to respond? This also begs the question: am I expected to view the portal on a daily basis when I have a life and other cases for which to prepare?
To be fair, appellants can get a no-questions-asked reschedule as of right by simply calling up the Hartlepool call centre, while authorities need to apply for one and often their applications for reschedules are denied.
And then there is Bus Lane legislation where the council must serve their evidence 7 days before the hearing. Upon receipt, is the appellant supposed to point out errors before the hearing? Not b****y likely as far as I am concerned. If the officer required to attend does or does not, I reserve the right to make further submissions on the day.
Look at paragraph 48 of KU (A Child) v LCC [2005] EWCA Civ 475 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Onh_YWE38hzj9CFiYXfZip3W-ibccdrv/view):
The status of a practice direction has been authoritatively delineated by Hale LJ in Re C (Legal Aid: Preparation of Bill of Costs) [2001] 1 FLR 602 at para 21, May LJ in Godwin v Swindon Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1478 at [11], [2002] 1 WLR 997, and Dyson LJ in Leigh v Michelin Tyre plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1766 at [19]-[21], [2004] 1 WLR 846. It is sufficient for present purposes to say that a practice direction has no legislative force. Practice directions provide invaluable guidance to matters of practice in the civil courts, but in so far as they contain statements of the law which are wrong they carry no authority at all.
-
I recognise that this advice is the opposite of that normally advanced, which is not to reveal your hand until the other side has shown his. Quite apart from matters of fairness, it is prompted by London Tribunals' Practice Direction 2024 No. 2 (https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Practice%20Direction%2002-2024%20on%20behalf%20of%20ETA%2029%20July%202024.pdf), which limits the material which can be added at the appeal stage.
It doesn't, in the notice of appeal you can add whatever you want. It purports to limit what can be added after the notice of appeal stage, but most adjudicators ignore it anyway.
In my view, this PD inherently favours the councils.
2 (e) A party’s skeleton argument must be lodged with the Tribunal at least 14 days prior to the hearing.
And I have written to the CA stating so. Not only that, how on earth is the unrepresented appellant supposed to know all this, particularly when the Tribunal publishes you must send in your evidence 7 days before the hearing? I have a case pending in which the council only served their evidence 8 days before the hearing. So, how much time is allowed for me and/or my client to respond? This also begs the question: am I expected to view the portal on a daily basis when I have a life and other cases for which to prepare?
And then there is Bus Lane legislation where the council must serve their evidence 7 days before the hearing. Upon receipt, is the appellant supposed to point out errors before the hearing? Not b****y likely as far as I am concerned. If the officer required to attend does or does not, I reserve the right to make further submissions on the day.
I am glad this has been moved into The Flame Pit because that was the way it was going.
One council engages in tit for tat responses right up to the 11th hour. Also, regarding screenshots of website pages re payment status, I adduce evidence like 45 minutes before the hearing to illustrate to the Adjudicator that the council is publishing an unlawful demand for money even when the appeal has not even been heard.
Re emboldened quote from cp8759: It would be more constructive for all of us if all adjudicators followed it to the letter. But, as we know, they never followed Martin Wood's PD re admission of evidence less than three days before the hearing constituted a reason for allowing the appeal. On has recently I believe. The only other one , Mr John Lane (now sadly retired) did as well.
Finally, I have spoken with several members of the Tribunal call service who were unaware of this PD.
Very very finally, if my petition were signed, much of this would be resolved by councils having to attend all hearings in moving traffic. Mickey Mouse and kangaroos could observe free of charge. Clearly, originally the Tribunal was set up to deal with relatively simple matters like signs and lines. Now that people have become more savvy, largely due to forums such as this (only this one in my opinion), it has become a far more educational experience for all concerned.
-
2. While Regulation 18 of LATOR places a duty on a highway authority, that duty cannot be enforced through an appeal against a PCN.
I've not followed this thread that much but the above is obviously wrong, as per the High Court in Nottingham City Council, R (on the application of) v Bus Lane Adjudicator & Ors [2017] EWHC 430 (Admin) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zDNVQoneveLy7MeOINP0iUCl5bXU4XkU/view) at paragraph 38:
38. It is well-established that a failure to comply with the regulation 18 duty as to signage is a proper ground on which an adjudicator may allow an appeal against the issue of a penalty charge notice on the ground that the alleged contravention of the relevant traffic regulation order did not occur. (See R (London Borough of Camden) v. The Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin), per Burnett J. at [50] – [51]).
I don't think a boilerplate approach is in any way, shape or form sensible, by far the worst appeals / representations I deal with are where someone has copied and pasted a boilerplate template that they don't understand. And as soon as any change is made to the TMO or the signage, the template is immediately out of date.
-
Re: Reply #28
I don't consider that the duty under LATOR really affects whether the signage is adequate. Either it is or it isn't. Adjudicators make that judgment when assessing an appeal against a PCN. If an adjudicator allows an appeal, explaining that some specific signage is defective, the highway authority may choose to remedy it pronto rather than see what happens at further appeals. That's what happened in March 2010 with the missing "O" from "BUS & // (cycle symbol) // ONLY" (appeal 2090587989, registered 20/11/2009, decided 21/12/2009).
The doctrine of ultra vires and its consequences are the subject of administrative law. If an action is held to be ultra vires, that action is void, i.e. it is a legal nullity and has been so since the action was taken. This creates interesting conundrums where, as with road markings, secondary actions have been taken on the assumption that the first action was valid.
Re: Reply #28
Under s. 64(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, DfT can authorise anything they wish to. Regulation 4 of TSRGD 2016 acknowledges this.
What I find interesting about Shepherds Bush Road is
- Hammersmith & Fulham had an experimental TMO from 2004 and had implemented the offside bus lane without an authorised sign, so ultra vires;
- DfT authorised the diagram 958 in 2006 when its position lay before the start of the lead-in taper to the bus lane, i.e. when the diagram 958 was being placed in a position which was consistent with its definition. DfT agreed that the diagram 959 wasn't needed because it would clash with the large direction sign before the roundabout. They may have felt that, as the bus lane had already been in use for 18 months, they could hardly prohibit it. Before 2008 H&F changed the road markings so that the diagram 958 now lay after the start of the lead-in taper. H&F assert that that change was within their powers as they didn't move the diagram 958 from its authorised position and nor did they move the bus lane. The definition of diagram 958 merely specifies that it appears before the start of the diagram 1049 so, arguably, H&F are right. But the result is that the sign now appears before the start of the lead-in taper, so contrary to what's shown on the sign. This looks dodgy to me, but I can understand why DfT hasn't given H&F 1 month's notice to remove it.
-
I don't care much for the DFT authorisation at Shepherds Bush Road Southbound Offside Bus Lane which runs counter to the TSM Chapter Three.
-
2. While Regulation 18 of LATOR places a duty on a highway authority, that duty cannot be enforced through an appeal against a PCN. There is another duty which s.122 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 places on highway authorities which is arguably more important:
What??
If an adjudicator determines that LATOR has not been complied with then it is open to them to allow an appeal on the grounds that 'contravention did not occur'.
As for ...But when it comes to individual signs, if a sign has not been placed as prescribed by TSRGD (and it can legitimately have been placed under a previous version) then, unless DfT has authorised it specially, it's been placed ultra vires and, by the tenets of administrative law, is void.
Really?
-
Re: Reply #24
1. As has been noted, the decision in the appeal did not refer to the signage issue. That doesn't mean that it wasn't raised or that Beatson's judgment didn't figure prominently. It means that the adjudicator allowed the appeal and selected as the reason for allowing it one which was specific to the case and which could not help other appeals.
2. While Regulation 18 of LATOR places a duty on a highway authority, that duty cannot be enforced through an appeal against a PCN. There is another duty which s.122 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 places on highway authorities which is arguably more important:
It shall be the duty of every ... local authority ... to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular ... traffic ... on ... the highway
My final submission to the appeal said this:
Without advance notice, drivers would come upon hazards and restrictions unexpectedly. They would then have to brake suddenly and swerve, change lane or turn round. Accidents would be far more common. This is why highway authorities place warning signs 45m before the hazard and why, for some restrictions, there is well-defined advance signage.
For nearside with-flow bus lanes, that advance signage includes the lead-in taper and diagram 958 30m before the start of the taper. What Harrow created on Camrose Avenue in 1974 was, in effect, a nearside with-flow bus lane.
3. I'm disturbed by your use of the term "TSRGD-compliant" signs. I'm aware that various judgments have used the term "substantially compliant" with regard to traffic signs. The ones from EWHC (I don't think I've seen any from AC or UKSC), which are precedents, seem to me to have been concerned with sets of traffic signs which work together, e.g. parking restrictions. Here it does indeed seem absurd that you should be able to ignore a sign staring you in the face because somewhere else there's a sign missing.
But when it comes to individual signs, if a sign has not been placed as prescribed by TSRGD (and it can legitimately have been placed under a previous version) then, unless DfT has authorised it specially, it's been placed ultra vires and, by the tenets of administrative law, is void. That means that the adjudicator must exclude that sign from his assessment of the adequacy of the signage. He can still consider it in terms of legitimising an action by the motorist (theory of the second actor), but not to the potential benefit of the highway authority which placed it unlawfully.
That is why I have been keen to knock the curved arrows out of contention: without them (and also the BUS GATE road markings, which have not been placed as prescribed), there's nothing between Shaldon Road and the white hatching in front of the traffic island. That absence of signage is Beatson's judgment writ large.
4. I do consider that non-regulatory signs are to be taken into account in assessing the adequacy of the signage. For a with-flow bus lane, the diagram 958 and the lead-in taper are both informatory and neither is mandated by TSRGD 2016. It would help greatly if the advance notice signs which currently show only the width restriction also showed the bus restriction. So would a lane gain sign after Shaldon Road which showed that the inside lane was about to become bus-only and that the outside lane had a width restriction.
5. What I'm trying to do now is to help other people who get PCNs on Camrose Avenue by developing boilerplate which they can use in their representations. I've been surprised by what I've found in the TMOs, which leads me to think that Harrow are vulnerable to the complete collapse of their highest-grossing TMO.
Headstone Lane is vulnerable for the same reason and I have a separate line of attack on Charlton Road (based on Regulation 18(2) of LATOR and Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/13). On this last point, Cambridgeshire County Council have acknowledged that related signage which they use is wrong and will correct it.
-
Re: Reply #23
But what exactly is a Notice of Appeal?
It's the box on the tribunal website where it asks you to explain why you are appealing. Alternatively you can just make a document called "Notice of Appeal" and upload it to the tribunal website.
Of course if you can get the council to cancel at the representations stage that is always best, the problem we have found in the past is that they don't bother reading anything that's more than half a page. Frankly in many cases they just look at their own evidence and don't bother considering anything you've said, because they take the view that if they've determined that a contravention occurred, that's all that matters.
-
Re: Reply #23
But what exactly is a Notice of Appeal? How much material can be included and when does it become "additional representations"? I consider it better to play safe and put complex boilerplate in the representations.
What is there to lose? I suppose there's a chance that Harrow might accept the representations, so the matter won't get to an adjudicator, but the recipient of the PCN won't have to pay anything and will have no further hoops to jump through.
-
Adjudicators don't like ambushes!
Having said this, apart from anything else what an owner puts in their reps is circumscribed by the legislation under which a penalty is being demanded e.g. a postal PCN gives little time and opportunity to discover anything but superficial facts and an owner won't see the traffic order until it's been submitted to the adjudicator etc.
As regards the OP's appeal in this case - An alternative view:
As cp has commented, there is nothing in the decision which supports the OP's contention regarding what is referred to as the 'signage issue'.
IMO, the OP has obfuscated the key legal point - despite this being made clear in the Beatson judgment - namely that the legal duty of the council is set out in s18 of LATOR which bears being quoted:
Traffic signs
18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a)before the order comes into force, 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;
(b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force;
- my emphasis.
And what is considered adequate is not prescribed under TSRGD or TSM or DfT guidance but turns on the facts in each case.
IMO, what is clear from the Beatson judgment (and not just this judgment) is that:
1. placing of TSRGD-compliant signs does not of itself ensure that adequate information as to the effect etc.. is conveyed.
In addition, IMO the judgment (and the OP) raises questions about whether the wording of LATOR means that the placing of signs which are not prescribed or authorised in the form and manner in which they're being used can form part of considering whether the duty has been discharged and also whether the use of prescribed but non-regulatory signs may be taken into consideration. In this respect, IMO the OP has been misled as regards the distinction between prescribed regulatory and non-regulatory signs(their reference to the 'deflection arrows' being a case in point because these are prescribed under Schedule 11, albeit not regulatory).It appears to me from numerous adjudication decisions that non-regulatory 'traffic signs' may be taken into account in determining LATOR compliance.
IMO, the OP's submissions were overly long and unnecessarily convoluted given that the simple and essential questions had not been made clear at the beginning. I would not advocate their use en bloc by others.
Do the following scope the issues?
What 'traffic signs' were in place? (under which heading the issues of TSRGD compliance in all its forms e.g. type, size, illumination etc. could fall), and,
Were these adequate and therefore did the council meet their LATOR duty?
-
I recognise that this advice is the opposite of that normally advanced, which is not to reveal your hand until the other side has shown his. Quite apart from matters of fairness, it is prompted by London Tribunals' Practice Direction 2024 No. 2 (https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Practice%20Direction%2002-2024%20on%20behalf%20of%20ETA%2029%20July%202024.pdf), which limits the material which can be added at the appeal stage.
It doesn't, in the notice of appeal you can add whatever you want. It purports to limit what can be added after the notice of appeal stage, but most adjudicators ignore it anyway.
-
A comment on tactics: the arguments which I am putting forward are long and complex. It isn't fair to spring them on people. I suggest that they are best deployed as representations, i.e. when responding to Harrow after receiving the PCN:
I contend that no contravention took place for the reasons set out in the attached document. I reserve the right to add further reasons.
I shan't be surprised if Harrow continue with their standard procedure, which is to reject the representations. If they do so, you then submit the appeal, saying that Harrow have rejected your detailed representations without explanation and that in addition to the grounds in your representations, you are adding that they failed properly to consider your representations, contrary to sub-paragraph (7)(a) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/paragraph/1/enacted).
If you have any other grounds for appeal, add them to the representations and the appeal. This approach ensures that Harrow have had full opportunity to respond to the arguments before any hearing and that an Adjudicator doesn't need to adjourn the hearing to ask Harrow for a detailed response.
I recognise that this advice is the opposite of that normally advanced, which is not to reveal your hand until the other side has shown his. Quite apart from matters of fairness, it is prompted by London Tribunals' Practice Direction 2024 No. 2 (https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Practice%20Direction%2002-2024%20on%20behalf%20of%20ETA%2029%20July%202024.pdf), which limits the material which can be added at the appeal stage.
-
Here's an updated version of Reply #17.
2. Traffic Orders on Camrose Avenue
2.1 Introduction
Attached is an annotated aerial view of the site, CamroseAerialRinged.jpg. It will help if you have this open in another window as you read this section.
There are two traffic orders in force on Camrose Avenue:
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007 as amended
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016 as amended
Copies of these TMOs are attached. I show that the width-restriction TMO applies not only to the width-restricted areas of road but also to the areas of road in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb (the “Prohibited lengths”). The width-restriction TMO applies its own restrictions to these areas of road and, through clever drafting, also allows vehicles to use these areas of road if they are permitted to do so by any other TMO.
I then examine the history of the TMOs on Camrose Avenue, starting with the 1976 one. I show what happened in 1999 when Harrow consolidated its moving-vehicle TMOs into:
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 1999
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999
I show that the provisions of the 1976 TMO were translated correctly to the width-restriction TMO but not to the bus-priority TMO. It applied the bus-priority restrictions to the areas of road which were subject to the width restrictions. The provisions in each TMO for Camrose Avenue have been repeated each time a TMO has been repealed and replaced, so the mistake made in 1999 remains today.
The consequence is that the areas of road in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb are subject only to the restrictions specified in the width-restriction TMO as applying to the “Prohibited lengths”. These exclude all vehicles except the emergency services and vehicles on Harrow Council business.
It follows that the contravention which the Council has alleged did not occur.
2.2 The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007
The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007 specifies all the width restrictions on roads in Harrow. At most sites there aren’t also bus restrictions, so the width-restriction TMO defines what happens to the parts of the carriageway which aren’t subject to a width restriction. These are defined as "Prohibited lengths". For most width restrictions, all vehicles are banned from them (hence “Prohibited lengths”).
A uniform structure has been used for the width restriction TMO, so, although Camrose Avenue's bus restrictions are specified in the bus-priority TMOs, the width-restriction TMO also defines "Prohibited lengths" on Camrose Avenue. These are the sections of carriageway in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb.
The "Prohibited lengths" are subject to these rules:
2. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in a [Prohibited length] of carriageway
. . .
4. Nothing in Articles 2 and 3 of this Order shall apply to :-
(a) any vehicle being used for ambulance, fire brigade or police purposes;
(b) anything done with the permission or at the direction of a police constable in uniform;
(c) any person who causes any vehicle to proceed in accordance with any restriction or requirement indicated by traffic signs placed pursuant to section 66 or section 67 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;
(d) any vehicle specified in column 6 of the Schedule to this Order;
(e) to any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough of Harrow. [LBH 2012/30]
Note in particular 4(c): this clause allows the width-restriction TMO to coexist with the bus-priority TMO. Section 66 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows highway authorities to place signs which show the effect of TMOs. So if a sign (such as a blue roundel) has been placed on a "Prohibited length" which allows certain classes of vehicle to pass, the width-restriction TMO also allows them to pass.
Clause 4(e) means that vehicles being used to provide Harrow Council services can use the “Prohibited lengths”. Where a bus-priority TMO overlaps with the width-restriction TMO, vehicles providing Council services are added to those permitted by the bus-priority TMO.
2.3 Original TMO for Camrose Avenue
The restrictions on Camrose Avenue were set out coherently in The Harrow (Prescribed Routes) (No. 2) Traffic Order 1976 (the italics have been added, as they are in all the quotes in section 2):
3. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in the carriageway on the south-eastern side of the north-easternmost island site or in the carriageway on the north-west side of the south-westernmost island site.
4. No person shall cause any vehicle the overall width of which together with the load (if any) carried thereon exceeds 6 feet 6 inches to enter the carriageway on the north-west side of the north-easternmost island site or the carriageway on the south-east side of the south-westernmost island site.
5. Nothing in Article 3 of this order shall apply
(a) in relation to a stage carriage or an express carriage on a scheduled service; or
(b) in relation to a vehicle being used for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes; or
(c) to anything done with the permission or at the direction of a police constable in uniform.
This refers to two island sites: north-easternmost and south-westernmost. As a glance at the aerial view of the site shows, these are accurate geographic descriptions of the traffic islands. I have ringed them in yellow and red respectively. They divide the flow of westbound and eastbound traffic respectively. For brevity, I shall refer to them as the westbound island and the eastbound island.
This traffic order defines the restricted parts of the carriageway as:
3. bus-restriction:
south-eastern side of the westbound island
north-west side of the eastbound island
4. width-restriction:
north-west side of the westbound island
south-east side of the eastbound island
It does not specify the direction of travel through any of the restrictions, nor does it mention the snake-like kerbed structure which separates eastbound from westbound traffic. It is a model of accuracy and concision.
2.4 Consolidation of TMOs
In 1999 Harrow consolidated traffic orders relating to width restrictions, bus lanes and other bus restrictions into two orders:
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 1999
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999
Since 1999 there have been various amendments to each of these TMOs, with periodic repeals and replacements. These have not affected the definitions of the restricted areas of carriageway but they have changed the classes of vehicle permitted through the bus restrictions.
2.5 Consolidated Width-restriction TMO 1999
For the width restrictions, the consolidated width-restriction TMO followed the 1976 TMO in referring to "the north-eastern island" and "the south-western island". For the "Prohibited lengths", it instead used the cardinal points of the compass (eastern and western). It got these right, so "north-eastern" became "eastern" and "south-western" became "western".
The TMO defined both sets of restrictions as being between an island and some other structure. For the width restrictions this was "the central median strip". For the bus priorities this was the northern or southern kerb-line.
Whereas the 1976 TMO had not specified the direction of travel, the consolidated width-restriction TMO did. Depending on your point of view, this either provided an aid to interpretation or created an opportunity for mistakes through overspecification. None was made.
2.6 Consolidated Bus-priority TMO 1999
There were two schedules to the consolidated bus-priority TMO:
- Schedule 1: Bus Lanes
- Schedule 2: Bus-only routes
Camrose Avenue was Item 1 in Schedule 2.
The definitions of the areas of road were:
Westbound: the carriageway to the south of the southern traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale Avenue;
Eastbound: the carriageway to the north of the northern traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale Avenue.
When the width-restriction TMO shifted from ordinal to cardinal compass points, it did so correctly:
- Westbound: north-eastern ---> eastern
- Eastbound: south-western ---> western
The bus-priority TMO chose the other cardinal points and got it wrong:
- Westbound: north-eastern --/-> southern
- Eastbound: south-western --/-> northern
The descriptions of the areas of road ("south of the xxx traffic island"; "north of the yyy traffic island") would be correct if xxx had been northern and yyy had been southern. But they were not. The traffic islands were reversed, so the areas specified were those which are subject to the width restrictions.
2.7 Lack of Rigorous Checking in the Bus-priority TMO
The width-restriction TMO shows evidence of a high standard of work. Although it's odd that it uses ordinal points of the compass for the width restrictions and cardinal points for the "Prohibited lengths", the shifts are correct and everything works. Also notable is the way that the TMO was structured so that vehicles could use its “Prohibited lengths” if they are permitted to do so by a sign placed in accordance with another TMO.
Leaving aside its provisions for Camrose Avenue, Schedule 2 of the bus-priority TMO shows other signs of a lack of rigorous checking. In its 2007 incarnation, it defines the following area of road on Headstone Lane (the indenting has been added to aid comprehension:)
the carriageway which lies between
the island site situated between
a point 6.00 metres north-east of the extended north-eastern kerb-line of Melbourne Avenue and
a point 9.00 metres north-east of that point.
While the second “between” is followed by two objects separated by an “and”, the first is followed by a single object. It makes no sense.
In 2021 the TMO was amended to change the definition of the bus-priority area of Christchurch Avenue. It became (with added indentation)
Christchurch Avenue
from its junction with Masons Avenue
and a point opposite
the north-eastern most point of
the island site between
No. 13 Byron Road and
No. 139A Masons Avenue;
There is an island site between No. 13 Byron Road and No. 139A Masons Avenue and it does have a north-easternmost point, so this definition amounts to
Christchurch Avenue
from its junction with Masons Avenue
and a point opposite
[a well-defined point on an island site]
This evidence suggests that not only can mistakes be made and persist in the bus-priority TMO, new ones can be added.
2.8 Harrow's Explanation
The definition of the bus-priority areas came up in the hearing of appeal 2250053451 on 28 April 2025. Mr Adekusibe of Harrow sought to explain the definitions by saying that "southern traffic island" and "northern traffic island" needed to be understood by reference to their appearance to motorists approaching them in the specified direction. Thus to westbound motorists, the "southern traffic island" was the traffic island nearest to the westbound nearside kerb, while to eastbound motorists the "northern traffic island" was the traffic island nearest to the eastbound nearside kerb.
There are some obvious problems with this:
- it is based on the perception when approaching the restrictions that there are two traffic islands ahead. Certainly, there are two kerbed structures with bollards and signs on posts. But if there really were two traffic islands in each direction, there would be four traffic islands in total. There are not. There are three kerbed structures: two traffic islands and the snake-like structure which is formally known (and referred to as such in the width-restriction TMO) as the central median strip.
- the other uses of compass points in the bus-priority TMO make sense with their normal meaning
- the uses of compass points in the width-restriction TMO written at the same time (1999) make sense with their normal meaning
- TMOs are formal legal documents written using a formal register. They define things precisely and use the correct legal terms. This is shown in the use by the contemporaneous width-restriction TMO of the term "central median strip". If the words “northern“ and “southern” were being used with meanings other than the natural ones, this would be stated explicitly.
It seems possible that officers in Harrow, puzzled by the definitions of the areas of Camrose Avenue defined as bus-priority, have constructed the interpretation advanced by Mr Adekusibe to reassure themselves that the TMO is valid. Those definitions have been used for so long (since 1999) and nobody has ever challenged them successfully, so they must be right.
The evidence suggests otherwise. The law works from the TMO forwards to the signage, not back from the signage to the TMO.
2.9 Consequences
The areas of Camrose Avenue on which the bus-priority TMO imposes restrictions are those which are subject to the width restriction. As the PCN alleges that the contravention was using a route restricted to buses, cycles and taxis only, which is the set of vehicles permitted by the bus-priority TMO, it follows that there was no contravention.
If it is held that the bus-priority TMO does apply between the traffic islands and the nearside kerbs, the allegation is still not correct because the TMO is overlain by the width-restriction TMO. This adds to the permitted vehicles:
any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough of Harrow
Taxis were added to the bus-priority TMO by The Harrow (Bus Priority) (Amendment No. 2) Traffic Order 2018. Suppose that, instead of amending the order, this had been written as a separate TMO permitting taxis to use the same area of road. Then it would be oppressive to issue PCNs against taxis for violating the bus-priority TMO while ignoring the taxi-permitting TMO. That is why the change was made as an amendment. Normal practice is to have a single TMO which sets out all the classes of vehicle which are permitted.
But on Camrose Avenue there are two overlapping TMOs. They are nested, with the bus-priority TMO being tighter than the width-restricted TMO. Each is subject to Regulation 18 of LATOR 1996 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18), which requires the placing of signage to indicate the effect of the order. The bus-priority TMO requires the blue roundel to diagram 953 as it is displayed. The width-restriction TMO requires that sign with the plate "and authorised vehicles". It is that combination of signs which should be displayed as it shows the combined effect of the TMOs.
It follows that if the bus-priority TMO applies between the traffic islands and the nearside kerbs, the sign which is displayed is wrong and that the contravention which should have been alleged was using a route restricted to buses, cycles, taxis and authorised vehicles. It was not.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
It is a comparable point with their rather dated images which are always taken in daylight. What were the dates of their pictures in your case? They may well rectify this issue.
-
What are you trying to say? Harrow's illumination of the signs is poor: the street lights are behind the signs and the local illumination sits above the signs rather than pointing towards them. For the blue roundels this enables them to be seen as blue circles, but the effect on the width-restriction signs is to make them look like lights.
The loss of the diagram 515 chevrons from the post-and-rail barrier means that eastbound motorists are blinded by the dipped headlights of westbound motorists passing through the width restriction. This light is also reflected from the road surface (which did not have its surface-dressing replaced after resurfacing in 2021/22). As a result, the road markings are much less visible at night than they are by day (this is a general observation: beware of believing Google Street View images).
Harrow should be challenged to produce evidence of the appearance of the signage from the location where the motorist needs to make the decision to move out (I'd like to hear where they say that point is). The images should show comparable conditions, i.e. day or night, wet or dry road and with or without vehicles passing through the restrictions in the opposite direction. The height of the camera should be no more than 1.5m above the road so as to correspond to the driver's viewpoint.
-
A decision re illumination.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-code-33e-route-restricted-for-busescyclestaxis-camrose-avenue-(again!)/msg21581/#msg21581
-
2. Traffic Orders on Camrose Avenue
2.1 Introduction
Attached is an annotated aerial view of the site, CamroseAerialRinged.jpg. It will help if you have this open in another window as you read this section.
There are two traffic orders in force on Camrose Avenue:
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016 as amended
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007 as amended by LBH 2012/30
I show that the width-restriction TMO applies not only to the width-restricted areas of road but also to the areas of road in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb (the “Prohibited lengths”). The width-restriction TMO applies its own restrictions to these areas of road and, through clever drafting, also allows vehicles to use these areas of road if they are permitted to do so by any other TMO.
I then examine the history of the TMOs on Camrose Avenue, starting with the 1976 one. I show what happened in 1999 when Harrow consolidated its moving-vehicle TMOs into:
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 1999
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999
I show that the provisions of the 1976 TMO were translated correctly to the width-restriction TMO but not to the bus-priority TMO. It applied the bus-priority restrictions to the areas of road which were subject to the width restrictions. The provisions in each TMO for Camrose Avenue have been repeated each time a TMO has been repealed and replaced, so the mistake made in 1999 remains today.
The consequence is that the areas of road in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb are subject only to the restrictions specified in the width-restriction TMO as applying to the “Prohibited lengths”. These exclude all vehicles except the emergency services and vehicles on Harrow Council business.
It follows that the contravention which the Council has alleged did not occur.
2.2 The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007
The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007 specifies all the width restrictions on roads in Harrow. At most sites there aren’t also bus restrictions, so the width-restriction TMO defines what happens to the parts of the carriageway which aren’t subject to a width restriction. These are defined as "Prohibited lengths". For most width restrictions, all vehicles are banned from them (hence “Prohibited lengths”).
A uniform structure has been used for the width restriction TMO, so, although Camrose Avenue's bus restrictions are specified in the bus-priority TMOs, the width-restriction TMO also defines "Prohibited lengths" on Camrose Avenue. These are the sections of carriageway in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb.
The "Prohibited lengths" are subject to these rules:
2. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in a [Prohibited length] of carriageway
. . .
4. Nothing in Articles 2 and 3 of this Order shall apply to :-
(a) any vehicle being used for ambulance, fire brigade or police purposes;
(b) anything done with the permission or at the direction of a police constable in uniform;
(c) any person who causes any vehicle to proceed in accordance with any restriction or requirement indicated by traffic signs placed pursuant to section 66 or section 67 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;
(d) any vehicle specified in column 6 of the Schedule to this Order;
(e) to any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough of Harrow. [LBH 2012/30]
Note in particular 4(c): this clause allows the width-restriction TMO to coexist with the bus-priority TMO. Section 66 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows highway authorities to place signs which show the effect of TMOs. So if a sign (such as a blue roundel) has been placed on a "Prohibited length" which allows certain classes of vehicle to pass, the width-restriction TMO also allows them to pass.
Clause 4(e) means that vehicles being used to provide Harrow Council services can use the “Prohibited lengths”. This means that where a bus-priority TMO overlaps with the width-restriction TMO, vehicles providing Council services can use the area of road in addition to those permitted by the bus-priority TMO.
2.3 Original TMO for Camrose Avenue
The restrictions on Camrose Avenue were set out coherently in The Harrow (Prescribed Routes) (No. 2) Traffic Order 1976 (the italics have been added, as they are in all the quotes in section 2):
3. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in the carriageway on the south-eastern side of the north-easternmost island site or in the carriageway on the north-west side of the south-westernmost island site.
4. No person shall cause any vehicle the overall width of which together with the load (if any) carried thereon exceeds 6 feet 6 inches to enter the carriageway on the north-west side of the north-easternmost island site or the carriageway on the south-east side of the south-westernmost island site.
5. Nothing in Article 3 of this order shall apply
(a) in relation to a stage carriage or an express carriage on a scheduled service; or
(b) in relation to a vehicle being used for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes; or
(c) to anything done with the permission or at the direction of a police constable in uniform.
This refers to two island sites: north-easternmost and south-westernmost. As a glance at the aerial view of the site shows, these are accurate geographic descriptions of the traffic islands. I have ringed them in yellow and red respectively. They divide the flow of westbound and eastbound traffic respectively. For brevity, I shall refer to them as the westbound island and the eastbound island.
This traffic order defines the restricted parts of the carriageway as:
3. bus-restriction:
south-eastern side of the westbound island
north-west side of the eastbound island
4. width-restriction:
north-west side of the westbound island
south-east side of the eastbound island
It does not specify the direction of travel through any of the restrictions, nor does it mention the snake-like kerbed structure which separates eastbound from westbound traffic. It is a model of accuracy and concision.
2.4 Consolidation of TMOs
In 1999 Harrow consolidated traffic orders relating to width restrictions, bus lanes and other bus restrictions into two orders:
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 1999
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999
Since 1999 there have been various amendments to each of these TMOs, with periodic repeals and replacements. These have not affected the definitions of the restricted areas of carriageway but they have changed the classes of vehicle permitted through the bus restrictions. The current TMOs are
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007 as amended by LBH 2012/30
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016
Copies of these TMOs are attached along with The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999.
2.5 Consolidated Width-restriction TMO 1999
As with the 1976 TMO, the consolidated width-restriction TMO defined the width restrictions by reference to "the north-eastern island" and "the south-western island". Rather than defining the width-restricted areas by a compass-reference to the islands, the TMO placed the width restrictions between an island and "the central median strip". Whereas the 1976 TMO had not specified the direction of travel, the consolidated width-restriction TMO did. Depending on your point of view, this either provided an aid to interpretation or created an opportunity for mistakes through overspecification.
Curiously, while the TMO used the ordinal points of the compass (north-eastern and south-western) to define the traffic islands on Camrose Avenue, they used the cardinal points (eastern and western) for the "Prohibited lengths". These were defined as lying between an island and the northern or southern kerb-line.
These changes were done correctly and are consistent with the stated direction of travel, so the "Prohibited lengths" are defined as intended, between the traffic islands and the nearside kerbs.
2.6 Consolidated Bus-priority TMO 1999
There were two schedules to the consolidated bus-priority TMO:
- Schedule 1: Bus Lanes
- Schedule 2: Bus-only routes
Camrose Avenue was Item 1 in Schedule 2.
The definitions of the areas of road were:
Westbound: the carriageway to the south of the southern traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale Avenue;
Eastbound: the carriageway to the north of the northern traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale Avenue.
The compass points for the traffic islands were:
- Westbound: southern
- Eastbound: northern
For reference, the consolidated width-restriction TMO correctly used the following compass points for the traffic islands:
- Westbound: north-eastern (width restriction); eastern (prohibited length)
- Eastbound: south-western (width restriction); western (prohibited length)
As a glance at the aerial view will show, the southern traffic island is used by eastbound traffic and the northern traffic island by westbound traffic.
The dangers of over-specification are evident. For the moment, let's ignore the stated direction of travel and see what areas of road are defined. The areas are:
- "south of the southern traffic island": this is south of the eastbound-traffic island, i.e. the eastbound width restriction
- "north of the northern traffic island": this is north of the westbound-traffic island, i.e. the westbound width restriction
It appears that the consolidated bus-priority TMO was simply wrong. Whoever drew up the TMO in 1999 (Brian Durke, on the evidence of the meta-data) made a mistake, a mistake which was not made at exactly the same time by those drawing up the consolidated width-restriction TMO.
2.7 Lack of Rigorous Checking in the Bus-priority TMO
The width-restriction TMO shows evidence of a high standard of work. Particularly notable is the way that the it was structured so that vehicles could use its “Prohibited lengths” if they are permitted to do so by a sign placed in accordance with another TMO.
The bus-priority TMO did not reach these heights. On the page defining bus-only routes, the following area of road is defined on Headstone Lane (the indenting has been added to aid comprehension:)
the carriageway which lies between
the island site situated between
a point 1.90 metres north of the extended northern kerb-line of Melbourne Avenue and
a point 17.3 metres north of that point.
By the 2016 TMO, the numbers have changed and “north” has become “north-east”, but the structure remains unchanged.
In 2021 the TMO was amended to change the definition of the bus-priority area of Christchurch Avenue. It became (with added indentation)
Christchurch Avenue
from its junction with Masons Avenue
and a point opposite
the north-eastern most point of
the island site between
No. 13 Byron Road and
No. 139A Masons Avenue;
There is an island site between No. 13 Byron Road and No. 139A Masons Avenue and it does have a north-easternmost point, so this definition amounts to
Christchurch Avenue
from its junction with Masons Avenue
and a point opposite
[a well-defined point on an island site]
This evidence suggests that mistakes can be made in the bus-priority TMOs and persist from one TMO to the next.
2.8 Harrow's Explanation
The definition of the bus-priority areas came up in the hearing of appeal 2250053451 on 28 April 2025. Mr Adekusibe of Harrow sought to explain the definitions by saying that "southern traffic island" and "northern traffic island" needed to be understood by reference to their appearance to motorists approaching them in the specified direction. Thus to westbound motorists, the "southern traffic island" was the traffic island nearest to the westbound nearside kerb, while to eastbound motorists the "northern traffic island" was the traffic island nearest to the eastbound nearside kerb.
There are some obvious problems with this:
- it is based on the perception when approaching the restrictions that there are two traffic islands ahead. Certainly, there are two kerbed structures with bollards and signs on posts. But if there really were two traffic islands in each direction, there would be four traffic islands in total. There are not. There are three kerbed structures: two traffic islands and the snake-like structure which is formally known (and referred to as such in the width-restriction TMO) as the central median strip.
- the other uses of compass points in the bus-priority TMO make sense with their normal meaning
- the uses of compass points in the width-restriction TMO written at the same time (1999) make sense with their normal meaning
- TMOs are formal legal documents written using a formal register. They define things precisely and use the correct legal terms. This is shown in the use by the contemporaneous width-restriction TMO of the term "central median strip". If the words “northern“ and “southern” were being used with meanings other than the natural ones, this would be stated explicitly.
It seems possible that officers in Harrow, puzzled by the definitions of the areas of Camrose Avenue defined as bus-priority, have constructed the interpretation advanced by Mr Adekusibe to reassure themselves that the TMO is valid. Those definitions have been used for so long (since 1999) and nobody has ever challenged them successfully, so they must be right.
The evidence suggests otherwise. The law works from the TMO forwards to the signage, not back from the signage to the TMO.
2.9 Consequences
The areas of Camrose Avenue on which the bus-priority TMO imposes restrictions are those which are subject to the width restriction; they apply in the opposite direction of travel to that in the width-restriction TMO. This makes no sense both because of the direction of travel and because most buses are physically incapable of passing through the width restriction.
We need not concern ourselves with whether the parts of the bus-restriction TMO which apply to Camrose Avenue are void. Our concern is with the restrictions which do apply between the traffic islands and the nearside kerbs. They are the restrictions specified in the width-restriction TMO as applying to the “Prohibited lengths”.
Apart from the emergency services and as directed by a police constable in uniform (which are general exceptions to traffic signs), the permitted users of the areas of carriageway between the traffic islands and the nearside kerbs are:
any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough of Harrow
It follows that the correct sign in each direction on the footway and the traffic island is not diagram 953 but diagram 616 (No Entry) with the plate "except authorised vehicles". This plate would, however, require special permission from DfT.
The sign to diagram 953 has been placed contrary to TSRGD 2016 Schedule 3 General Direction 1 and so is void.
-
Thanks. Those don't appear on the toolbar which I see. Are there others?
The indent one doesn't appear, but the image one does:
(https://i.imgur.com/d2FrXA9.png)
-
Here's a draft of the Synopsis. I'm reckoning to have each section as a separate post.
1. Synopsis
The contravention which has been alleged is
33E – USING A ROUTE RESTRICTED TO CERTAIN VEHICLES BUSES CYCLES AND TAXIS ONLY
In (place) CAMROSE AVENUE On (date) At (time)
In its Case Summary, the Council states that the restricted route is a section of Camrose Avenue in Edgware where only buses, taxis, pedal cycles, and emergency vehicles on duty are allowed to drive through.
Attached to the Case Summary are copies of
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) (Amendment No. 2) Traffic Order 2018
By implication, these are the traffic orders which Harrow asserts apply to the area of road where I was.
In section 2, I examine the traffic orders which apply on Camrose Avenue. As well as the bus-priority TMO, there is a width-restriction TMO,
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007 as amended by LBH 2012/30
I show that the width-restriction TMO applies not only to the width-restricted areas of road but also to the areas of road in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb (the “Prohibited lengths”). The width-restriction TMO applies its own restrictions to these areas of road and, through clever drafting, also allows vehicles to use these areas of road if they are permitted to do so by any other TMO.
I then examine the history of the TMOs on Camrose Avenue, starting with the 1976 one. I show what happened in 1999 when Harrow consolidated its moving-vehicle TMOs into:
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 1999
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999
I show that the provisions of the 1976 TMO were translated correctly to the width-restriction TMO but not to the bus-priority TMO. It applied the bus-priority restrictions to the areas of road which were subject to the width restrictions. The provisions in each TMO for Camrose Avenue have been repeated each time a TMO has been repealed and replaced, so the mistake made in 1999 remains today.
The consequence is that the areas of road in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb are subject only to the restrictions specified in the width-restriction TMO as applying to the “Prohibited lengths”. These exclude all vehicles except the emergency services and vehicles on Harrow Council business.
It follows that the contravention which the Council has alleged did not occur.
In section 3, I show that significant elements of the signage on Camrose Avenue have not been placed in accordance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016). The consequence is that Harrow has placed those signs ultra vires and, by the principles of administrative law, they are void.
In section 4, I review the statutory duties imposed on highway authorities with regard to traffic signs. I then consider the lawful signage in advance of, and at the restrictions. While Harrow makes much of the advance notice of the width restrictions, there is no advance notice of the bus restriction. But the legislation under which Harrow places the advance notice of the width restriction relates to providing notice of the effect of a TMO. The width-restriction TMO applies both the bus restriction and the width restriction, so Harrow’s signs actually do only half the job. I show that TSRGD 2016 supports signs which show both the bus restriction and the width restriction, thereby enabling the true effect of the width-restriction TMO to be seen.
The Traffic Signs Manual has a similar status to The Highway Code. It is the official DfT document which provides guidance to highway engineers on how to use traffic signs. In Section 5, I draw comparisons between Camrose Avenue and figures in the Traffic Signs Manual which show what DfT considers to be appropriate signage. I note that the blue roundel signs are smaller than DfT recommends, despite their being the first indication of the bus restriction and that motorists need to move out to the width restriction if they are to avoid a PCN.
I conclude by exploring the legal precedents relating to the adequacy of signage. These show that,
If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed
I contend that Harrow has not provided adequate information and so, even if my argument is not accepted about the area of road which is the subject of the bus-priority TMO, no contravention occurred.
-
Thanks. Those don't appear on the toolbar which I see. Are there others?
-
A technical comment: trying to write something as a blog post limits what you can include: no in-line images or tables. On the other hand, not having those luxuries is a discipline.
You can add inline comments
by using the indent tags:
Same goes for images:
(https://i.imgur.com/b5BfdfO.png)
-
Thanks. I wanted to see how well this line of argument worked and posted it for review once I had developed it from start to finish. It does need a synopsis, but that is best left for another day when I can reread it with a fresh eye.
My greatest concern is how well the argument stands up to Harrow's response that the words "southern traffic island" relate to how the "traffic islands" appear to someone approaching the restrictions in the specified direction. That's why I have gone back to the 1976 TMO and then examined what happened in 1999 with the consolidation of the TMOs and their splitting into the bus-priority and the width-restriction ones and how they've just been carried forward from then.
I think that that context - and comparing the details of the width-restriction definition of areas of road for Camrose Avenue with those for the bus-priority restriction - helps to dispel Harrow's argument. Set against that, I fear that no adjudicator will want to make a finding which says that all the PCNs issued over 20 years have lacked a solid foundation.
A technical comment: trying to write something as a blog post limits what you can include: no in-line images or tables. On the other hand, not having those luxuries is a discipline.
-
I ran this through ChatGPT's new O3 reasoning model and attach the output - looks like it has made some good suggestions, but I'll let you be the judge of that.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The material below has been drafted as a submission to an appeal against a PCN on Camrose Avenue. I should welcome comments and suggestions for improvement and also views as to how Adjudicators are likely to respond.
Validity of Blue Roundel Signs on Camrose Avenue
The blue roundel signs are to diagram 953, TSRGD 2016 Schedule 3 Part 2 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/part/2/made) Item 33. These are subject to Schedule 3 General Direction 1 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/part/5/paragraph/1/made):
1.—(1) The sign must only be placed to indicate the effect of an Act, order, regulation, bylaw, resolution or notice which prohibits or restricts the use of the road by traffic.
(2) When the sign is placed to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement or prohibition begins or ends, it must be placed as near as practicable to that point.
Attached is an annotated aerial view of the site, CamroseAerialRinged.jpg. It will help if you have this open in another window as you proceed.
Original TMO for Camrose Avenue
The restrictions on Camrose Avenue were set out coherently in The Harrow (Prescribed Routes) (No. 2) Traffic Order 1976 (the italics are mine, as they are in all the quotes except the Beatson judgment at the end):
3. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in the carriageway on the south-eastern side of the north-easternmost island site or in the carriageway on the north-west side of the south-westernmost island site.
4. No person shall cause any vehicle the overall width of which together with the load (if any) carried thereon exceeds 6 feet 6 inches to enter the carriageway on the north-west side of the north-easternmost island site or the carriageway on the south-east side of the south-westernmost island site.
5. Nothing in Article 3 of this order shall apply
(a) in relation to a stage carriage or an express carriage on a scheduled service; or
(b) in relation to a vehicle being used for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes; or
(c) to anything done with the permission or at the direction of a police constable in uniform.
This refers to two island sites: north-easternmost and south-westernmost. As a glance at the aerial view of the site shows, these are accurate geographic descriptions of the traffic islands. I have ringed them in yellow and red respectively. They divide the flow of westbound and eastbound traffic respectively. For brevity, I shall refer to them as the westbound island and the eastbound island.
This traffic order defines the restricted parts of the carriageway as:
3. bus-restriction:
south-eastern side of the westbound island
north-west side of the eastbound island
4. width-restriction:
north-west side of the westbound island
south-east side of the eastbound island
It does not specify the direction of travel through any of the restrictions, nor does it mention the snake-like kerbed structure which separates eastbound from westbound traffic. It is a model of accuracy and concision.
Consolidation of TMOs
In 1999 Harrow consolidated traffic orders relating to width restrictions, bus lanes and other bus restrictions into two orders:
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 1999
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999
Since 1999 there have been various amendments to each of these TMOs, with periodic repeals and replacements. These have not affected the definitions of the restricted areas of carriageway but they have changed the classes of vehicle permitted through the bus restrictions. The current TMOs are
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007 as amended by LBH 2012/30
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016
Copies of these TMOs are attached along with The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999.
Consolidated Width-restriction TMOs
At other sites in Harrow, e.g. Charlton Road, width restrictions apply to some parts of the carriageway with other parts defined as "Prohibited lengths", where almost all vehicles are banned. A uniform structure has been used for the consolidated width restriction TMOs, so, although Camrose Avenue's bus restrictions are specified in the bus-priority TMOs, the width-restriction TMOs also define "Prohibited lengths" on Camrose Avenue.
As with the 1976 TMO, the consolidated width-restriction TMOs define the width restrictions by reference to "the north-eastern island" and "the south-western island". Rather than defining the width-restricted areas by a compass-reference to the islands, the consolidated width-restriction TMOs place the width restrictions between an island and "the central median strip". The consolidated TMOs specify the direction of travel, which (depending on your point of view) either provides an aid to interpretation or creates an opportunity for mistakes through overspecification.
Curiously, while the consolidated width-restriction traffic orders had used the ordinal points of the compass (north-eastern and south-western) to define the traffic islands on Camrose Avenue, they used the cardinal points (eastern and western) for the "Prohibited lengths". These were defined as lying between an island and the northern or southern kerb-line.
These changes were done correctly and are consistent with the stated direction of travel, so the "Prohibited lengths" are defined as intended, between the traffic islands and the nearside kerbs.
Restrictions applying to Prohibited Lengths
The "Prohibited lengths" are subject to these rules:
2. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in a [Prohibited length] of carriageway
. . .
4. Nothing in Articles 2 and 3 of this Order shall apply to :-
(a) any vehicle being used for ambulance, fire brigade or police purposes;
(b) anything done with the permission or at the direction of a police constable in uniform;
(c) any person who causes any vehicle to proceed in accordance with any restriction or requirement indicated by traffic signs placed pursuant to section 66 or section 67 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;
(d) any vehicle specified in column 6 of the Schedule to this Order;
(e) to any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough of Harrow. [LBH2012/30]
Note in particular 4(c): this clause allows the width-restriction TMO to coexist with the bus-priority TMO. Section 66 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows highway authorities to place signs which show the effect of TMOs. So if a sign (such as blue roundel) has been placed on a "Prohibited length" which allows certain classes of vehicle to pass, the width-restriction TMO also allows them to pass.
Regardless of any such sign, clauses 4(a) and 4(b) make the standard provisions for the emergency services and where directed by a police constable in uniform. There are no vehicle classes specified in column 6 of the Schedule so 4(d) is a nullity. Clause 4(e) is not a standard clause (except within Harrow) and would be given effect by adding the plate "and authorised vehicles" to the blue roundel.
Consolidated Bus-priority TMOs
There are two schedules to the consolidated bus-priority TMOs:
- Schedule 1: Bus Lanes
- Schedule 2: Bus-only routes
From 1999 to 2016, Camrose Avenue has been Item 1 in Schedule 2. The specification of the areas of road has remained unchanged, as have the Times of operation and Direction of travel. Only the Type of vehicle permitted has changed: in 1999 it was "a bus, a school bus, a works bus, a pedal cycle"; now it is "bus, taxi, pedal cycle".
The definitions of the areas of road are:
Westbound: the carriageway to the south of the southern traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale Avenue;
Eastbound: the carriageway to the north of the northern traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale Avenue.
The compass points for the traffic islands are:
- Westbound: southern
- Eastbound: northern
For reference, the consolidated width-restriction TMO correctly used the following compass points for the traffic islands:
- Westbound: north-eastern (width restriction); eastern (prohibited length)
- Eastbound: south-western (width restriction); western (prohibited length)
As a glance at the aerial view will show, the southern traffic island is used by eastbound traffic and the northern traffic island by westbound traffic.
The dangers of over-specification are evident. For the moment, let's ignore the stated direction of travel and see what areas of road are defined. The areas are:
- "south of the southern traffic island": this is south of the eastbound-traffic island, i.e. the eastbound width restriction
- "north of the northern traffic island": this is north of the westbound-traffic island, i.e. the westbound width restriction
It appears that the consolidated bus-priority TMOs are simply wrong. Whoever drew up the TMO in 1999 (Brian Durke, on the evidence of the meta-data) made a mistake, a mistake which was not made at exactly the same time by those drawing up the consolidated width-restriction TMO.
Harrow's Rescue Attempt
The definition of the bus-priority areas came up in the hearing of appeal 2250053451 on 28 April 2025. Mr Adekusibe of Harrow sought to explain the definitions by saying that "southern traffic island" and "northern traffic island" needed to be understood by reference to their appearance to motorists approaching them in the specified direction. Thus to westbound motorists, the "southern traffic island" was the traffic island nearest to the westbound nearside kerb, while to eastbound motorists the "northern traffic island" was the traffic island nearest to the eastbound nearside kerb.
There are some obvious problems with this:
- it is based on the perception when approaching the restrictions that there are two traffic islands ahead. Certainly, there are two kerbed structures with bollards and signs on posts. But if there really were two traffic islands in each direction, there would be four traffic islands in total. There are not. There are three kerbed structures: two traffic islands and the snake-like structure which is formally known (and referred to as such in the width-restriction TMO) as the central median strip.
- the other uses of compass points in the bus-priority TMO make sense with their normal meaning
- the uses of compass points in the width-restriction TMO written at the same time (1999) make sense with their normal meaning
- TMOs are formal legal documents written using a formal register. They define things precisely and use the correct legal terms. This is shown in the use by the contemporaneous width-restriction TMO of the term "central median strip".
It seems possible that officers in Harrow, puzzled by the definitions of the areas of Camrose Avenue defined as bus-priority, have constructed the interpretation advanced by Mr Adekusibe to reassure themselves that the TMO is valid. Those definitions have been used for so long (since 1999) and nobody has ever challenged them, so they must be right. The evidence suggests otherwise. The law works from the TMO forwards to the signage, not back from the signage to the TMO.
Consequences
The areas of Camrose Avenue on which the bus-priority TMO imposes restrictions are those which are subject to the width restriction. This makes no sense as buses are physically incapable of using them. The definitions are a mistake. Those parts of the bus-priority TMO are void.
While this means that the bus-priority clauses do not apply to the areas of road in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb, those areas of road are correctly identified as "Prohibited lengths" in the width-restriction TMO. They are subject to the restrictions which are defined there. Apart from the emergency services and as directed by a police constable in uniform (which are general exceptions to traffic signs), the permitted users of those areas of carriageway are:
any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough of Harrow
It follows that the correct sign in each direction on the footway and the traffic island is not diagram 953 but diagram 616 (No Entry) with the plate "except authorised vehicles". This plate would, however, require special permission from DfT.
The sign to diagram 953 has been placed contrary to TSRGD 2016 Schedule 3 General Direction 1 and so is void.
Inadequate Signage
The PCN alleged
driving through a restricted route, which is allocated for the use of certain vehicles only.
The above analysis has shown that the area of road was indeed a restricted route, but not in the way that Harrow alleged. There was zero signage of the restriction which actually applied.
Shaun Duffy won his appeal against a PCN which Oxfordshire County Council issued to him for going through a bus-only section of Oxford High Street. The Council took it to the Chief Adjudicator for review and, when this didn’t overturn the Adjudicator’s findings, to Judicial Review, R (Oxfordshire County Council) v. The Bus Lane Adjudicator (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/894.html) [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin).
As the product of the High Court, the resulting judgment sets binding precedent for Adjudicators on points of law. In paragraph 65 Mr Justice Beatson (as he then was) found:
65. The Defendant's submission that the fact that signs are prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient for securing adequate information as to the effect of an order is made available to road users is clearly correct. 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 and, as Jackson J stated in R (Barnet LBC) v Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin) at [41], if the statutory conditions are not met the financial liability does not arise.
As there was no signage of the true restriction, no offence was committed.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
My son was eastbound. You were westbound. The signage is similar, but not identical. In particular, the position of the curved arrows is different: the second eastbound arrow points to the middle of the supposed bus restriction. The second westbound arrow is further out and is pointing towards the width restriction. These arrows have, however, been placed ultra vires and legally should be treated as if they did not exist.
That, however, is a doctrine which adjudicators may struggle with. They're used to weighing up conflicting evidence and deciding whom to believe. This requires them to consider a third factor: administrative law as it relates to acts (in this case the placing of road markings) which have been done other than in accordance with the powers of the relevant authority (in this case London Borough of Harrow under s.66 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984).
Administrative law isn't easy: it's the result of cases in which the lowest-level decisions are made in the High Court, with appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court (or Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, as it used to be). There's a preliminary issue as to whether a humble tribunal can even consider such a matter (it's known as a collateral challenge). The answer is "Yes": a case about someone smoking in a railway carriage ended up in the House of Lords.
After surmounting this issue over whether to void the curved arrows (and also the BUS GATE road marking as it's been placed outside the supposed bus restriction, contrary to TSRGD 2016), the adjudicator then has to consider whether the remaining signage is adequate. Here the judgment in the Oxford Bus Gate case [2010) EWHC 894 (Admin) is crucial, with its examination of the advance signage of the bus restriction there.
It might be worth pointing to Hippocrates' comparator site, Cox Lane, Chessington. This has edge-of-carriageway road markings to diagram 1010 separating the entrance to the bus gate from the rest of the carriageway. That gives motorists some indication of where they're meant to go. It is the complete absence of such indication (once the curved arrows have been voided as ultra vires) which makes Camrose Avenue so defective (and lucrative for Harrow).
In my experience, when people are faced with a difficult decision, they try to find a way around having to take it. This means that if you give an adjudicator an alternative reason to allow your appeal, he or she may do so rather than have to tussle with the difficult issue. That's how I view the decision in my son's case. There is the occasional adjudicator who will rise to the challenge: Sir Gary Hickinbottom was a solicitor who became an adjudicator and rose to become first a Recorder, then a High Court judge and finally a Lord Justice of Appeal.
If I were in your shoes, I'd throw in the challenge to the TMO (see section 2 of the appeal document) as well as that based on inadequate signage. Harrow's response to this during the appeal was that "northern traffic island" and "southern traffic island" referred to the traffic islands as viewed by motorists approaching the restriction.
That is belied by the fact that there is actually only one traffic island in each direction, on the left of the width-restricted lane. The other structure is technically the "central median strip" and has been referred to as such in TMOs from 1974 onwards (including the current (2007) width-restriction TMO). TMOs are technical documents and use technical language. To approaching motorists there may appear to be two traffic islands in each direction. If there were, there would be four traffic islands in total. There aren't: there are three kerbed structures: two traffic islands and one central median strip.
Don't fall for Harrow's approach of working back from the signage and what they would like the TMO to mean. The law (s.66 of RTRA 1984 and Regulation 18 of LATOR 1996) works forwards. The TMO is the legal document which defines the restriction. The Council is then required to place signage which indicates what the restriction is, not what it wanted it to be. If they get the TMO wrong (and they do appear to have gone wrong in 1999 when they consolidated their TMOs for individual sites into two omnibus TMOs, one for width restrictions and another for bus restrictions), they can't rescue it by saying "Oops. That's not what we meant to do."
-
Given the 'generic' circumstances of my pCN - and being wholly reliant on the deficient signage argument the effort and research you've put into this will surely not be in vain when we get to tribunal.
Just to be 100% sure - are we talking about exactly the same location as mine? See video attached.
Thanks
[attach=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I stand ready to appear as a witness at tribunal hearings to attest to the veracity of this account.
I think you should represent people. 8)
-
Traffic Appeal 2250053451: Statement about Compliance of Signs with TSRGD 2016
I prepared the documents for, attended and spoke at Appeal 2250053451: Andrew Simons v London Borough of Harrow. I am the appellant's father.
Harrow's Case Summary
Harrow's Case Summary (included in attached document EVI_B_redacted.pdf) asserted:
There is signage at the location, situated on both sides of the road, and in accordance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.
Appeal Document
The Synopsis of the Appeal document addressed this issue directly:
Compliance of Signage with TSRGD 2016
This statement is false. It may well be that Harrow does not understand what TSRGD 2016 actually prescribes, but the following traffic signs in each direction are not in accordance with TSRGD 2016:
- the two right-pointing arrows to diagram 1014 (Schedule 11 part 4 item 14 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/made))
- the BUS GATE road marking to diagram 1048.5 (Schedule 9 part 6 item 15 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made))
- the two width-restriction signs to diagram 629A (Schedule 3 part 2 item 26 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/part/2/made))
- the left-pointing arrow to diagram 1014
The reasons why these traffic signs are not in accordance with TSRGD 2016 are set out below. This is discussed further in sections 3.7 and 3.8 and Annex D:
- diagram 1014: this is an advisory road marking which provides advance notice of regulatory restrictions defined by white lines and related markings. It is only prescribed in advance of such road markings. None is present;
- diagram 1048.5: this road marking is regulatory. It is prescribed within the section of road to which the restriction applies. Harrow uses it as advance notice before the restricted section of road;
- diagram 629A: prescribed diameters: 750, 900, 1200mm. Harrow uses 450mm.
The Synopsis, along with sections 3.7, 3.8 and Annex D are in in the attached document CamroseAppealExcerpts250328.pdf.
Hearing
At the hearing, I challenged Harrow's assertion that the signage was in accordance with TSRGD 2016. Mr Greenslade, the Adjudicator, interrupted to ask whether I wasn't referring to a failure to follow the guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual. I replied no, I was well aware that the Traffic Signs Manual was only guidance. I was talking about compliance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, which was statutory.
As the half-hour allotted for the hearing was coming to its end, Mr Greenslade adjourned the hearing, saying that he would ask Harrow to provide a detailed response to the appeal document and to send representatives to attend the hearing when it reconvened.
Harrow's Adjournment Evidence
This is attached as AdjournmentEvidenceRedacted.pdf.
As can be seen, Harrow's Adjournment Evidence did not directly address my challenge to the signage's compliance with TSRGD 2016. The closest that it got was
The Council maintains the signage at the location of Camrose Avenue is correctly and clearly displayed in accordance with current legislation to information motorists of the restriction in question.
. . .
There is also a pair of Width restriction signs to diagram. 629, on westbound and eastbound directions at the point where width restriction is in place as well as another pair of blue roundel signs to diagram. 953 and 953.2 on grey backing board, one pair each on westbound and eastbound directions. A blue roundel sign is also available directly at the exit of Turner Road.
Furthermore, there is a give-way sign to diagram 602: one on the eastbound directions.
The sign to diagram.953 complies with all directions, including direction 8(1), however our transportation traffic team have advised that direction 8(2) is not a requirement to comply for diagram 953. Direction 8(1) explains that diagram 953 and many others need to follow this direction.
Another statement in Harrow's Adjournment Evidence was:
Additionally, the restricted route is identified by thick white demarcation line, the words "BUSES ONLY" is painted on the carriageway itself, and, although not necessary to meet the regulations, the roadway is paved with red asphalt.
Counter-Response
After the hearing I prepared Annex E to the appeal document. It consists of excerpts from TSRGD 2016 relating to the signs which I challenged as being not in accordance with TSRGD 2016.
When Harrow produced their Adjournment Evidence, I prepared a revised version of the Synopsis to include counter-responses on each topic. For Compliance with TSRGD 2016 it was:
Harrow’s response does not mention the “directional white arrows”. By implication, Harrow has acknowledged that these road markings have been placed ultra vires.
Harrow now concentrates on the regulatory signs at the restriction itself. The description of this signage relates to the signs placed in 2006 under TSRGD 2002. These were replaced between 2015 and 2022:
- width-restriction signs to diagram 629 showed only Imperial measurements; they were replaced in 2015 with larger signs to diagram 629A showing both Imperial and metric measurements. These signs (which, in accordance with TSRGD 2002 and 2016 were 750mm diameter) were replaced in 2021/22 with non-prescribed signs 450mm diameter;
- under TSRGD 2002, signs to diagram 953 had to be accompanied by an “Only” plate to diagram 953.2; both signs were included on a rectangular grey backing board. As a result of changes introduced in TSRGD 2016, these signs were replaced in 2018/19 with signs without the “Only” plate. The references to directions 8(1) and 8(2) relate to TSRGD 2002; directions in TSRGD 2016 appear within the Schedules for the signs to which they relate rather than as a single list.
Harrow also refers to “advance regulatory signs ... prior to the restricted route”; These are discussed further in the section Advance Warning of the Restrictions.
Harrow’s own photographs show that the advance signage relates solely to the width restriction. There is no advance signage of the bus restriction.
The first that motorists see of the bus restriction are the blue roundels to diagram 953 which, in accordance with TSRGD, have been placed at the bus restriction itself. Those signs are smaller than the Traffic Signs Manual recommends, being 600mm in diameter rather than 750mm. Harrow’s contention seems to be that the mere act of placing regulatory signs in accordance with TSRGD imposes on road users
the responsibility ... to make themselves aware of any restrictions that are in force and drive accordingly
Such an approach was rejected by Beatson J in [2010] EWHC 894(Admin). He examined in detail the notices placed in advance of the regulatory signs at the bus restriction, finding:
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 . . .
On Camrose Avenue the bus restriction comes into force at the diagram 953 signs; other motorists need to move out and use the adjacent lane. This is very similar to nearside with-flow bus lanes, where the bus restriction comes into force at the diagram 959B sign. Bus lanes have well-defined advance signage, including the lead-in taper and diagram 958 advance signs placed 30m before the start of the taper.
It is the advance signage for bus lanes (which is not mandated by TSRGD 2016) which ensures that motorists are not surprised when a bus lane starts. They have already moved out in response to the lead-in taper. The complete absence of advance signage of the bus restriction on Camrose Avenue does not prepare road users for what is about to happen to the nearside lane.
In accordance with Beatson J’s judgment, I ask you to find that there was no contravention.
In the Synopsis, Harrow's other statement came under the heading "Additional Signage". The counter-response to this was:
The reference to “BUSES ONLY” indicates that this paragraph was drafted before 2008, when the road marking was changed to “BUS & (cycle symbol) ONLY”. It echoes the report in the Harrow Times of 4 July 2007:
Harrow Council says the lane is "clearly signed" by a thick white demarcation line, the words "BUSES ONLY" on the carriageway and red asphalt paving.
That enables the “thick white demarcation line” to be identified as the continuous white line running in an arc from the exit of Dale Avenue to the westbound traffic island (see Figure A.11). There was never a similar line facing eastbound traffic.
The revised Synopsis is in the attached document CamroseAppealSynopsis250417.pdf. Annex E is the document CamroseAppealAnnexE.pdf attached to the first post on this thread.
Reconvened Hearing
At the reconvened hearing, Harrow was represented by Ms Solanki and Mr Adekusibe. They skirted around the issue of whether the challenged signs complied with TSRGD 2016. They preferred to focus on the blue roundel signs and dismissed the road markings as not being traffic signs. I pointed out that road markings were every bit as much traffic signs as upright signs and that everything defined in TSRGD was a traffic sign.
Mr Adekusibe appeared perturbed by the suggestion that a case from 2010 in Oxford could have any relevance to the signage in Harrow in 2024 and pointed to other recent appeals which Harrow had won. I tried with limited success to explain that judgments in the High Court set precedents which were binding on lesser tribunals, such as this one, while decisions at the same level of tribunal did not.
Conclusions
Harrow's response to my challenge to the compliance of the signage with TSRGD 2016 was to narrow the scope of their assertion of compliance to the regulatory signage (diagram 953). They sought to dismiss road markings as "not traffic signs". No attempt was made to justify the placing of the challenged signs as being in accordance with TSRGD 2016.
Harrow's Adjournment Evidence includes references to
- signs to diagrams 629 and 953.2 in TSRGD 2002 which are not in TSRGD 2016 (and which were replaced on Camrose Avenue between 2015 and 2019)
- the "BUSES ONLY" road marking, which was not in accordance with any version of TSRGD and which was replaced in 2008
Harrow implicitly conceded that the challenged signs are not in accordance with TSRGD 2016. The references in their Adjournment Evidence to signage removed in 2008, 2015 and 2019 raises questions about how they prepare their submissions for appeals against PCNs and whether their assertions are to be taken at face value.
I stand ready to appear as a witness at tribunal hearings to attest to the veracity of this account.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Each case is different of course. Same goes for their images, conditions, times of day etc. This location reminds me of Cox Lane, Chessington.
-
With regard to cp8759's comments, I considered that it was the documented challenge to Harrow's assertion that the signage complied with TSRGD which led Mr Greenslade to demand a detailed response from Harrow and send representatives to the reconvened hearing. Harrow's detailed response ignored the TSRGD issue but did not repeat the earlier claim of compliance. So yes, there isn't anything on the public record for Camrose Avenue about TSRGD, but Harrow are on the run on this.
I considered that the grounds on which Mr Greenslade allowed the appeal were selected to be the least open to further challenge. They also happen not to be helpful to other appellants. I've seen this sort of approach elsewhere. I suggest that those wishing to challenge compliance with TSRGD 2016 include CamroseAppealAnnexE.pdf in their submissions.
-
Looking at the decision and The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g7zUVgywOmhufM4DUZmWzSbqffg_ZC51/view), two points emerge:
1) Mr Greenslade clearly meant article 5(2)(a) rather than 5(1)(a), and
2) The decision has nothing to do with the TSRGD or anything of the sort, rather he decided that the driver drove in the bus lane in order to avoid an accident.
That's not to say that the issues of signage are not valid, but simply that we do not have a decision that specifically deals with this issue.
-
@cp8759 The Fourth Musketeer has arrived. ;D
-
Nice One!
-
This post brings together redacted copies of the main documents related to a PCN issued on 24 November 2024 which was won on appeal on 29 April 2025:
- CamroseAppeal250329c.pdf: Appeal document
- CamroseAppealAnnexE.pdf: Annex E to Appeal document
- CamroseAppealSynopsis250417.pdf: Colour-coded collation of Harrow's Case Summary; Appeal Synopsis; Harrow's Response; and my Counter-Response
I hope that others will find this a useful source for their own appeals. From the decision in this case, I surmise that the grounds on which an appeal is allowed may well be chosen as that which is least likely to be challenged by either party. I wouldn't suggest that others deploy all the grounds which I advanced; instead I would suggest choosing one "big" ground - inadequate signage or the TMO does not apply as Harrow claim - supplemented by something which is specific to your case.
In their Adjournment Evidence and at the hearing, Harrow did not challenge my demonstration that the curved arrows and BUS GATE road markings had not been placed in accordance with TSRGD 2016 (see CamroseAppealAnnexE.pdf). This is important as Harrow typically assert that all their signage is in accordance with TSRGD 2016 and it manifestly is not.
In particular, Harrow must be challenged if they make the claim that the curved arrows were telling you to move out. By placing those arrows other than in accordance with TSRGD 2016, Harrow was acting ultra vires and those arrows are legally void. That means that it is as if the arrows do not exist. Of course they do, but as they are unlawful, the Adjudicator should disregard them when assessing the adequacy of the signage.
[attachment deleted by admin]