Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: S.M on October 29, 2023, 11:47:59 pm
-
For later:
The Waltham Forest (Bus Lanes) (No. 1) Traffic Order 2001 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=139XaisFpq3_S4cLuX4eW3Cd64jmQHAcC)
The Waltham Forest (Bus Lanes) (No. 1 2001) (Amendment No. 8) Traffic Order 2007 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1lfd_ecu1KMng82-Pests4854tVZrPAnw)
Corrigendum (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1tDqnU1SKHgSTDKvCv_sJsU7BnbU1yz1R)
I haven't checked if it's material, but I don't think the corrigendum can have any legal effect as it purports to alter the substantive effect of the order, if it does become material we have the Montague Avenue cases that dealt with that issue.
@cp8759: is your post relevant please re this thread?:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/waltham-forest-code-34-being-in-a-bus-lane/msg12936/#msg12936
Also, they have only produced the second TMO link.
-
That was quick! And I wasn't even mentioned - yet..... :D Well done for staying the course. ;)
thanks to all on here :)
-
That was quick! And I wasn't even mentioned - yet..... :D Well done for staying the course. ;)
-
Thanks.
i`ve just been on the tribunal website and i can see something where the council uploaded saying Do not contest???
-
Thanks.
-
We have a few more than that, see rows 721 to 726 here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit?pli=1#gid=642784037&range=A721).
-
Found them: https://bit.ly/3AuEcFi
-
For later:
The Waltham Forest (Bus Lanes) (No. 1) Traffic Order 2001 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=139XaisFpq3_S4cLuX4eW3Cd64jmQHAcC)
The Waltham Forest (Bus Lanes) (No. 1 2001) (Amendment No. 8) Traffic Order 2007 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1lfd_ecu1KMng82-Pests4854tVZrPAnw)
Corrigendum (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1tDqnU1SKHgSTDKvCv_sJsU7BnbU1yz1R)
I haven't checked if it's material, but I don't think the corrigendum can have any legal effect as it purports to alter the substantive effect of the order, if it does become material we have the Montague Avenue cases that dealt with that issue.
@cp8759: please can you remind me of the Montague Avenue cases? Thanks.
-
Ok, I am up to speed. I will email you.
-
If SM agrees, I say Tribunal time. PM sent.
yes lets go for it.
-
If SM agrees, I say Tribunal time. PM sent.
-
Rest of the document
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
They finally rejected the appeal. I thought it would have been much earlier.
Any thoughts?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Good points.
-
Just a thought on the lack of visibility of the 958B sign and ignoring the driver behaviour after parking.
Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3
Section 9.3.8 says:
'...There is no specific requirement to use the road marking in conjunction with diagram 959B
which means that they need not be placed together at particular locations. It is for the traffic
authority to determine the number of upright signs and road markings that are required and
where they are placed. However, the marking must not be used as a substitute for diagram
959B, relying only on diagram 958 to indicate the vehicles permitted to use the lane; the
Regulations prescribe the marking as being a bus lane that may be used by vehicles indicated
on the sign to diagram 959B'
If I read this correctly there MUST be a 958B and they cannot rely on 'Bus Lane' road marking to convey the restriction.
There are no repeater 958B's I can see on GSV since the start of the bus lane which is way, way back.
-
Sorry if I am blind; but, I cannot find what your original challenge stated and I am just guessing from their initial rejection letter and what had been discussed re the signage what was in your challenge.
yes that was the basis of the challenge along with pictures that I sent
-
Sorry if I am blind; but, I cannot find what your original challenge stated and I am just guessing from their initial rejection letter and what had been discussed re the signage what was in your challenge.
-
My advice is as follows when I see what you originally wrote:
Dear Waltham Forest
Ref: PCN.......................VRM............................
I require you to consider my original challenge as my formal representations against the Enforcement Notice.
Please cancel the PCN therefore.
Yours faithfully
Name
Address
I did just that - let`s see what they come back with. Thanks
-
My advice is as follows when I see what you originally wrote:
Dear Waltham Forest
Ref: PCN.......................VRM............................
I require you to consider my original challenge as my formal representations against the Enforcement Notice.
Please cancel the PCN therefore.
Yours faithfully
Name
Address
-
I thought they should be sending a notice to owner but instead they sent this today 08/12/23
Do i need to make another representation?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Noted.
-
For later:
The Waltham Forest (Bus Lanes) (No. 1) Traffic Order 2001 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=139XaisFpq3_S4cLuX4eW3Cd64jmQHAcC)
The Waltham Forest (Bus Lanes) (No. 1 2001) (Amendment No. 8) Traffic Order 2007 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1lfd_ecu1KMng82-Pests4854tVZrPAnw)
Corrigendum (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1tDqnU1SKHgSTDKvCv_sJsU7BnbU1yz1R)
I haven't checked if it's material, but I don't think the corrigendum can have any legal effect as it purports to alter the substantive effect of the order, if it does become material we have the Montague Avenue cases that dealt with that issue.
-
Caught up at last. :D Sorry got my threads mixed up. Wait for the EN.
-
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=152102&view=getlastpost
They get a mention.
S.M: please reply to me via e mail.
-
Ah ok and do you know if they have updated camera certification all over the borough?
Whether they have it and whether they can prove it are different matters, especially if the council officers are required to attend.
For what it's worth, we've not lost a bus lane case since July 2021.
-
I say wait for the Enforcement Notice and I am happy to take this on and pay £65 if I lose at Chancery Lane.
BTW, they have updated camera certification; but, who knows how this well develop?
Sounds good :)
Ah ok and do you know if they have updated camera certification all over the borough?
-
I say wait for the Enforcement Notice and I am happy to take this on and pay £65 if I lose at Chancery Lane.
BTW, they have updated camera certification; but, who knows how this well develop?
-
Nope. If you pay, game over. Parking bays are allowed in bus lanes.
Yup
What isn't allowed is parking bays operating at same time as the bus lane.
Here the times are complimentary, ie, no parking while bus lane operative, can park when it is not.
You were in contravention of the single yellow line but they cannot enforce that with CCTV.
Re cameral authorisation.
I've lost track but people like Hippo are up to speed on it.
Whether WF were or are still behind, I'm sure he can say.
I am unable to tag him but bumping this so that he can see and will try and message him.
-
Nope. If you pay, game over. Parking bays are allowed in bus lanes.
Yup
What isn't allowed is parking bays operating at same time as the bus lane.
Here the times are complimentary, ie, no parking while bus lane operative, can park when it is not.
You were in contravention of the single yellow line but they cannot enforce that with CCTV.
Re cameral authorisation.
I've lost track but people like Hippo are up to speed on it.
Whether WF were or are still behind, I'm sure he can say.
-
Nope. If you pay, game over. Parking bays are allowed in bus lanes.
At this point. I either pay £130 or don`t pay.
Btw what about the bus lane cameras not being approved etc that i`ve seen on quite a few threads? Does this still apply?
-
Nope. If you pay, game over. Parking bays are allowed in bus lanes.
-
The side road should have a warning sign.
That's the problem, should not must.
Should in TSM means that a missing sign can be queried and TBH, likely win if it were a case of driving a short way into a bus lane.
Would likely win here had OP parked, looked at the sign and left.
Could even win had OP parked and not seen the sign as it was turned.
But parked in a bus lane, take a photo of the sign (which shows they knew the time restrictions) and left the vehicle parked in contravention.
I hope I am wrong but can see Mr Chan shaking his head
@Hippocrates This is what I always thought, I passed by today and there`s no way someone would actually see that sign if they are turning left. The sign at the start of the bus lane has slightly veered toward the driver now, it looks like it moves based on how bad the weather is.
@Dancing dad - btw I was parked in a bay (picture attached) - This is another conundrum - They have a parking bay in the bus lane
(https://i.ibb.co/64wrLZY/IMG-20231110-130052.jpg)
OP, you have the absolute right in law to take them to the adjudicators at London Tribunals, but as you can see there is varying opinion on your chances. If the discount option has gone, it is obviously a no-brainer to do so, but if it's still available, you need to think carefully whether you should risk the extra £65.
For me it seems to be wrong to pay for a fine in this circumstance i.e the council not maintaining the signage. Can I pay the £65 and still appeal?
-
+1
-
The side road should have a warning sign.
That's the problem, should not must.
Should in TSM means that a missing sign can be queried and TBH, likely win if it were a case of driving a short way into a bus lane.
Would likely win here had OP parked, looked at the sign and left.
Could even win had OP parked and not seen the sign as it was turned.
But parked in a bus lane, take a photo of the sign (which shows they knew the time restrictions) and left the vehicle parked in contravention.
I hope I am wrong but can see Mr Chan shaking his head
-
OP, you have the absolute right in law to take them to the adjudicators at London Tribunals, but as you can see there is varying opinion on your chances. If the discount option has gone, it is obviously a no-brainer to do so, but if it's still available, you need to think carefully whether you should risk the extra £65.
-
The side road should have a warning sign.
-
You are looking at it as a binary, yes or no answer.
But sign lore is subjective and can very much depend on circumstances.
There are circumstances where there MUST be a sign and it must be visible.
This is not one of them except that the authority have chosen to put a sign and as such, it should be visible.
That the authority have failed to maintain and times are not readily visible is all on your side.
But there is no statutory imperative that says that a sign must be there and must be visible.
Traffic Signs Manual doesn't require such a sign after a crossing and even after a break for a side road only says should, not must.
I may be being unduly pessimistic and have explained my reasons.
Others may disagree and believe your point of view is valid.
It is your choice but please make no mistake, it is not as cut and dried as you believe.
My apologies, I thought after every new stretch of Bus lane there must be a sign that is visible. I thought this was law. I have seen many places where on one stretch you have a bus lane at all times and right after a pedestrian crossing you have a timed bus lane.
If as you say traffic law isn`t required after a side road, what would happen if someone was to come out of the side road which further down and take a left onto the bus lane which has no sign? It just doesn`t make sense.
Let`s see what the others mention about this particular case. Thanks
-
You are looking at it as a binary, yes or no answer.
But sign lore is subjective and can very much depend on circumstances.
There are circumstances where there MUST be a sign and it must be visible.
This is not one of them except that the authority have chosen to put a sign and as such, it should be visible.
That the authority have failed to maintain and times are not readily visible is all on your side.
But there is no statutory imperative that says that a sign must be there and must be visible.
Traffic Signs Manual doesn't require such a sign after a crossing and even after a break for a side road only says should, not must.
I may be being unduly pessimistic and have explained my reasons.
Others may disagree and believe your point of view is valid.
It is your choice but please make no mistake, it is not as cut and dried as you believe.
-
Thanks for video.
There is no break in the bus lane, simply in the markings as required by statute.
It confirms what I suspected, parked.
And shows what seems to be the driver taking a photo of the sign at about 23 seconds into the video????
If that is the case, I would grab the discount,
To me it shows that you may have erred due to the defective sign but not only checked the sign but photographed it.
Had you moved the motor then, I reckon a fair to good chance of a win.
But as it is, an adjudicator is going to see you checking the sign and ignoring it.
To me that is a loss.
Others may have different views.
What i mean by break is that the bus lane is not continuous. Shouldn't a bus lane sign be visible after each "break"? in this case it's a crossing and if you check further down there's another "break" due to a side road where they've put another sign (this one isn't properly visible either)
Shouldn't the sign be sufficiently visible in order for it to be enforceable? Bear in mind it was raining and at night. My assumption is that the previous stretch doesn't have any effect on this one as it is common occurrence in London where you may have different timings on different stretch. Please bear in mind i didn't actually park on a double yellow etc. It was an actual parking spot, a pay and display but not operational after 6.30pm
Here's a pic i took recently
(https://i.ibb.co/dLKSbp0/IMG-20231103-141624.jpg)
And here's the Google map link 421 A112
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qDyWAMz9z1idzQW69
-
Thanks for video.
There is no break in the bus lane, simply in the markings as required by statute.
It confirms what I suspected, parked.
And shows what seems to be the driver taking a photo of the sign at about 23 seconds into the video????
If that is the case, I would grab the discount,
To me it shows that you may have erred due to the defective sign but not only checked the sign but photographed it.
Had you moved the motor then, I reckon a fair to good chance of a win.
But as it is, an adjudicator is going to see you checking the sign and ignoring it.
To me that is a loss.
Others may have different views.
-
Am I correct in saying that I should now wait for them to send me the enforcement notice after 14 days and make a formal representation to WFC again?
Then if that gets rejected they will send me another appeal form to go to the adjudicator?
Thanks
Yes
Video Please.
The template rejection is just that and doesn't cover your point on the sign being turned.
It seems to imply that you drove along the bus lane, the photos imply that you drove in and parked.
I don't know which one it is but the answer is critical and the video will show.
Markings for a bus lane cannot coincide with pedestrian crossing markings.
But that doesn't mean that the bus lane doesn't exist at the crossing.
Motorists are expected to know this.
It was one long bus lane with one sign turned out of many
Here's the video.
https://gemoo.com/tools/upload-video/share/578780036247695360?codeId=PYxVwa95pxj1L&card=578780032841920512
For clarity, there's a break between the bus lane of around 50m and further down the road the signage is not properly set either
-
Am I correct in saying that I should now wait for them to send me the enforcement notice after 14 days and make a formal representation to WFC again?
Then if that gets rejected they will send me another appeal form to go to the adjudicator?
Thanks
Yes
Video Please.
The template rejection is just that and doesn't cover your point on the sign being turned.
It seems to imply that you drove along the bus lane, the photos imply that you drove in and parked.
I don't know which one it is but the answer is critical and the video will show.
Markings for a bus lane cannot coincide with pedestrian crossing markings.
But that doesn't mean that the bus lane doesn't exist at the crossing.
Motorists are expected to know this.
It was one long bus lane with one sign turned out of many
-
Am I correct in saying that I should now wait for them to send me the enforcement notice after 14 days and make a formal representation to WFC again?
Then if that gets rejected they will send me another appeal form to go to the adjudicator?
Thanks
-
Please to post up the rejection.
(https://i.ibb.co/1qSJ5Kj/PCN1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WyTpwFj)
(https://i.ibb.co/1ZWwyLQ/PCN2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/4Wr5v7t)
(https://i.ibb.co/z66F6Mf/PCN3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xFFYFk5)
-
These specific questions may be better not cluttering the PCN thread.
Whether or not a sign is adequate is a subjective choice.
Facing the wrong way would point to it being inadequate but it is one of a series of signs along a relatively long stretch of clearly marked bus lane (Big white line and red tarmac)
Coupled with that this doesn't seem to be a case of driving into the bus lane but parking in it?
And parking alongside the sign though without the video we cannot be sure.
May also have been parked alongside a waiting restriction sign as the bus lane coexists with parking bays (complimentary times).
Taking that lot into consideration, I would not be surprised if an adjudicator decided the signage was poor but adequate and that the driver simply failed to check signage when they parked.
Differing matter if someone was to drive past the sign, into the bus lane and then thought oops and pulled out again, especially as it is a timed bus lane and markings have only just restarted after the crossing.
One should never think that one sign being wrong is a get out of jail card.
It all comes down to the full picture and the nasty term that is often used, substantially compliant.
Not that WF seem too bothered about signs being maintained as a scoot down the dates that the google car passed shows.
That is in favour.
Complaint.... raise one against the council using their formal complaints procedure.
But they may simply say that as it is a live PCN they cannot comment.
Better to wait for the outcome and then, if in your favour, raise the complaint.
In my case, there`s a pedestrian crossing before the bus lane, so you have "free" lane before and after that crossing.
It`s not a big long stretch of bus lane where one sign is not adequate.
So going back to my Original question, how can they get away with it where say if an adjudicator was to mention
that the PCN was totally wrong.
Once the appeal is done, i will raise this to WF and my Local MP.
-
Does this relate to your ongoing thread in the Council Forum - WalthamForest, 34 - Being in a Bus Lane, High Road Leyton (Bus Lane) E10 (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/walthamforest-34-being-in-a-bus-lane-high-road-leyton-(bus-lane)-e10/)?
If so, any reason you've started a new Flame Pit thread about it, rather than continuing to seek advice on your active case thread?
I`m not seeking advice in relation to that PCN but this is more of a general request.
-
These specific questions may be better not cluttering the PCN thread.
Whether or not a sign is adequate is a subjective choice.
Facing the wrong way would point to it being inadequate but it is one of a series of signs along a relatively long stretch of clearly marked bus lane (Big white line and red tarmac)
Coupled with that this doesn't seem to be a case of driving into the bus lane but parking in it?
And parking alongside the sign though without the video we cannot be sure.
May also have been parked alongside a waiting restriction sign as the bus lane coexists with parking bays (complimentary times).
Taking that lot into consideration, I would not be surprised if an adjudicator decided the signage was poor but adequate and that the driver simply failed to check signage when they parked.
Differing matter if someone was to drive past the sign, into the bus lane and then thought oops and pulled out again, especially as it is a timed bus lane and markings have only just restarted after the crossing.
One should never think that one sign being wrong is a get out of jail card.
It all comes down to the full picture and the nasty term that is often used, substantially compliant.
Not that WF seem too bothered about signs being maintained as a scoot down the dates that the google car passed shows.
That is in favour.
Complaint.... raise one against the council using their formal complaints procedure.
But they may simply say that as it is a live PCN they cannot comment.
Better to wait for the outcome and then, if in your favour, raise the complaint.
-
Please to post up the rejection.
And the video
-
OP, you seem to have been aware that the sign had been there "for years". Doesn't that suggest that the prohibition was "adequately conveyed"? ;)
-
Does this relate to your ongoing thread in the Council Forum - WalthamForest, 34 - Being in a Bus Lane, High Road Leyton (Bus Lane) E10 (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/walthamforest-34-being-in-a-bus-lane-high-road-leyton-(bus-lane)-e10/)?
If so, any reason you've started a new Flame Pit thread about it, rather than continuing to seek advice on your active case thread?
-
I received a PCN for driving in the bus lane despite no signs being present. We all know it is not enforceable and despite my representation with pictures Walthamforest decided to reject the appeal.
My question now is, when I go to the tribunal and I win my case
1- Is there a mechanism in place which allows someone to force Walthamforest to cancel all similar PCNs? (Given that the sign is not adequate and hasn`t been for ages )
2- How can we raise a complaint regarding the person who is rejecting those appeals?
Apologies If I sound like I`m ranting.
-
Please to post up the rejection.
-
Hope they do accept this and not make it difficult.
To set your expectations, I would fully expect Waltham Forest to reject everything and push this one to the tribunal. They're just difficult.
You were absolutely 100% right, they rejected it despite me sending both pictures that I took and the one from Google Maps. They haven`t sent the notice to owner as of yet, I only found this out by calling them.
-
Hope they do accept this and not make it difficult.
To set your expectations, I would fully expect Waltham Forest to reject everything and push this one to the tribunal. They're just difficult.
-
Well it seems a very straightforward case, just make a representation pointing out that the sign is turned the wrong way round.
For something as simple as this, you don't really need a fancy technical challenge for something like this. Also please note that for council cases you don't need to bother with any of this "the driver" stuff: if you were driving, just tell us. If you weren't, please confirm the connection between yourself and the driver (and the registered keeper).
Cheers - I have made the representation and attached the picture. Hope they do accept this and not make it difficult.
-
Well it seems a very straightforward case, just make a representation pointing out that the sign is turned the wrong way round.
For something as simple as this, you don't really need a fancy technical challenge for something like this. Also please note that for council cases you don't need to bother with any of this "the driver" stuff: if you were driving, just tell us. If you weren't, please confirm the connection between yourself and the driver (and the registered keeper).
-
Video doesn't work either.
Should I upload the video too?
Just give us the PCN number and number plate and I'll post the video for you. I've also fixed the link in your opening post.
https://gemoo.com/tools/upload-video/share/578780036247695360?codeId=PYxVwa95pxj1L&card=578780032841920512
Here`s the video. I have privately messaged you the pcn
-
Video doesn't work either.
Should I upload the video too?
Just give us the PCN number and number plate and I'll post the video for you. I've also fixed the link in your opening post.
-
Video doesn't work either.
Should I upload the video too?
It was just a screengrab of the video where it shows I was taking a picture.
The video is their sole evidence of the alleged contravention, so we need to see it.
-
Video doesn't work either.
Should I upload the video too?
It was just a screengrab of the video where it shows I was taking a picture.
-
Video doesn't work either.
-
for some reason I can`t find the edit button
Here`s the link
https://maps.app.goo.gl/cVfj8sp8nfRjDvYX8
-
Can you check your GSV link as it doesn't work.
-
Hello Folks,
Could someone look at this, please? The driver was given a PCN for being in the bus lane.
This occurred at the start of the bus lane and the sign was not visible as it was not facing the driver but facing the side which makes it impossible for a driver to see.
The driver was parked in a parking spot but was unaware the bus lane was active.
On the video, it can be seen that the driver driver parks and whilst coming out it can be seen that driver takes a picture of the sign (picture attachedr)
Please note there is another stretch of bus lane before that but that is "broken" and there is a new stretch after the zebra crossing.
As can be seen on the google map picture, the sign is facing the wrong direction. Googlemap link (https://maps.app.goo.gl/cVfj8sp8nfRjDvYX8)
Any thoughts on how the driver could appeal this?
Thank you
(https://i.ibb.co/9H2Lmg9/driver-picture.jpg) (http://"https://ibb.co/1GK5YQf")
(https://i.ibb.co/c8PxhrL/google-maps-picture.jpg) (http://"https://ibb.co/C9qWKH2")
(https://i.ibb.co/562bL4d/PCN.jpg) (http://"https://ibb.co/FKnRz39")
(https://i.ibb.co/GFtbSXn/taking-picture.jpg) (http://"https://ibb.co/zN70v1Q")