Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
We saw a lot of cases here when Greenwich first built/monitored this stop.thanks for sharing, is this from the tribunal after the representation to the council has been rejected? and does this mean the appeal was won in this case mainly due to proof that the bus stop is not in use and there is no clear signage?
I think some cases were won on lack of camera authorisation but that ship has probably sailed.
The most reason tribunal case was won but note is was from last August.
Greenwich has a recent record of not bothering to contest cases but that may have changed.
--------------
Case reference 2250505269
Appellant Minh Dang
Authority Royal Borough of Greenwich
VRM LB65 TZK
PCN Details
PCN GR23966616
Contravention date 09 Aug 2025
Contravention time 15:20:00
Contravention location Millennium Way
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand
Referral date -
Decision Date 17 Mar 2026
Adjudicator Richard Young
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons 1. This appeal relates to a PCN issued by Greenwich Council on 18 August 2025. The alleged contravention, said to have occurred at 15:20 on 9 August 2025, was that the appellant’s vehicle stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand. The location was the Millennium Way bus stop.
2. The matter was listed for a virtual hearing on 14 March 2026. There was no appearance on the part of the enforcement authority but the appellant attended and set out her case. I reserved my decision.
3. The video evidence shows the appellant’s vehicle stopping. The area has markings stating that it is a “bus stop.” The only signage visible in the video footage is unrelated signage pertaining to use of the pavement. I have had regard to the photographs produced by the enforcement authority relating to signage said to be at the location concerned. I can see from those that the bus shelter and signage would be further up the bus stop from where the vehicle is seen stopping, and therefore just out of range of the video evidence.
4. The appellant’s position is that, at the time she stopped, she did not think that the bus stop was in use because there was no one standing by it and also no signage relating to it. The appellant subsequently, and after receiving the PCN, checked the position using Google Maps and that website indicated that “North Greenwich – Millenium [sic] Way Stop F” was “permanently closed.” The appellant has produced a screenshot of the website dated 3 September 2025 which I note is reasonably contemporaneous to the claimed contravention. I do not attach any weight to the spelling error as it is a not uncommon one.
5. The case summary from Greenwich states that: “Google Maps does not confirm if a bus stop is open or closed to buses, the signs indicated at this location state 'No Stopping at any time except buses'. This does state buses can stop at this location and the road markings of 'BUS STOP' clearly states to a driver of a vehicle that is not a bus, that they DO NOT stop or park at or near a bus stop marked on the carriageway or bus stop lay-bys unless otherwise indicated by signs.” The notice of rejection stated that: “This bus stop is operational 24 hours a day seven days a week.” It also stated that: “The Highway Code tells drivers: "You MUST NOT stop or park on a bus stop marked on the carriageway or bus stop lay-bys unless otherwise indicated by signs". There are no signs displayed at this bus stop, which means it is enforced all the time.” Unlike the notice of rejection, the more recent case summary does not spell out whether the bus stop is actually in use or not.
6. Whilst I take the point about Google Maps not being at all determinative, it is the only evidence I have as to the status to the bus stop and the enforcement authority has not suggested that it is wrong, relying instead on the points about road markings and signage. Whether the stop is in use or not would be a matter of record that the enforcement authority would know. Further, the case summary does not suggest that the appellant’s position is wrong as such. I therefore find, on the available evidence, that the bus stop was at the time of the contravention a bus stop that was not in use. The enforcement authority could have provided evidence that it was in-use but has not.
7. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether signage was in place as at the date of contravention or not. The appellant says that there was none and the enforcement authority says that there was, relying on undated photographs.
8. I find that, whilst there was signage at the bus stop at some point, there was not as at the date of contravention. The appellant’s position on signage has not changed; she stated in her representations dated 3 September 2025 that: “…there was also no visible sign plate at the location of the alleged contravention.” This is also important because the enforcement authority was on notice about the point and yet still failed to produce dated or otherwise more reliable photographic evidence relating to the signage. My finding that there was no signage at the bus stop is supported by my finding that the bus stop was not in use. A bus stop that is not in use would not require signage.
9. I acknowledge that rule 243 of the Highway Code states: “DO NOT stop or park: … at or near a bus … stop…” (emphasis original). Although I note that the policy reason for the issue of PCNs of this nature is to avoid buses being obstructed, I also accept and find that, whilst the bus stop was out of use, it was still a bus stop. It had not been removed altogether nor repurposed. The appellant does not claim to have been misled as her evidence was that it was a bus stop, but one that was out of use. However, I find that the enforcement authority has not established by way of reliable evidence that this bus stop had, at the date of contravention, signage advising of the specific restriction relied upon in the PCN. The existence of road markings, clearly visible in the video evidence, is not material as they do not convey the basis of the restriction relied upon. For the same reason, the more general “No Stopping at any time except buses” time plates that may have been in the same area are not material because they do not convey the restriction either.
10. There is no substance to the appellant’s point about the roadworks: she told me that these were before the bus stop and, in any event, did not press the point before me. Further, the suggestion that the PCN was issued with inaccurate location cannot be sustained. The location on the PCN specified the bus stop concerned and so could not have been more specific. The point made by the appellant about the road being clear and no obstruction having been caused is supported by the video evidence, but this, being mitigation, would not be a reason of itself for this appeal to prosper.
11. This appeal is allowed.
I’m guessing this PCN was issued via an enforcement car not a fixed CCTV camera, given the cardboard temporary ‘enforcement camera’ sign beneath the ‘no stopping on entrance markings’ sign.thanks! so i will ignore the potential error with the sign and use HCA's draft for my representation to the council, correct?
To simplify this I’ve posted an image of what the relevant sign should look like. The sign actually in place doesn’t fully comply with the regulations because the “Mon - Fri” is too big, but IMO this is only a minor error. It probably won’t matter at appeal stage.
In other words, take it that the signs and markings are substantially complaint and forget this part of your argument. Hope this makes sense.
sure, i just took the photos this morning. please do let me know if any relevancy here?Quotethanks and apologies but still not sure what is the minor design error here? e.g. what does '50mm' and '40mm' mean?
Not wishing to overthink this because it may turn out to be irrelevant. But before I answer this question, please confirm the photo of the sign you posted was from Google Street View (GSV). If so, it would be better to take your own photos of the sign, one for context and one close-up, then post them here. Sometimes GSV is out of date.
The upright sign in this case is critical for the contravention to be made out. The road markings alone are not enough. Once I’m sure what sign(s) were in place, I’ll give a more detailed answer. In the meantime I suggest you follow HCA’s advice/text.
I support HCA's suggested draft.thanks a lot. so i can use HCA's entire reply in my rep (word by word)? sorry again for the basic question but i wasn't 100% sure of the last part on the Adjudicator's verdict on another case....
I would not mention the shortness of the stop as "mitigation", because you are submitting representations that the offence did not occur, so mitigation is an irrelevancy.
The person who viewed the camera footage in the council is the one who has failed to understand the nature of the restriction, so is obvously either badly trained or motivated by the cash the council will get if you just cough-up.
Perhaps add that the contention that the contravention can only apply to the centre of the carriageway is supported by parking bays on the side on which you parkedthanks, but to clarify do you mean i parked my car beyond the centre line of the carriageway where the restrictions apply, which is evidenced by the fact that there are parking bays on the right side of mine?
HCA has given you a draft: is there anything in his draft you do not understand?sorry for the stupid question but can i confirm again if I can just use HCA's entire reply in my rep? is there any part i should remove/ amend?
Pl don't overthink this.thank you so much for your advice. is it ok for me to share a draft here just in case i still miss anything before submitting? but if i understand correctly the key argument point is that i did not park my car on the part of the carriageway where the restrictions applies, because I have stopped it beyond the center line and hence the PCN should be cancelled? should i also mention the brevity (i.e. the 1 minute duration of teh stop as a 'mitigation' factor at all?)
Contravention did not occur
The markings shown in the council's video are those prescribed for use at Item 10 of Part 4 of Schedule 7 to the Traffic Signs etc. Regulations 2016 which apply in this case. The prohibition is as follows:
Part of the carriageway outside an entrance where....vehicles should, or must, not stop.
Therefore in this case the only issue at large is whether I was stopped on 'part of the carriageway' to which the sign applies.
The answer is in the authority's own evidence which is a video showing my car parked on that part of the carriageway beyond the centre-line and therefore not a part of the carriageway to which the restriction applies.
If the authority considers that any part of my car was parked on that part of the carriageway to which the prohibition applies then they must reject these representations.
However, the council's video and this extract from a recent decision of adjudicator Michael Burke (ETA case reference 2250155724) would suggest that to take such a position would be at best frivolous and at worst an abuse of the council's power:
'The school markings indicate a prohibition which extends to the mid-point of the carriageway.
The Appellant could have pulled over to the left-hand side of the road in order to drop off his passenger but he remained in the centre of the carriageway with a significant section of the vehicle on the side of the carriageway prohibited by the school markings.'
The PCN must be cancelled.
