Show Posts
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
« on: June 18, 2026, 07:01:49 pm »
I received a PCN from Harrow at this site (eastbound) and challenged it both at the initial appeal stage to Harrow and then to London Tribunals.
I am a retired Traffic Engineer and so was able to write an appeal which was based on the legitimacy of the traffic order as it does not comply with the Traffic Signs Manual in a number of ways. The TSM does not authorize bus gates to be used to control one of several traffic lanes in the same direction. It may only control all traffic in one direction or all traffic in both directions. The layout that Harrow have used in Camrose Avenue has used the bus gate signage to control the use of the nearside lane and this use is not permitted. Bus gates must also have a clearly signed route showing how traffic should pass around the bus gate without committing an offence. This signage does not exist. I too found that the arrows painted on the carriageway were used in a manner that was not authorized under chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual.
When my appeal was heard by the adjudicator at London Tribunals he did not comment on the evidential material that I sent them (a traffic Engineers Report) and instead he managed to find a procedural fault in the way that Harrow had corresponded with me and so ruled in my favour based only on that point.
I was pleased on the one hand that the PCN had been cancelled, but incensed that the adjudicator had neatly avoided any reference to the more damming evidence that the traffic order was without authority.
I made a number of complaints to the Chief Adjudicator on the basis that the adjudicator had not carried out his duties properly as he had not considered all the evidence. You would not believe the responses that I received from him - they were poorly written, full of spelling mistakes. Had paragraphs that made no sense and at one point stated that the adjudicator could base his judgment on only one point and then he need not consider any further evidence! Thankfully the first point he found was in my favour and so I won, but what would have happened under different circumstances is unclear.
I asked that my traffic engineers report should be appended to any future appeals at this location (knowing full well that hell would freeze over before they would actually defend the public against a rogue Local Authority) and of course they simply did not respond to that request.
I made a freedom of information request to Harrow to ask how much income the Bus Gate at Camrose Avenue generated and they could only go back to 2021 and the income for only those 5 years was in the order of £6.8M. You only have to multiply this by the number of years that the Bus Gate order has been in operation to see that Harrow may have received somewhere in the region of £30M + that they were never entitled to.
If anyone reads this after they have received a PCN at this site, I am anxious to pass on my evidential package so that it eventually may force the hand of London Tribunals to address the issue and deliver justice.
I am a retired Traffic Engineer and so was able to write an appeal which was based on the legitimacy of the traffic order as it does not comply with the Traffic Signs Manual in a number of ways. The TSM does not authorize bus gates to be used to control one of several traffic lanes in the same direction. It may only control all traffic in one direction or all traffic in both directions. The layout that Harrow have used in Camrose Avenue has used the bus gate signage to control the use of the nearside lane and this use is not permitted. Bus gates must also have a clearly signed route showing how traffic should pass around the bus gate without committing an offence. This signage does not exist. I too found that the arrows painted on the carriageway were used in a manner that was not authorized under chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual.
When my appeal was heard by the adjudicator at London Tribunals he did not comment on the evidential material that I sent them (a traffic Engineers Report) and instead he managed to find a procedural fault in the way that Harrow had corresponded with me and so ruled in my favour based only on that point.
I was pleased on the one hand that the PCN had been cancelled, but incensed that the adjudicator had neatly avoided any reference to the more damming evidence that the traffic order was without authority.
I made a number of complaints to the Chief Adjudicator on the basis that the adjudicator had not carried out his duties properly as he had not considered all the evidence. You would not believe the responses that I received from him - they were poorly written, full of spelling mistakes. Had paragraphs that made no sense and at one point stated that the adjudicator could base his judgment on only one point and then he need not consider any further evidence! Thankfully the first point he found was in my favour and so I won, but what would have happened under different circumstances is unclear.
I asked that my traffic engineers report should be appended to any future appeals at this location (knowing full well that hell would freeze over before they would actually defend the public against a rogue Local Authority) and of course they simply did not respond to that request.
I made a freedom of information request to Harrow to ask how much income the Bus Gate at Camrose Avenue generated and they could only go back to 2021 and the income for only those 5 years was in the order of £6.8M. You only have to multiply this by the number of years that the Bus Gate order has been in operation to see that Harrow may have received somewhere in the region of £30M + that they were never entitled to.
If anyone reads this after they have received a PCN at this site, I am anxious to pass on my evidential package so that it eventually may force the hand of London Tribunals to address the issue and deliver justice.