Free Traffic Legal Advice

Today, councils look up the type of vehicle from its number plate. Harrow uses this (at least I assume that it does) to enforce emissions restrictions and TfL's Safer HGV zone[/url[/b]][/b].

It doesn't. Emissions are enforced by TfL, and "safer lorries" by the police and DVLA.

I did wonder whether emissions regulations and Safer HGV zones were enforced by TfL. That is why I expressed my uncertainty in parentheses. Neighbouring Hillingdon Council has been enforcing HGV restrictions since 2015 using look-up of the vehicle class from CCTV. Oxford has a zero-emission zone which I presume it enforces using look-up from CCTV.

I have attached below images of more of Cambridge's signs which I consider do provide "clear traffic signing which can readily be understood from a moving vehicle". If Cambridge can do it, so can Harrow. At the very least, Cambridge's signage provides a benchmark which can be put before adjudicators as evidence of the inadequacy of Harrow's signage. For those issued PCNs at night, so can the disproportionate number of PCNs issued at Camrose Avenue during the hours of darkness.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Cambridge is not the only local authority to advertise its bus gates and provide clear signage. Brighton & Hove has this web page devoted to bus gates and uses the same signs as Cambridge. They also use CCTV signs to warn motorists.

At Camrose Avenue, one might ask why there are not lane makings from the inside kerb to the tip of the hatching in front of the traffic island between the bus-only lane and that through the width restriction. That the section of road which is bus-only is a distinct lane is apparent from the "Give Way" markings at its end.

Harrow rejected the representations. Their response was mainly boilerplate, accompanied by non sequiturs and a failure to engage with the arguments made. Onward to the Adjudicator!

I should welcome comments on the current draft of the appeal. It will be supported by a more detailed exposition of the arguments and citations of the supporting evidence.

-----------------------

I am appealing on the following grounds:

1. No offence was committed because the TMO identifies the bus-only lane as that to the north of the northern traffic island immediately west of the junction with Dale Avenue. The entire westbound traffic island lies to the north of the eastbound traffic island, so I was not in the section of Camrose Avenue to which the TMO applies. Nor was I in the other area which the TMO identifies as bus-only, i.e. that to the south of the southern traffic island.

[Image: Camrose Excerpt of 2016 Bus-priority TMO]

2. I draw attention to the Statutory Guidance on Civil Enforcement issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004. The Introduction states:

<sub>Section 87 of the TMA stipulates that local authorities must have regard to this statutory guidance when developing, implementing and reviewing their bus lane or moving traffic regimes; and in exercising their functions in connection with the associated enforcement activity, local authorities are expected to follow the guidance unless there is a compelling reason for not doing so.

Local authorities will be expected to explain any decision not to implement the terms of the guidance, and adjudicators may consider it to be a procedural impropriety, sufficient to allow an appeal if no sufficient explanation is provided. This guidance should also be read in conjunction with the guidance on certification of approved devices, and the Home Office Surveillance Camera Code of Practice.</sub>

The section on Policy objectives includes this (my italics):

_{Local authorities should aim to increase compliance with bus lane and moving traffic regulations through clear, well designed, legal, and enforced controls including clear traffic signing which can readily be understood from a moving vehicle.}

It was dark when the alleged contravention occurred, so the assessment must be of whether the traffic signing was clear and could readily be understood from a moving vehicle at night.

I consider that Harrow Borough Council has made many mistakes in its layout of the road and its signage. These mean that the signage is not clear and cannot readily be understood from a moving vehicle at night:

a) The scheme dates from 1976 and had the aim of stopping large vehicles from using Camrose Avenue. As buses use the road, it was designed on the model of a toll plaza with two lanes. One, for the buses, had a rising barrier (typically a red-and-white-striped pole) while the other had a width restriction of 6'6". Little in the way of signage was needed as the barrier was readily visible and physically barred the way to large vehicles.

[Image: Google Street View of Itchen Bridge Toll Barrier Eastbound 2024]

London Transport objected to the rising barriers, so the bus lanes were left open. The scheme was ineffective for 30 years. In 2006, in response to complaints from residents and the introduction of civil enforcement, Harrow installed CCTV and changed the signage. The drawings indicate an attempt to guide motorists towards the width-restricted lane by using red surface-dressing accompanied by two deflection arrows. The Traffic Signs Manual uses such deflection arrows only as an adjunct to longitudinal markings such as continuous or dashed white lines; this ensures that the arrows' meaning is not lost at night when red surface dressing does not shine back to motorists' headlights in the way that white lines do.

[Image: Google Street View of Camrose Avenue Eastbound from the service road 2018]

The signage became materially worse in 2021/22 when Harrow resurfaced the road and the second deflection arrow was repainted much closer to the kerb, pointing to the middle of the bus lane.

[Image: Google Street View of Camrose Avenue Eastbound from the service road 2024]

The legal meaning of the deflection arrow (TSRGD 2016 Schedule 11 Part 4 Item 14) is

_{(a) Direction in which vehicular traffic should pass a road marking}

In this case, the road marking is the area of white hatching in front of the eastbound traffic island. So the legal meaning of the second deflection arrow is that traffic should pass the white hatching through the bus lane. Harrow is entrapping motorists by directing them where it can then subject them to PCNs. To issue a PCN is not only a procedural impropriety but, were this a criminal matter, a Class 2 abuse of process.

b) Another feature of the road markings is that between Dale Avenue and Shaldon Road there are long-dashed white lines as separators between the eastbound and westbound lanes. This permits the parking of vehicles at the side of the road westbound (there are double yellow lines eastbound). When I was approaching the "toll plaza", a black car was parked outside 227, Camrose Avenue. An oncoming vehicle emerging from the westbound restriction had to pull out to pass this vehicle. In doing so, it was pointing straight at me as I reached the first deflection arrow.

[Image: Still from CCTV of PCN showing vehicle pulling out to overtake parked car]

My attention was therefore on this vehicle and I did not notice the deflection arrow. That put me in a position on the road where the only deflection arrow which I saw was the one pointing to the centre of the bus lane. I consider Harrow's failure to ensure that motorists are not distracted by vehicles coming straight at them on their side of the road constitutes a procedural impropriety.

c) in its rejection of my representations, Harrow asserts that its CCTV footage, from which the image above is a still, demonstrates that

_{it was not fully dark and all signs were clearly displayed.}

The CCTV footage demonstrates only that modern image sensors work well in low light. The images show only the backs of the signs and nothing about how they appeared to motorists. Here is an image taken on the evening of 9 January 2025 from the other side:

[Night image of Camrose Avenue Eastbound from the service road 2025]

That day had been clear and bright, unlike 17th November, the afternoon of which had been murky. Note how the luminaires above the signs are spilling light towards motorists rather than shining their light only onto the signs, from which the light would be reflected. Instead, the width-restriction signs appear as a bright wash of light. The signs would be much more legible if the  LED street light had been sited where the camera has been for this image rather than where it is sited (on both sides of the road): beyond the road signs, presumably to provide ideal illumination for the CCTV camera.

The Statutory Guidance on Civil Enforcement says that it should be read in conjunction with the Home Office Surveillance Camera Code of Practice. This includes:

_{Guiding Principle 3 – There must be as much transparency in the use of a surveillance camera system as possible, including a published contact point for access to information and complaints}

As part of the 2006 update, Harrow placed a Traffic Enforcement Camera sign just to the east of the railway bridge, about 300m to the west of the restrictions. When I drove along Camrose Avenue, I did not see it. Nor was it visible on walking along Camrose Avenue at night, for the simple reason that it is turned to face the railway (and has been since July 2021, on the evidence of Google Street View).

[Image: Google Street View of Camrose Avenue bridge over railway with sign turned 2024]

Most highway authorities place a Bus Lane Camera sign next to the restriction, both to alert motorists (thereby encouraging compliance) and to ensure that they do not expose their PCNs to appeals on the grounds of failure to comply with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice. Harrow does not even ensure that its sign 300 metres away, can be read by motorists.

In view of these failings to follow the Statutory Guidance, I ask you to allow my appeal. In view of the seriousness of the misplaced deflection arrow, I ask that you draw this matter to the attention of Harrow Borough Council to make redress to eastbound motorists to whom it has issued PCNs since the resurfacing.

I also ask you to allow my appeal because of Harrow's procedural impropriety in disregarding or failing to engage with the substance of my representations.

I am preparing my full evidence submission and am awaiting responses from Harrow Borough Council to Freedom of Information requests. I should be grateful for advice as to how many days before the hearing I should submit my full evidence electronically if I'm still waiting for responses.

@Bustagate  We advise waiting for the council to reveal their hand first. I rely upon my formal representations and will file full submissions upon receipt of the council's evidence pack.

You have done much research but most of your points are irrelevant. As cp8759 says, we need all the details. If you are really prepared to listen to me and trust my experience, I am prepared to represent you. We have 100% success rate in the last year or so with this location. 3 out of 3.

Thanks. I attach
i) representations
ii) Harrow's rejection of them
iii) draft appeal synopsis.

There is a full appeal document which I was planning to hold back until Harrow had submitted their evidence. I see the appeal synopsis as a skeleton argument which puts Harrow on notice as to the points which I am raising. Once they're on notice, they need to provide sufficient explanation for their failures to follow the Statutory Guidance or else the Adjudicator can allow the appeal for a procedural impropriety. Not providing the skeleton argument gives the Adjudicator the opportunity to say that a new argument is being made, to which Harrow has not had an opportunity to respond. I am concerned that the Adjudicator may then supply his own response on Harrow's behalf.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thank you. I see your point but I still wish to observe legal protocol. As the full evidence is based on the points made in the representations, I don't think it's revealing much to set out those points again, but in more precise form, and add the procedural impropriety of Harrow's failure to accept the representations:

I am preparing a full submission for my appeal, which is founded on the representations which I made to Harrow on 4th December 2024. I consider that Harrow failed to engage with the issues which I raised and that its response had the appearance of standard sentences selected from a template. To my existing grounds of appeal:

• the TMO does not identify the lane between the kerb and the eastbound traffic island as being the subject of a bus-only restriction;
• the signage is inadequate and misleading and cannot readily be understood from a moving vehicle at night;
• the positions of the vehicles meant that by the time that I could see the bus-only signage I could not move out safely to avoid the restriction,
  

I therefore add

• procedural impropriety in failing to accept that the grounds raised against the PCN had been established.

I am awaiting responses from Harrow Borough Council to Freedom of Information requests. I should be grateful for advice as to how many days before the hearing I should submit my full evidence electronically if I'm still waiting for responses.