Have you looked in TSRGD? Schedule 6 has the kerb blips and refers to the regs and directions.

Loading and unloading are standard exemptions to a waiting restriction. That is why they have to be signed if they are disapplied. The fact that they are standard exemptions and therefore have to be specified in a traffic order is IMHO not much more than a curiosity of structure. Ref Traffic signs manual chapter 3 section 6.3

Quite possibly and for every Lewisham bus lane enforcement notice issued by cctv as it was won on the grounds of defective wording on the enforcement notice.

Lewisham have publicly stated that they will not enforce against bus lane contraventions in these circumstances.

Great result! well done!

If you worry about stuff like illegal v unlawful; offence v contravention and parking charge notice v penalty charge notice, take a look at this judicial review http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/R%20(Makda)%20v%20The%20Parking%20Adjudicator.pdf where the judge refers to what is clearly a "penalty charge notice" as a "parking charge notice". Make of it what you will.

Case won . . . more to follow, I don't have a copy of the decision yet. Expected tonight.

This rather reads like you decided to take a chance.

IIRC the time limit in personal injury cases is three years. But from the time the claimant becomes aware of the injury and that can take time.

I see no evidence that this is a time barred case.

Then you need another reason to appeal.

An Excess Charge Notice is handled under a different legislative regime to PCNs. With a PCN no time is allowed to get change. With an ECN if you still have the P&D ticket you, ultimately, can use it to plead your case at a magistrates' court.

You can ask for any amount you like mate, and the council can negotiate from there or not as they wish. Ultimately you can issue a letter before the action with your claim and issue proceedings in the county court as a chancer. It's entirely your call. As for technical errors in your letter. Yes there are some but it's also fair to say that you have used vernacular common terminology which may make some feel undermines your claim (as it may suggest you do not know the technicalities and therefore are not totally up to speed) but I would argue you appropriately convey the sentiment. Do I think you will get compensation? no. Do I think you have a valid county court claim? no. Do I think you can go through the council's complaints process and then to the LGO for maladministration? Yes and he can award compensation.

Check the traffic order for enforcement times.

Bristolhomer. Delighted to hear it. Well done!

PATAS are hearing an appeal on this bus lane today . . . . more to come.

I would appeal on the grounds that clearly as there was no possibility of this being an old permit being re-used it is a minor slip and de minimis. Thus the contravention did not occur. Take a look at a thread I started recently which refers to a very recent adjudicators decision referring to de minimis.

I think it goes a bit further than that. It's not just about making up signs it's about the need for compliant signs to be present. 'Legal' signs can be non compliant if it can be shown that the error does not fall into the realms of "some minor error in the size or capitalisation of the letters, or the border of the sign, or even of a single misplaced word". Of course, each Adjudicator makes up their own mind in any event.

Green and Mean provided a link to this case in another thread: Suzanne Campbell –v- London Borough of Camden PATAS Case No 2090523567 http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/Campbell%20v%20Camden.doc;%20Suspension%20of%20controls.doc;%20signage.doc;%20requirement%20for%20compliant%20sign.doc On many occasions we see the de minimis rule being applied or anticipated in the case of Council PCNs. This rule has been used for example to say that the absence of a "T-Bar" at the end of a double yellow line is of no consequence. It also appears to be in conflict with a rule established in the old case of Davies v Heatley [1971] RTR 145 in which it was established effectively that: However, as as often been pointed out this is under a different legislative framework and under criminal law so is merely persuasive. But, the Adjudicator's decision in the case cited at the beginning of this post provides us with things we can directly refer to and quote. Key are the following: (TSM = Traffic Signs Manual). and So this gives us a clearer view on when Adjudicators may feel that signage issues are de minimis and when they are inadequate. I hope this is of help to you if you are faced with this issue.

What is interesting (to me) about that case G&M is that the adjudicator has cited Davies v Heatley; He earlier referred to the de minimis principle These two point give us quite a good steer on anticipating de minimis arguments and the likely thinking of Adjudicators.

You can either go back to them and reassert the position or you can wait the NTO. BTW I have re-checked and satisfied that I misled myself earlier (not surprising since the regs are so convoluted) lol.

Personally I would feel inclined to respond to Lambeth and advise them that they haven't adequately addressed the matters raised in your challenge and that in your Appeal to PATAS you will therefore be asking them to treat Lambeth as acting entirely vexatiously.

I'm kinda reading "may be omitted" as suggesting an optional element. OK it doesn't say "Loading Only" may be omitted but as I read it it could swing either way. G&M, clearly I'm looking in the wrong place as I cannot see the specific compulsion you refer to, can you copy and paste them for me please?

Omitting the words on the road is a permitted variant.

28 days unless the data held by DVLA was out of date (eg because your recently bought it an RK details had not been updated. The relevant regs from The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 are: