Just received a letter, which is interesting for two reasons. Firstly they have addressed all the points put on this website.
Also, an interesting aside, they seem to have completely confused me with someone else! They talk about a rejection letter I received from them on 4th December but my PCN wasn't even issued until over a week later.
Very baffling - and also why they seem to be staning up for themselves here where everyone else seems to have 'got off' straight away. Has anyone else received a correspondence such as the below?
Anyway - they have made £225k here in 2.5 years!
Our ref: FOI/NM
5 January 2011
Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Transport for London: Penalty Charge Notice XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I am in receipt of your email dated 28 December 2010 regarding Penalty Charge Notice XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. As Customer Correspondence Manager your email was passed to me for response.
Firstly I would highlight that the points raised in your letter regarding the validity of the PCN have been addressed in our Notice of Rejection dated 4 December 2010. This letter clearly outlined the reason why your representation was rejected and also highlighted your right to appeal to an independent adjudicator. As of the date of this letter TFL has not been informed that you have made an appeal and the PCN remains payable at £60. In light of this I will not comment any further on the PCN at this time but endeavour to address your more general enquiries.
For ease of reference I will address your points individually.
1. The start of the bus lane starts with the solid white line (1049) and not the Taper (1010). A vehicle caught within the taper will not be issued a ticket. You are correct in saying that it does not have the correct dimensions, however due to the layout of the area this was the best possible solution as the 1010 cannot be laid across a side road.
2. I’m afraid this marking does appear to be not laid in accordance with the guidance in Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual. This is because site conditions dictated that a 1:10 taper would not fit in this particular case. It should be pointed out that the Traffic Signs Manual has the status of guidance – mandatory requirements are only set out in the TSRGD. In fact, the Traffic Signs Manual explicitly states that “The advice [in the TSM] is given to assist authorities in the discharge of their duties under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 , but it is for traffic authorities to determine what signing they consider necessary to meet those duties.“ I would argue that as Traffic Authority we installed this bus priority measure as a means to meet two of the four explicitly stated duties under section 122. (The two duties are (i) restricting the use of roads by heavy vehicles to preserve the amenity of the area and (ii) facilitating the passage of public service vehicles). In order to meet those duties it was necessary to deviate slightly from the advice in the Traffic Signs Manual (although crucially, not from the mandatory Regulations). As authority we would argue that this deviation from TSM advice does not compromise the safety or meaning of the restriction.
3. To advise the advance signs are referred to in guidance and are not regulatory (the TSRGD outlines what is required and he Traffic Sign Manual is “good practice” guidance).
4. Refer to point 1.
5. Bus Lane contraventions in London are governed by Part II the London Local Authorities Act 1996. Section 4 of the 1996 Act states what information a Penalty Charge Notice must include:
3) A penalty charge notice under this Part of this Act must state—
(a) the grounds on which the council [or, as the case may be, Transport for London] believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
© that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an enforcement notice may be served by the council [or, as the case may be, Transport for London] on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;
(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and
(g) the effect of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act.
(4) In subsection (3)(d) above, “specified proportion” means such proportion, applicable in all cases, as may be determined for the purposes of this section by [the appointing authorities] acting through the Joint Committee.
Your assertion that it is necessary for the enforcement authority to state “which one [bus lane] is involved in the alleged contravention” is incorrect. Notwithstanding this, as you have yourself confirmed, the PCN in question did in fact state the location at which the contravention occurred (Kidbrooke Park Road).
6. As stated previously we are confident that all signage and markings meet the requirement of the Traffic Signs Manual. We continue to check the compliance of this area on a regular basis.
In your representation you also request information via the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Once again I have addressed these points individually:
a) Please refer to the attached file (Traffic Order)
b) The bus lanes were implemented at this location in 2004. I regret that the plans and safety audit are no longer available, and cannot be supplied.
c) I regret that these plans are no longer available, and cannot be supplied.
d) None of the signs relating to the bus lane at the above location deviate from The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD).
e) Please advise the dates of the logs you wish to see, and we shall supply them. Please note that we do not hold any information in this regard relating to any date earlier than April 1 2007.
f) Our CCTV devices used for Traffic enforcement are certified by the Secretary of State at the Department for Transport (DfT).
g) Because our system is digital, there is no longer a logbook. All information is held electronically.
h) Transport for London does not record or retain still images because we have made a digital video recording. The still images are obtained within the Penalty Charge Notice issuing software and then sent out with the Penalty Charge Notice. TfL does not have the technical facility to print out hundreds of still pictures.
i) The number of PCN’s issued by TfL at this location from 9 September 2004 to 31 August 2010 is 5176.
j) The number of PCN’s cancelled by TfL following informal challenges is 12.
k) The number of PCN’s cancelled by TfL following formal challenges is 370.
l) The number of PCN’S cancelled by TfL following appeal to PATAS IS 97.
m) 386 PCN’s issued by TfL in respect of this location and not pursued by TfL for any other reason.
n) £6462.07 is the average monthly amount revenue raised at this location.
o) The total penalty revenue raised at this location since 1 August 2008 to date is £224,945.01
p) The number of complaints received with respect to this location is 1409.
Thank you for writing to TfL.
Yours Sincerely
