Bus Lane PCN

[bmu]

pcn0001.pdf

 

If it hasn't worked this time, I give up. I uploaded (to UpYours), did URL link (not first time) and believe I have now inserted the link. If not, please advise what I am doing wrong....

[HYMN AND MI]

OK, got that PCN. Will check in detail the wording with the Act(s) as amended but seems ok at present. You genuinely cannot remember which Broad Lane. I have only Googled one - the A10/503.

 

Right, this is my advice: standard operational procedure...............well not quite! E-mail them this, and a copy to a friend as proof:

 

Dear Sirs

 

Please send me a copy of your Traffic Management Order for Broad Lane by pdf as soon as possible.

 

Many thanks

 

Yours faithfully

 

Do not mention the PCN or any other details. Basically, we want them to reply back saying "which one, sir?" Then this will support/reinforce the case arguments I have given.

 

Under normal circumstances, I would ask for all photo evidence, the TMO and book an appointment to view/obtain a copy of the alleged contravention on video. But not in this case. I would send them the suggested e-mail now so they have to deal with it on Monday. If they reply saying this is a Freedom of Information matter, you write back and say no it isn't as they are required by law to make this available. In any event, post up their response for further advice.

 

You must have a copy of the TMO as this is one of the grounds upon which you may rely. The beauty of this request at this stage is, if they don't know which Broad Lane you are on about, how the hell are you supposed to know from that PCN? Or even try to remember the exact events etc!

 

OK? Understand all that? I am hopeful you will get off this on the inexact locus. But I will try to find some other issues with the PCN. I would certainly fight it - and I haven't lost one yet - bus lane, loading bay, disabled bay or whatever. When they reply re the TMO request, then we hit them with a proper representation even before they issue an Enforcement Notice.

Edited February 25, 2012 by HYMN AND MI

[bmu]

Many thanks. Who should I email? The address for emailed representations? Presumably that will alert them to the fact that this is about a PCN, but perhaps it doesn't matter if it does. They still need to reply.

 

Checked with my passenger re when/whether we might have been in which Broad Lane, and neither seemed quite right for the times we thought we left north London and arrived in south London. And in fact, with the one you have googled, there are now three possibles! Neither I nor my passenger is at all familiar with the journey (though we will be repeating it tomorrow [make that today!], last Sunday being a practice round for a more distant than normal golf match being played this Sunday), so wouldn't know either of the possible Broad Lanes by sight. Oddly we had had a discussion on outward trip re bus lanes and the need to be vigilant, and we both thought we had been! I had even said if in doubt I assumed any bus lane was 24/7. We will have to be ultra-careful on journey home tomorrow, may even try to take a different route, to avoid being caught again.

Once again, many thanks for advice, I'll send email tomorrow, subject to advice re who to, and keep you posted re what I get back.

[HYMN AND MI]

Have a look at their website to see if they have a traffic department or ring them for that division. However, I would just use the one on the PCN. Have checked their site. This seems the only contact: enquiries@tflcroydon.co.uk

 

and this link: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/redroutes/963.aspx

 

then: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/helpandcontact

Edited February 26, 2012 by HYMN AND MI

[HYMN AND MI]

OK, bmu. Can you please gives us the exact locations/names of areas of the other Broad Lanes. Have managed to find a tel. number for Traffic Orders. Apparently, if one writes an e-mail, they aim to respond within 15 days. Of course, if they do so after 15 days, that would be daft since they would be going over the 14 day discount period. Am thinking about what to do today and am leaning towards a fully-blown representation fairly soon, actually, notwithstanding the traffic order issue. Unless another expert can correct me, I am fairly sure your case is strong enough re the inexact locus. Give it a few days!

 

Regards, Hymn and Mi.

[green_and_mean]

Isn't/wasn't this thread mean't to be for the Kidbrook bus lane? Its very confusing 4 years later to keep tagging on new PCNs for different locations.

[HYMN AND MI]

Isn't/wasn't this thread mean't to be for the Kidbrook bus lane? Its very confusing 4 years later to keep tagging on new PCNs for different locations.

 

Search me, I am not a moderator. Notwithstanding this fair point, have you with your considerable knowledge and expertise, g and m, any details of cases to support the inexact locus, please?

[green_and_mean]

Search me, I am not a moderator. Notwithstanding this fair point, have you with your considerable knowledge and expertise, g and m, any details of cases to support the inexact locus, please?

 

Bus lanes cannot be that exact since you could drive two miles along a bus lane and be in contravention the entire time, it would only really matter if the location had several bus lanes with different restrictions then it would have to be more accurate eg High Street (north bound).

[bmu]

Sorry, my fault, can see it's sort of hijacking the KPR thread, should have started a new one, but just wanted to access help quick. Don't know now how to get it moved elsewhere.

[HYMN AND MI]

Yes. Thanks, but what is your view re the decisions? Apparently, it is cut and dried what is contained therein. Also, apparently there are possibly 3 Broad Lanes covered by TFL?

[HYMN AND MI]

Sorry, my fault, can see it's sort of hijacking the KPR thread, should have started a new one, but just wanted to access help quick. Don't know now how to get it moved elsewhere.

 

No worries. This is where we are now!

 

You absolutely positive the other locations of said name would be/are covered by TfL? If so, letter to be prepared later this evening!

Edited February 27, 2012 by HYMN AND MI

[bmu]

As positive as I can be.

[Tony P]

apparently there are possibly 3 Broad Lanes covered by TFL?

 

I doubt it.

 

Looking at Streetmap.co.uk -

- Broad Lane EC2 is a very short linking between minor roads by Liverpool St Station.

- Broad Lane N8 (described as 'off Tottenham Lane') looks like a no through access to a school or sports facility

- Broad Lane N15 is a part of the designated A10, and part of the Tottenham/ Tottenham Hale one way system.

 

My guess is only N15 is under the control of TFL. Does that then sufficiently identify the Broad Lane for the present purposes?

 

Being only a kilometer in length (about half a mile) of one way traffic, would there be multiple bus lanes along it?

 

Can someone look on Google Streetview (beyond my capability!)

[HYMN AND MI]

I did look last night. Trouble is, google links are out of date in any case. I will look again but I feel the PCN is still null and void.

 

Also, re the PCN and their site, the latter does not mention the 4th ground that Police are taking action.

[bmu]

Ah, so TfL only responsible for major routes, is that right? So I'm sorry, Hymn & Mi if I misled you, I just assumed it was geographically determined. But still, how is a motorist meant to know what TfL mean just by 'Broad Lane' when there are so many?

I'll try to have a look at Google streetview later.

[Tony P]

Ah, so TfL only responsible for major routes, is that right?

Apart from the blanket zone for Congestion Charge purposes, I am sure that is right.

 

A regular confusion/trap to motorcyclists who can use TFL bus lanes but not the Local Borough run ones on adjoining roads.

 

What I don't know is, if just saying Broad Lane, as there is only one under their control, is sufficient to identify it.

H&M and/or others will sort it out, I am sure.

[HYMN AND MI]

According to Google there are two lanes. Coming down from the very top, there is a very long bus lane, but times and permitted vehicles change on the way (!), it stops at junction with Stamford Road and there is another separate lane just before Seven Sisters. Relevant junctions are with Anthill Road (B and Q), Bramble Close and Markfield Road.

 

Should the situation be the same today, there have to be at least two Orders! Or, if I am wrong, but put another way, there are two bus lanes. I am referring to the N15 location.

 

Edited: second lane starts after Broad Lane ends/turns into Seven Sisters.

Edited February 27, 2012 by HYMN AND MI

[Tony P]

That then to my mind, if still current, means the PCN is imprecise as to location of the alleged offence and should fail.

The OP (interim!) could have been allegedly in either one of two quite separate Bus Lanes.

 

 

Is there a sign declaring the end of the first? (Although knowing the road, it's a bit far for me to nip out and take a look!) And should there be a sign at the end when times/days change?

 

But I must profess no certain knowledge on such matters. Just thoughts.

[HYMN AND MI]

Yes there is a sign stating the end of the first bus lane. It is on the same pole as 3 or 4 others just before the Stamford Road junction. Just afterwards there is a yellow Speed Camera. There should be repeater signs depending on the length of the lane. If it is the same lane, the restrictions cannot be suddenly changed or, indeed, arbitrarily: all these should be clearly stated in the Traffic Order and the signs must reflect these. For example, if a lane continues after a junction/crossroads, and the restrictions change, it is by definition a new lane! I totally agree with you.

 

Order has been ordered (!) and I await with fascination. Will still be researching more cases with similarly-worded PCN's.

Edited February 27, 2012 by HYMN AND MI

[HYMN AND MI]

OK, quick synopsis of signs as per Googleview.

 

1. By Carphone Warehouse: non-compliant because has taxi and cycle wrong way round and states "Any day" - not a permitted variant.

 

2. By Bramble Close: ditto.

 

3. By Markfield Road: cycle and taxi correct way round but now states "Mon - Sun". Not consistent.

 

4. Stamford Road junction: 4 signs on one pole, from top to bottom - speed camera warning, speed limit, end of bus lane and red route. Quite a lot to take in.

 

Apologies, have edited post re number of lanes as the other one actually starts at Seven Sisters. Not to worry. I am beginning to formulate as to how to play this........................

 

Let's hope this is the lane and the signs are still the same. Is this covered by congestion charge as I wouldn't mind taking some pics?

Edited February 27, 2012 by HYMN AND MI

[Tony P]

Is this covered by congestion charge as I wouldn't mind taking some pics?

 

No

[HYMN AND MI]

Try this by e-mail. (Thanks, Tony P):

 

Dear Sirs

 

Ref: PCN No..............................................

 

I acknowledge receipt of the said PCN and do challenge it on the basis that it does not comply with Section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 and/or Part II 4(3)(a) of the London Local Authorities Act 1996 in that it does not establish the grounds of the alleged contravention as the location as given i.e. Broad Lane is wholly unhelpful to me and, therefore, non-compliant with the law. This is too inexact to establish the alleged contravention and I rely upon several cases heard at PATAS including that of Adamou v Haringey, Case No. 2060381000 and Reeve v Haringey, Case No. 2060376463. I further note that your website does not cite all the four grounds on which to appeal this contravention thereby constituting a procedural impropriety which, although not one of the grounds of appeal, is nevertheless of sufficient importance as to cause me prejudice by not representing fully my legal rights to challenge the PCN.

 

Therefore, I require you to cancel the PCN forthwith and with immediate effect. Should this not be possible, I require all photographic evidence, video evidence and a complete copy of the relevant Traffic Regulation Order by pdf at the earliest opportunity.

 

Thank you.

 

Yours faithfully

Edited February 28, 2012 by HYMN AND MI

[HYMN AND MI]

Found another case to include in the e-mail:

 

Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable

 

 

 

Case Reference:2060376463 Appellant:Ms Jean Reeve Authority:Haringey VRM:MJ52WOA PCN:HY72179680 Contravention Date:30 Jun 2006 Contravention Time:17:56 Contravention Location:Green Lanes Penalty Amount:£100.00 Contravention:Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited Decision Date:18 Nov 2006 Adjudicator:Michael Burke Appeal Decision:Allowed Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. Reasons:The allegation in this case is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. Ms Reeve argues firstly that the 2 still images provided by the Local Authority do not establish that the vehicle stopped. She argues that the fact that the brake lights were not on 'would indicate that the vehicle was moving'. It would not. It would indicate that the driver was not applying pressure to the brake pedal (or that there was a fault with the brake lights).

Ms Reeve states that there are no 'vertical signs to indicate that cameras are monitoring the junction'. She does not put forward any authority for the proposition that such signs are necessary.

Ms Reeve argues that the Local Authority do not on the PCN state the precise junction for the alleged contravention, the location being described as 'Green Lanes N4'. There are a number of junctions on Green Lanes within N4. There is nothing that I am aware of to prevent the Local Authority giving the precise junction. I am not satisfied that the PCN in this case is sufficiently particular and accordingly I allow the appeal.

 

****************************************

 

I have edited my draft accordingly.

[HYMN AND MI]

Here is another:

 

Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable

 

 

 

Case Reference:210056419A Appellant:Belquis Oomerjee Authority:Newham VRM:T510XEV PCN:PN02040718 Contravention Date:11 Jun 2010 Contravention Time:20:23 Contravention Location:Barking Road Penalty Amount:£120.00 Contravention:Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited Decision Date:05 Feb 2011 Adjudicator:John Lane Appeal Decision:Allowed Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. Reasons:A Box Junction is defined in paragraph 6 of Schedule 19 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD). It means the area of carriageway marked with yellow cross-hatching at a junction between two or more roads on which there has been placed the road marking shown in diagram 1043 or 1044 of the TSRGD.

The penalty notice in this case only describes the location of the alleged contravention as Barking Road. No junction is mentioned.

I expect Barking Road is a long road.

The penalty notice in this case was issued under Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

Section 4(8) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London act 2003 says that the penalty notice must state:

1 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.

I take this to include an accurate description of the location.

I find that the penalty notice in this case did not accurately reflect the true location. I will therefore allow the appeal.

 

*******************************************************************

 

And another:

 

Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable

 

 

 

This decision was corrected by the Proper Officer on the direction of the Adjudicator as per Regulation 15 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993

 

 

 

Case Reference:2070018834 Appellant:Mr T A Stewart Authority:Islington VRM:R818YLE PCN:IS0949620A Contravention Date:01 Nov 2006 Contravention Time:13:28 Contravention Location:Liverpool Road N1 Penalty Amount:£100.00 Contravention:Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited Decision Date:05 Mar 2007 Adjudicator:Carl Teper Appeal Decision:Allowed Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. Reasons:The Appellant appeared in person and was ably assisted by a Mr J Douglas.

 

The Appellant's principal argument is that the Penalty Charge Notice is not compliant with section 4(5)(b) of the London Local Authorities Act 2003 in that it does not specify where in Liverpool Road the contravention occurred.

 

I have looked at the Penalty Charge Notice and it does not indicate at which junction in the entirety of Liverpool Road this contravention occurred. In such circumstances the point is well made and the Penalty Charge Notice is, in my judgement, invalid.

 

In these circumstances the appeal is allowed without the requirement to consider and adjudicate on the other grounds raised in the Notice of Appeal.

[HYMN AND MI]

Re: "TFL may disregard representations received 28 days after the Enforcement Notice has been served."

 

LLA Act 1996 @ Schedule 1. 2(3) states otherwise:

(3)The council may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice or enforcement notice in question was served.

 

I believe this mis-statement of the time period in which to make reps against an EN makes it further null and void. See Melnikova v Enfield Case No: 2100433329:

 

Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable

 

 

 

Case Reference:2100433329 Appellant:Mrs Oksana Melnikova Authority:Enfield VRM:LM05KHR PCN:EF22490495 Contravention Date:21 Jun 2010 Contravention Time:11:02 Contravention Location:Riversfield Road EN1 Penalty Amount:£100.00 Contravention:Parked adjacent to a dropped footway Decision Date:27 Oct 2010 Adjudicator:Carl Teper Appeal Decision:Allowed Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund the penalty charge and the release charges paid. Reasons:The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked adjacent to a dropped footway when in Riversdale Road on 21 June 2010 at 11.02.

 

The Appellant's case is that there has been a procedural impropriety in relation to the period of time expressed by the authority in relation to the consideration of representations following the removal of a vehicle. The Appellant argues the authority mis-states the Appellant's true legal position because it adds a day to the time prescribed in law for the authority to respond to the representations.

 

The removal representation form issued by the authority reads as follows:

 

'Upon receipt The London Borough of Enfield will investigate your representations and inform you whether they have been accepted or rejected within 56 days of the service of representations.'

 

Regulations 12(2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contravention (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 reads in relation to vehicles that have been removed as follows:

 

(2) Subject to paragraph (1), if representations are made in accordance with regulation 11(4), it shall be the duty of the enforcement authority, before the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the date on which it receives the representations -

 

I find that the period of time as expressed by the authority in its removal representation form mis-states the time for consideration of the representations by adding one day, which is not permitted by the regulations.

 

The fact that this Appellant may or may not have been prejudiced by this is not a 'cure' to the substantive defect. The defect renders the penalty unenforceable. In the well-known decision of R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator (2006) EWHC 2357 (Admin), relating to a Penalty Charge Notice issued under the Road Traffic Act 1991, the importance of complying with the requirements of the legislation was emphasised. Mr. Justice Jackson said in that case:

 

"Prejudice is irrelevant and does not have to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists become liable to pay financial penalties if certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met then the financial liability does not arise."

 

I am satisfied that the judgment in the Barnet case is applicable to the Road Traffic Management Act 2004 as it was to the Road Traffic Act 1991.

 

All the legislation pertaining to decriminalised traffic enforcement is based around a sequence of actions. Each action must be completed within a specified time limit otherwise there are consequences. Any variation to one of these time limits has a knock-on effect on the subsequent actions and it effectively destroys the overall framework of the legislation. For reasons of coherence and consistency individual local authorities cannot be permitted to vary time limits

I find the Penalty Charge Notice to be defective and unenforceable.

 

In relation to other matters relied on by the Appellant I have decided that in light of my ruling on the first issue raised I am not required to resolve any other issues.

 

The appeal is allowed.

**************************************************

 

I reckon this has been cracked! Add this argument, too! i.e. just copy and paste first 3 paras as far as colon, changing colon into a full stop, into a second para in original rep above and just sit back, wait and enjoy their response.

 

Edited February 29, 2012 by HYMN AND MI