Bus Lane PCN London Rd Metron

[HYMN AND MI]

From their website: in bold is a most damning statement........

 

Enforcement Notice (EN)

 

If you do not wish to pay and still wish to contest the issue of the 34J PCN then you must await the issue of the Enforcement Notice (EN). This will allow you another opportunity to make representation against the issuing of the 34J PCN. The discounted rate of payment does not apply at this stage, and should you decide to pay the 34J PCN, this will be at the higher rate.

All representations at the Enforcement Notice stage must be received in writing in one of the following ways:

 

• by completion of the Enforcement Notice documents
  
• by sending a letter which is signed and dated and clearly states that it is a representation at the Enforcement Notice stage to Merton Parking Services at the Civic Centre address below
  
• by e-mailing parking@merton.gov.uk
  
• by using the online application form - Penalty Charge Notice Appeal..
  

Any representations made at this stage are considered a legal declaration and more weight will be given to any statement made.

[Dangerdoc]

Any person has the right to lodge a defence against an accusation. All the notification represents is exactly that. It is not a conviction,, merely an accusation of an alleged offence. As such, one would assume that to impose a restriction on representation against an allegation that may result in a higher penalty is malicious and contrary to fair and reasonable legal practice. It might even be a Human Rights issue !

 

Doc

[HYMN AND MI]

What they mean is that the legislation does not afford the right to make representations before the EN is issued, which is correct; however, they state that they only give more weight to reps against EN so, therefore, they are practically making a statement which amounts to fettering of their responsibilities to consider. As you are in a certain profession, why not attach some paracetamol with yours they are sure as hell going to need some! I would e-mail it.

[Dangerdoc]

Lol, I am quite happy for them to have a thumping headache. If they had the correct road markings and signage and decided against an unwell passenger I would still contest it on the grounds of Road Safety as there was a risk of the vehicle operation being compromised.

 

The bigger the headache the better for them.

 

I will email it in any case.

 

Doc

[HYMN AND MI]

Too bad you didn't have a "heavily pregnant" passenger or, according to this case, were not so yourself: http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/StatReg/case.aspx?caseref=211069220A

[Dangerdoc]

Well it has been sent to the "parking@merton.gov.uk" address - without the Paracetamol.

 

So lets see their response. I hope it is something like this :

 

Doc

[green_and_mean]

Well it has been sent to the "parking@merton.gov.uk" address - without the Paracetamol.

 

So lets see their response. I hope it is something like this :

 

Doc

 

Response will probably be along the lines of 'Traffic signs manual is guidance, we believe the signs comply with the TSRGD your FOI request has been passed to the relevant department'.

[HYMN AND MI]

All the more reason for claiming costs at PATAS in that case. Oops, I just used "case" - not an inteional pun!

[green_and_mean]

All the more reason for claiming costs at PATAS in that case. Oops, I just used "case" - not an inteional pun!

 

On what grounds? There is no law that states the signs must face the traffic, the OP thinks the signs were not clear the Council may think they are thats hardly vexatious? Quoting pages of mostly pointless stuff off the internet is not grounds in itself for cancelling the PCN and is never well received at PATAS.

[HYMN AND MI]

Apologies re "intentional" spelling. Actually, I have quoted nothing from the internet but do forget that some people think they are omniscient. If you cae to study the case supplied and the legislation supplied - got from the internet.

[green_and_mean]

Apologies re "intentional" spelling. Actually, I have quoted nothing from the internet but do forget that some people think they are omniscient. If you cae to study the case supplied and the legislation supplied - got from the internet.

 

I didn't realise you were the OP? My point is the adjudicator would look far more favourably on a simple statement that the signs were missed as they were at a strange angle rather than pointless drivel extracted from various sources that is not relevant and frivolous FOI requests.

[HYMN AND MI]

I am not the OP. You know my style by now.

[Dangerdoc]

Response will probably be along the lines of 'Traffic signs manual is guidance, we believe the signs comply with the TSRGD your FOI request has been passed to the relevant department'.

 

It is academic. The PATAS take note of the guidance, it is supported by the Secretary of State, have you reviewed the entire submission and images and all the quoted regulations including the permitted variants on signage for percentages allowed. If guidance note are to be ignored then even more weight to incorrect markings.

 

They cannot just pick the bits they want to apply. Either they apply the law or not.

 

Doc

[HYMN AND MI]

Correct re PATAS but the Stautory Guidance refers to Traffic Management Act.

[green_and_mean]

Correct re PATAS but the Stautory Guidance refers to Traffic Management Act.

 

Indeed it does and the traffic signs manuals have only been issued in the last few years whilst the bus lane in question has been there about 10 years if my memory serves me right, guidance cannot be given retrospectivly.

[HYMN AND MI]

I would go with TSRGD 2002 and Bus Priority: the way ahead. And the decisions, of course. Though TSMs do have introductory clauses re councils better have good reasons as to why they do not follow guidelines contained therein.

[Dangerdoc]

I would go with TSRGD 2002 and Bus Priority: the way ahead. And the decisions, of course. Though TSMs do have introductory clauses re councils better have good reasons as to why they do not follow guidelines contained therein.

 

Its all variable to some degree. That said they have no grounds for the state of the signage on the Roadside. Drivers must be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comply. The bus lane post mounted signs are miles out.

 

We will see how it goes but PATAS, if required, will be requested to review.

 

Thanks all.

 

I will keep you up to date.

 

Doc

[HYMN AND MI]

I saw a decision yesterday where a PATAS adjudicator direcrlty quoted a TSM in response to the council'c usual argument that it is merely guidance! the appeal was allowed. Will dig it out later.

[Dangerdoc]

Yes that would indeed be helpful. I am sure if we told Councils that paying Council Tax or something like complying with building regs was more guidance they would have a different view lol.

 

Cheers H

 

Doc

[green_and_mean]

Yes that would indeed be helpful. I am sure if we told Councils that paying Council Tax or something like complying with building regs was more guidance they would have a different view lol.

 

Cheers H

 

Doc

 

I think you will find the government does publish guidance on the building regulations, you seem to fail to have grasped that the LAW is set down in the TSRGD the manuals give guidance on how best to use the signage and advice on road layouts, the manuals were also published after the bus lane in question was installed so the Council cannot be expected to have followed guidance that didn't even exist.

[Dangerdoc]

Hi Green_and_mean,

 

I often wonder on these forums if some are just out for some kind of fight or are truly trying to be helpful. In terms of your post on the longevity of the bus lane in question, it has been re-painted several times. There is a duty of care that exists that when undertaking such new signage / road markings the new setting out of the markings should comply with the required legislation. It is not correct to assume that just because a bus lane has been there for some time that it is acceptable to simply over-paint the now non-conforming markings as this makes a mockery of the updated legislation. This follows in all aspects in relation to legacy markings and that they are acceptable until they are re-worked and as such they must comply.

 

In terms of your post about me failing to grasp the concepts I can assure you that I am very capable of grasping concepts such as this as I studied law at night school in order to be suitable equipped for medico-legal proceedings and statutory interpretation for duty of care etc... Please don't try and get personal, lets just work together and assist each other. Personal attacks are unnecessary. In terms of the building regulations I used this clearly as a perfect example is the Part P rules in that what was once a competent person who could do lots of works on electrics can no longer do such unless building control is indeed informed in advance or is now certified as a competent person etc... a good example of the new regulations being put to use. We cannot just simply ignore them or we can but are liable to substantial fines is we do (hmmm there goes my new garden lighting then). The other similarity is the Electricity at Work Regulations which are statutory and the latest 17th edition wiring regs, they are not actually statutory but are guidance and best practice as approved. They can, however, be used in a court to demonstrate compliance failures of poor / unsafe practices. That is why I said what I said. I did not think it would be attacked or berated but supported in the context it was posted.

 

So please, lets just work together and share useful information for the benefit of all and not get personal.

 

I have not heard from them yet, but I am given to believe they really do move at a glacial pace.

[HYMN AND MI]

Deuce.

[Dangerdoc]

Sorry All, been away on a long job and was out of the country working with a CP group.

 

Anyway, Mitcham muppets have come back to me with the expected nonsense stating the regs are "guidance" etc and that I now need to wait for them to send me the next level of nonsense.

 

In summary the alleged contravention took place on 18 Feb 2012. Their reply to my informal request for cancellation was received on 19 April 2012 and was from a faceless person hiding behind a generic parking at merton dot gov dot uk address.

 

It does start "I refer to your correspondence concerning the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and apologise for the delay in replying" meaning they are either under staffed or generally poor at responses. I assume the latter based on previous comments on this forum.

 

Now the question I have is as the alleged contravention was the 18 Feb 2012 what are the time scales in serving the Enforcement Notice as, at this time of writing, nothing has been received. The PCN was issued on the 07th March 2012.

 

So where are things? Have they missed the boat for serving an Enforcement Notice of do they have as long as they want to serve the EN?

 

Over to the Wizards as ever.

 

Cheeries to you all.

 

Doc

[Dangerdoc]

Ok Guys and Girls,

 

Originally posted this in the wrong thread. I must have been tired after my trip with the team.

 

Anyway, here is the update:

 

Just got the NTO. Ok so, I have been past the bus lane the other day and noticed that the signage is still not at the correct angle towards the carriageway, as previously posted. I believe this further demonstrates the Merton Council attitude to failure to provide correct signage and as they were previously notified of such (and we are not talking a couple of degrees here) then they are acting with malice aforethought in trapping motorists unfairly etc..

 

What is the best way to proceed. Remember the circumstances, Signage poor, road dimensions very incorrect, taper wrong, arrows wrong, also passenger took unwell and was about to throw up. I felt it was safest to be near the carriageway edge to be able to stop and not provide a traffic obstruction. He is a trainee Paramedic. He is also prepared to attest a letter to that effect.

 

So I believe no offence was committed and that there were also significant mitigating circumstances for being in an active bus lane, even though I was not clear on the hours of operation.

 

Any cases I can cite??

 

I now have a formal letter of attestation from the passenger who is also medically qualified. The thing that gripes me the most is the total lack of consideration in relation to the signage points raised and the fact that the alleged offence was as a direct result of taking the correct ation in the interests of road safety and being in a suitable position to take required action if my passenger became more unwell. Thankfully he did not actually proceed to vomit all over the dash !

 

So I now know the NTO has 6 months in which to be issued. I am preparing a response and would be most grateful for guidance in this frustration matter.

 

My appreciation is very much towards all you knowledgeable and helpful posters who really do contribute so much. It is fantastic.

 

I await your thoughts and if any cases similar on PATAS spring to mind that would be brilliant.

 

Many thanks again.

 

Doc

[hodcarrier]

Dear Doc, I have two days to pay having had my initial appeal turned down as yours was for not seeing the same sign. My fault of course as I should have been paying attention (in the dark when it was raining). How did it turn out for you? Should I fight as well and not pay now and risk another 65-00?