DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 118706--------------------------------------------------
London Borough of Royal Greenwich, 47J - Stopped on a restricted
bus stop or stand (camera enforcement)
DIR By: Vince138
Date: May 14, 2026, 2:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
can anyone kindly advise on a PCN (PCN no: GR25007162, code 47J)
i received from the Royal Greenwich council due to parking at a
restricted bus stop for 10 seconds (literally) while dropping
off a person.
Reasons why i want to appeal are:
1. there is no advanced warning (e.g. a clear sign facing the
direction of travel) for this bus stop, and given not all bus
stops in London has this kind of restrictions, therefore it is
very easy for an average driver to miss this restrictions
2. around 200 meters before the bus stop area, it actually has a
yellow sign that says 'Drop off point' with an arrow pointing to
the bus stop direction, this again is confusing to an average
driver who might think it means you can drop off at the bus
stop?
3. there should be a differentiation between parking and
dropping off, i would have thought the restriction should apply
to someone who actually park at the bus stop, rather than
dropping off someone within 10 seconds? as the two are very
different in nature.
of course i could be wrong on all of above but please kindly
advise if any chance of me appealing and if yes, what would be
the most valid grounds and wording?
Please see attached for the photo evidences and your kind advice
is greatly appreciated!
google street view here:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/fcS8mkxLKCj8UBVf7
photos (including PCN GR25007162):
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/mUaG5kU
#Post#: 118726--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Royal Greenwich, 47J - Stopped on a
restricted bus stop or stand (camera enforcement)
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 14, 2026, 7:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I must say, I am very surprised that somebody who I assume lives
and drives in and around London, does not know about restricted
bus stops, which are all over London, and have been for many
years. The contravention is one of stopping, as per your PCN,
and this bus stop, unlike others which we have successfully
achieved PCN wins at London Tribunals for, seems very well
signed indeed, with the broad yellow line, and a total of three
signs advising of the restriction, here is the first one at the
start of the bus stop: -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/gM4dWqiexJHWpgPv8
If you look on your GSV link you will see them. At 10 seconds,
the time could be considered de minimis, but all London councils
are very greedy for money, so will inevitable refuse any
representations you submit. You do have the absolute right in
law to test the matter at London Tribunals, if the council
reject any representations you submit, but it would be with the
full PCN penalty in play.
#Post#: 118731--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Royal Greenwich, 47J - Stopped on a
restricted bus stop or stand (camera enforcement)
DIR By: Vince138
Date: May 15, 2026, 1:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, maybe a stupid question but should there be another sign
facing the traffic direction to give more advanced warning? The
sign on the map is quite small & if driver missed that before
dropping off someone then it will be too late anyway?
Also can the 10 seconds minimus be considered as a grace period?
#Post#: 118747--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Royal Greenwich, 47J - Stopped on a
restricted bus stop or stand (camera enforcement)
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 15, 2026, 5:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Vince138 link ---
>
> Thanks, maybe a stupid question but should there be another
sign facing the traffic direction to give more advanced warning?
The sign on the map is quite small & if driver missed that
before dropping off someone then it will be too late anyway?
>
> Also can the 10 seconds minimus be considered as a grace
period?
>
--- End Quote ---
There is no requirement for a sign facing the traffic direction,
because the broad yellow line gives that warning.
There is no grace period; a stop of 1 second is a contravention,
but there is the de minimis point that is valid in law, but is
subjective; your de minimis, is the council's maximus, so you
have to convince an adjudicator.
#Post#: 118751--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Royal Greenwich, 47J - Stopped on a
restricted bus stop or stand (camera enforcement)
DIR By: Vince138
Date: May 15, 2026, 6:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, but is there any grounds at all for me to appeal here
please 🙏?
How about that yellow sign which mentioned drop off point with
an arrow pointing towards the direction of the bus stop? That
can be confusing, no?
If yes, then can someone please kindly share the best approach &
wording?
#Post#: 118761--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Royal Greenwich, 47J - Stopped on a
restricted bus stop or stand (camera enforcement)
DIR By: catnip
Date: May 15, 2026, 9:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Vince138 link ---
>
> Thanks, but is there any grounds at all for me to appeal here
please 🙏?
>
> How about that yellow sign which mentioned drop off point with
an arrow pointing towards the direction of the bus stop? That
can be confusing, no?
>
--- End Quote ---
The Drop-Off signage continues beyond the bus stop and takes you
further down the road and left at the roundabout, eventually
leading into a buses only area, so not sure how that would
work.....
#Post#: 118767--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Royal Greenwich, 47J - Stopped on a
restricted bus stop or stand (camera enforcement)
DIR By: Vince138
Date: May 15, 2026, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, can anyone else opine on that yellow drop off point
signage please? Can that be a potential appeal ground at all?
#Post#: 118775--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Royal Greenwich, 47J - Stopped on a
restricted bus stop or stand (camera enforcement)
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 15, 2026, 11:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We saw a lot of cases here when Greenwich first built/monitored
this stop.
I think some cases were won on lack of camera authorisation but
that ship has probably sailed.
The most reason tribunal case was won but note is was from last
August.
Greenwich has a recent record of not bothering to contest cases
but that may have changed.
--------------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Reasons
Council on 18 August 2025. The alleged contravention, said to
have occurred at 15:20 on 9 August 2025, was that the
appellant’s vehicle stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand.
The location was the Millennium Way bus stop.
2. The matter was listed for a virtual hearing on 14 March 2026.
There was no appearance on the part of the enforcement authority
but the appellant attended and set out her case. I reserved my
decision.
3. The video evidence shows the appellant’s vehicle stopping.
The area has markings stating that it is a “bus stop.” The only
signage visible in the video footage is unrelated signage
pertaining to use of the pavement. I have had regard to the
photographs produced by the enforcement authority relating to
signage said to be at the location concerned. I can see from
those that the bus shelter and signage would be further up the
bus stop from where the vehicle is seen stopping, and therefore
just out of range of the video evidence.
4. The appellant’s position is that, at the time she stopped,
she did not think that the bus stop was in use because there was
no one standing by it and also no signage relating to it. The
appellant subsequently, and after receiving the PCN, checked the
position using Google Maps and that website indicated that
“North Greenwich – Millenium [sic] Way Stop F” was “permanently
closed.” The appellant has produced a screenshot of the website
dated 3 September 2025 which I note is reasonably
contemporaneous to the claimed contravention. I do not attach
any weight to the spelling error as it is a not uncommon one.
5. The case summary from Greenwich states that: “Google Maps
does not confirm if a bus stop is open or closed to buses, the
signs indicated at this location state 'No Stopping at any time
except buses'. This does state buses can stop at this location
and the road markings of 'BUS STOP' clearly states to a driver
of a vehicle that is not a bus, that they DO NOT stop or park at
or near a bus stop marked on the carriageway or bus stop lay-bys
unless otherwise indicated by signs.” The notice of rejection
stated that: “This bus stop is operational 24 hours a day seven
days a week.” It also stated that: “The Highway Code tells
drivers: "You MUST NOT stop or park on a bus stop marked on the
carriageway or bus stop lay-bys unless otherwise indicated by
signs". There are no signs displayed at this bus stop, which
means it is enforced all the time.” Unlike the notice of
rejection, the more recent case summary does not spell out
whether the bus stop is actually in use or not.
6. Whilst I take the point about Google Maps not being at all
determinative, it is the only evidence I have as to the status
to the bus stop and the enforcement authority has not suggested
that it is wrong, relying instead on the points about road
markings and signage. Whether the stop is in use or not would be
a matter of record that the enforcement authority would know.
Further, the case summary does not suggest that the appellant’s
position is wrong as such. I therefore find, on the available
evidence, that the bus stop was at the time of the contravention
a bus stop that was not in use. The enforcement authority could
have provided evidence that it was in-use but has not.
7. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether signage
was in place as at the date of contravention or not. The
appellant says that there was none and the enforcement authority
says that there was, relying on undated photographs.
8. I find that, whilst there was signage at the bus stop at some
point, there was not as at the date of contravention. The
appellant’s position on signage has not changed; she stated in
her representations dated 3 September 2025 that: “…there was
also no visible sign plate at the location of the alleged
contravention.” This is also important because the enforcement
authority was on notice about the point and yet still failed to
produce dated or otherwise more reliable photographic evidence
relating to the signage. My finding that there was no signage at
the bus stop is supported by my finding that the bus stop was
not in use. A bus stop that is not in use would not require
signage.
9. I acknowledge that rule 243 of the Highway Code states: “DO
NOT stop or park: … at or near a bus … stop…” (emphasis
original). Although I note that the policy reason for the issue
of PCNs of this nature is to avoid buses being obstructed, I
also accept and find that, whilst the bus stop was out of use,
it was still a bus stop. It had not been removed altogether nor
repurposed. The appellant does not claim to have been misled as
her evidence was that it was a bus stop, but one that was out of
use. However, I find that the enforcement authority has not
established by way of reliable evidence that this bus stop had,
at the date of contravention, signage advising of the specific
restriction relied upon in the PCN. The existence of road
markings, clearly visible in the video evidence, is not material
as they do not convey the basis of the restriction relied upon.
For the same reason, the more general “No Stopping at any time
except buses” time plates that may have been in the same area
are not material because they do not convey the restriction
either.
10. There is no substance to the appellant’s point about the
roadworks: she told me that these were before the bus stop and,
in any event, did not press the point before me. Further, the
suggestion that the PCN was issued with inaccurate location
cannot be sustained. The location on the PCN specified the bus
stop concerned and so could not have been more specific. The
point made by the appellant about the road being clear and no
obstruction having been caused is supported by the video
evidence, but this, being mitigation, would not be a reason of
itself for this appeal to prosper.
11. This appeal is allowed.
#Post#: 118795--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Royal Greenwich, 47J - Stopped on a
restricted bus stop or stand (camera enforcement)
DIR By: Vince138
Date: May 15, 2026, 2:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> We saw a lot of cases here when Greenwich first
built/monitored this stop.
>
> I think some cases were won on lack of camera authorisation
but that ship has probably sailed.
>
> The most reason tribunal case was won but note is was from
last August.
>
> Greenwich has a recent record of not bothering to contest
cases but that may have changed.
>
> --------------
>
> Case reference 2250505269
> Appellant Minh Dang
> Authority Royal Borough of Greenwich
> VRM LB65 TZK
>
> PCN Details
> PCN GR23966616
> Contravention date 09 Aug 2025
> Contravention time 15:20:00
> Contravention location Millennium Way
> Penalty amount GBP 160.00
> Contravention Stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand
>
> Referral date -
>
> Decision Date 17 Mar 2026
> Adjudicator Richard Young
> Appeal decision Appeal allowed
> Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
> Reasons 1. This appeal relates to a PCN issued by Greenwich
Council on 18 August 2025. The alleged contravention, said to
have occurred at 15:20 on 9 August 2025, was that the
appellant’s vehicle stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand.
The location was the Millennium Way bus stop.
> 2. The matter was listed for a virtual hearing on 14 March
2026. There was no appearance on the part of the enforcement
authority but the appellant attended and set out her case. I
reserved my decision.
> 3. The video evidence shows the appellant’s vehicle stopping.
The area has markings stating that it is a “bus stop.” The only
signage visible in the video footage is unrelated signage
pertaining to use of the pavement. I have had regard to the
photographs produced by the enforcement authority relating to
signage said to be at the location concerned. I can see from
those that the bus shelter and signage would be further up the
bus stop from where the vehicle is seen stopping, and therefore
just out of range of the video evidence.
> 4. The appellant’s position is that, at the time she stopped,
she did not think that the bus stop was in use because there was
no one standing by it and also no signage relating to it. The
appellant subsequently, and after receiving the PCN, checked the
position using Google Maps and that website indicated that
“North Greenwich – Millenium [sic] Way Stop F” was “permanently
closed.” The appellant has produced a screenshot of the website
dated 3 September 2025 which I note is reasonably
contemporaneous to the claimed contravention. I do not attach
any weight to the spelling error as it is a not uncommon one.
> 5. The case summary from Greenwich states that: “Google Maps
does not confirm if a bus stop is open or closed to buses, the
signs indicated at this location state 'No Stopping at any time
except buses'. This does state buses can stop at this location
and the road markings of 'BUS STOP' clearly states to a driver
of a vehicle that is not a bus, that they DO NOT stop or park at
or near a bus stop marked on the carriageway or bus stop lay-bys
unless otherwise indicated by signs.” The notice of rejection
stated that: “This bus stop is operational 24 hours a day seven
days a week.” It also stated that: “The Highway Code tells
drivers: "You MUST NOT stop or park on a bus stop marked on the
carriageway or bus stop lay-bys unless otherwise indicated by
signs". There are no signs displayed at this bus stop, which
means it is enforced all the time.” Unlike the notice of
rejection, the more recent case summary does not spell out
whether the bus stop is actually in use or not.
> 6. Whilst I take the point about Google Maps not being at all
determinative, it is the only evidence I have as to the status
to the bus stop and the enforcement authority has not suggested
that it is wrong, relying instead on the points about road
markings and signage. Whether the stop is in use or not would be
a matter of record that the enforcement authority would know.
Further, the case summary does not suggest that the appellant’s
position is wrong as such. I therefore find, on the available
evidence, that the bus stop was at the time of the contravention
a bus stop that was not in use. The enforcement authority could
have provided evidence that it was in-use but has not.
> 7. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether
signage was in place as at the date of contravention or not. The
appellant says that there was none and the enforcement authority
says that there was, relying on undated photographs.
> 8. I find that, whilst there was signage at the bus stop at
some point, there was not as at the date of contravention. The
appellant’s position on signage has not changed; she stated in
her representations dated 3 September 2025 that: “…there was
also no visible sign plate at the location of the alleged
contravention.” This is also important because the enforcement
authority was on notice about the point and yet still failed to
produce dated or otherwise more reliable photographic evidence
relating to the signage. My finding that there was no signage at
the bus stop is supported by my finding that the bus stop was
not in use. A bus stop that is not in use would not require
signage.
> 9. I acknowledge that rule 243 of the Highway Code states: “DO
NOT stop or park: … at or near a bus … stop…” (emphasis
original). Although I note that the policy reason for the issue
of PCNs of this nature is to avoid buses being obstructed, I
also accept and find that, whilst the bus stop was out of use,
it was still a bus stop. It had not been removed altogether nor
repurposed. The appellant does not claim to have been misled as
her evidence was that it was a bus stop, but one that was out of
use. However, I find that the enforcement authority has not
established by way of reliable evidence that this bus stop had,
at the date of contravention, signage advising of the specific
restriction relied upon in the PCN. The existence of road
markings, clearly visible in the video evidence, is not material
as they do not convey the basis of the restriction relied upon.
For the same reason, the more general “No Stopping at any time
except buses” time plates that may have been in the same area
are not material because they do not convey the restriction
either.
> 10. There is no substance to the appellant’s point about the
roadworks: she told me that these were before the bus stop and,
in any event, did not press the point before me. Further, the
suggestion that the PCN was issued with inaccurate location
cannot be sustained. The location on the PCN specified the bus
stop concerned and so could not have been more specific. The
point made by the appellant about the road being clear and no
obstruction having been caused is supported by the video
evidence, but this, being mitigation, would not be a reason of
itself for this appeal to prosper.
> 11. This appeal is allowed.
>
--- End Quote ---
thanks for sharing, is this from the tribunal after the
representation to the council has been rejected? and does this
mean the appeal was won in this case mainly due to proof that
the bus stop is not in use and there is no clear signage?
i just checked this bus stop on Google map and interestingly it
still says it is permanently closed, see link below for the map,
can i still use this as the appeal ground?
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/Rdbxrz4yyx3m9dC7A
#Post#: 118796--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Royal Greenwich, 47J - Stopped on a
restricted bus stop or stand (camera enforcement)
DIR By: Vince138
Date: May 15, 2026, 3:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
also can anyone opine on the yellow drop off point sign plate?
that's very near the bus stop and with an arrow pointing towards
it, to be honest that is the main reason why i thought we can
stop at the bus stop for drop
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page