URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 127097--------------------------------------------------
       The infamous offside bus lane at Shepherds Bush Road,
       Southbound. "AI nonsense" representations
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: August 6, 2026, 5:50 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I do not take too  kindly to being described as a "three-toed
       sloth" which is what an ai is! But, here are just some of the
       "well-founded" points as one adjudicator said to me a few years
       ago:
       I make these formal representations against the Enforcement
       Notice as follows:
       
       1. I require you to consider my informal challenge as formal
       representations.
       2. I put you to strict proof that the camera at the said
       location has the correct VCA approval.
       3. The Enforcement  Notice limits to one ground of
       representation.
       4. Service and delivery are two entirely different concepts and
       “delivery” is not mentioned in the Act. The Enforcement Notice
       substantially departs from the statutory scheme in terms of 3
       and 4 as it conflates the two.
       5. In R(Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator
       [2010]EWHC 894 (Admin) Mr Justice Beatson confirmed at para. 65:
       The Defendant's submission that the fact that signs are
       prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient for
       securing adequate information as to the effect of an order is
       made available to road users is clearly correct. If the signs do
       not in fact provide adequate information no offence is
       committed;
       6. The Department for Transport authorisation of 2006 :
       Referring to the High Court case above, and the TSM  Chapter
       Three, it is averred that the signage at this particular
       location is wholly contradictory to the advice given to
       authorities in various terms regarding the placement of a 958
       sign, its import and the placement (or lack of) and the
       placement of and its import of the 959B sign. This is not to
       impugn the Department for Transport but rather to stress the
       confusion a motorist meets at this location. I cite directly
       from TSM Chapter Three: 9.3.4. : Advance indication
       of a with‑flow bus lane is provided by the sign to diagram
       958 (S11‑2‑37, see Figure 9-2) varied as
       appropriate. Where the speed limit is 20 mph or 30 mph, the sign
       should be sited 30 m in advance of the lead‑in taper
       formed by the road marking to diagram 1010 (see 9.3.3), with a
       minimum clear visibility distance of 45 m. Where the speed limit
       is 40 mph, the sign should be sited 45 m in advance of the taper
       with a minimum clear visibility distance of 60 m. And
       9.3.5. : The sign to diagram 959B
       (S9‑4‑10, see Figure 9-3) is a regulatory sign and
       should be placed as near as practicable to the start of the
       lane, i.e. where the continuous line to diagram 1049A begins.
       7. You have departed from the DFT plan in any event.
       8. The plurality of signage is not only confusing but also plays
       fast and loose with the positioning and intended meaning of the
       signs used. Further, the numerous so-called "warning signs" are
       not authorised/compliant.
       In light of the above, please cancel the PCN and EN.
       If  anyone (myself included) ever receives a PCN from these
       clowns at this very location, please feel free to use it as I
       certainly will.  8)  Point 2 should be omitted for strategical
       reasons. I know that at least four members have now had their
       PCNs cancelled "without prejudice" to the council's position. I
       believe that a costs application is to follow with regard to one
       of them. The less said the better. I do not need a three-toed
       sloth to assist me in composing one.
       Copyright Hippocrates! Healer of ais.
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/hammersmith-fulham-bus-lane-shepherds-bush-rd-southbound-offside/msg125951/#msg125951
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/hammersmith-fulham-bus-lane-shepherds-bush-rd-southbound-offside-11587/msg126220/#msg126220
       #Post#: 127157--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The infamous offside bus lane at Shepherds Bush Road,
       Southbound. "AI nonsense" representations
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: August 7, 2026, 9:09 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       A further note: when you do your initial challenge you will find
       that there are no grounds shown on their website.
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1