DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 15999--------------------------------------------------
Harrow Code 33E Route restricted for Buses/Cycles/Taxis -
Camrose Avenue (Again!)
DIR By: AceKingPin
Date: February 21, 2024, 5:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
Having read several posts on this site, I'm another recipient of
a PCN from Harrow Council (PCN HR74437020 (a 33E), Reg GJ03ZYY,
contravention on 7/1/24 at 0049, Camrose Avenue Bus Gate). I've
requested the CCTV footage online, been told to wait up to 24
hours for it.
PCN photos here:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/NcvTFp9h.jpg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/WxBc3guh.jpg
I have made a representation citing poorly lit signage before
finding this forum and some of the other reasons, and have
received a notice of rejection. I currently have 14 days from
21/2/24 to pay the reduced £65.
Notice of Rejection here:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/vyBmGod.png
I'm aware of the following strong arguments so far:
1. "I bring a collateral challenge on the basis that the PCN is
unenforceable because the taken without consent ground clearly
fetters to theft by its very wording that a crime report be
provided. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory
ground does not take into account that a relative, or friend,
may have taken the vehicle without the owner's permission so
that the owner would not necessarily, if at all, report the
matter to the Police in such circumstances or, indeed, make an
insurance claim. I refer to Chidi Egenti v London Borough of
Islington Case No 2110212199 which corroborates this argument."
2. "The Authority has not proved the signage at this location.
The CCTV footage the back of two circular sign plates can be
seen between the two routes. There is no evidence in relation to
what these signs are. The photographs on the PCN do not show the
signage of which only the back can be seen."
3. Otherwise its reasonable excuses (as posted by another user)
as follows:
a) Adequacy of Signage: The signage indicating the bus gate on
Camrose Avenue is inadequate, particularly during nighttime
conditions when visibility is reduced. The lack of sufficient
illumination and clarity on the signage did not provide the
necessary alert to the approaching bus gate restriction. This
inadequacy is heightened by the fact that the only advanced
warning signs visible were related to a width restriction, not a
bus gate.
b) Late Disclosure of Restriction: The positioning and timing of
the bus gate signage did not afford adequate time to safely
maneuver out of the bus gate lane. Due to the flow of traffic
and for the safety of all road users, I was compelled to proceed
through the bus gate to avoid a potential traffic incident. This
decision was made in the interest of safety, given the immediate
traffic conditions and the sudden appearance of the restriction.
c) Faded Road Markings: The road markings indicating the bus
gate were noticeably faded and not observable during the night.
The bus gate's red road surface did not offer a sufficient
approach distance to safely realign the vehicle, contributing to
the confusion and the eventual contravention.
d) Inconsistent Road Treatments: The absence of standard double
yellow, red lines, solid white line, which are typically
consistent with bus gates and bus lines, contributed to the
confusion. Additionally, the bus gate's unconventional placement
compared to standard practices in London further misled me as a
driver.
e) Lack of Pre-warning Signs: The presence of a pre-warning sign
before the crossroad or near the central island would have
provided crucial additional time to adjust vehicle positioning.
The sudden appearance of the bus gate restriction, without
adequate pre-warning, significantly increased the risk of a
traffic incident.
Would forum members suggest I take this to appeal? If so, are
you able to assist or provide any wording that might help me
with making a formal appeal?
Many thanks for any help or guidance you can provide.
cc [member=17]MMV Redux[/member]
Kind regards,
#Post#: 16001--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Code 33E Route restricted for Buses/Cycles/Taxis -
Camrose Avenue (Again!)
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 21, 2024, 5:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you looked at the London Tribunals Statutory Register ?
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals
Search under "Camrose Avenue" and a date range. I would start
with cases from 1st Jan 2023.
Be aware that the register only contains a tiny percentage of
the PCN issued, as most people just cough-up, not wanting to
lose the discount.
#Post#: 16002--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Code 33E Route restricted for Buses/Cycles/Taxis -
Camrose Avenue (Again!)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 21, 2024, 5:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would PM MMVRedux. A shame you did not include the technical
argument re TWOC.
#Post#: 16005--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Code 33E Route restricted for Buses/Cycles/Taxis -
Camrose Avenue (Again!)
DIR By: guest17
Date: February 21, 2024, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP---The bus stop sign has a large "L" so this means you were
travelling in the same direction where there have been signage
issues.
Ask them for a photo of the signage you passed since it's not on
their still photos nor the video.
Mike
#Post#: 16006--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Code 33E Route restricted for Buses/Cycles/Taxis -
Camrose Avenue (Again!)
DIR By: AceKingPin
Date: February 21, 2024, 5:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks you [member=12]Incandescent[/member] - lots of refusals,
but being glass half full (for now), I filtered on the 'allowed'
outcomes, and found some additional compelling reasons given by
those adjudicators:
"There appears to be no advance warning of the bus gate
restriction adjacent to the width restriction. A vehicle,
driving along the road in the dark upon noticing the width
restriction, has no advance warning of the bus gate restriction
ahead and may well, in those circumstances, be taken by surprise
by it. A driver who is looking out for the width restriction
ahead, is likely to be concentrating on that restriction alone
and this difficulty would be exacerbated at night. In addition,
there is no evidence before me as to the lighting of the
relevant signage during hours of darkness."
"I have seen evidence of the signage on the approach to the bus
gate. There are advance warning signs of a width restriction and
the bus gate has 2 blue signs placed on either side of the bus
gate entry. The distance from which the image is taken does not
clearly show what is displayed on those signs. The Appellant is
challenging the adequacy of the signage. I find that the
Enforcement Authority have not provided clear evidence of the
signage placed at the entrance to the bus gate."
Both the above also supported by: "The Council has attempted to
plug this gap in their evidence by serving Google images taken
in daylight in October 2022. However despite attempting to
enlarge the images, I am not able to clearly see the signs at
the restriction. The legend on the signs is not clear either at
normal size or when enlarged by up to 400%."
So I've gone onto Google and seen the following 2 images
attached, to which this reference is made.
I've not looked to see if the above arguments have a high
failure rate in past decisions though.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 16007--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Code 33E Route restricted for Buses/Cycles/Taxis -
Camrose Avenue (Again!)
DIR By: AceKingPin
Date: February 21, 2024, 6:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks also [member=24]Hippocrates[/member] - should I have
included TWOC at Challenge stage? I've contacted MMV Redux
#Post#: 16008--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Code 33E Route restricted for Buses/Cycles/Taxis -
Camrose Avenue (Again!)
DIR By: AceKingPin
Date: February 21, 2024, 6:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks [member=17]MMV Redux[/member], I've emailed the council
to ask for photos so let's see what happens
#Post#: 16010--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Code 33E Route restricted for Buses/Cycles/Taxis -
Camrose Avenue (Again!)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 21, 2024, 6:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: AceKingPin link ---
>
> Thanks also [member=24]Hippocrates[/member] - should I have
included TWOC at Challenge stage? I've contacted MMV Redux
>
--- End Quote ---
It would have better as they would have had to consider it. But,
it may be added later.
#Post#: 16153--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Code 33E Route restricted for Buses/Cycles/Taxis -
Camrose Avenue (Again!)
DIR By: AceKingPin
Date: February 23, 2024, 12:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Received the photo from Harrow Council as follows, do you think
I've got a case for poor quality photographs provided that don't
allow reading of signage?
[attachimg=2]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 16158--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Code 33E Route restricted for Buses/Cycles/Taxis -
Camrose Avenue (Again!)
DIR By: guest17
Date: February 23, 2024, 3:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Not on the signage--looks like they've got their act together.
Mike
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 5
DIR Next Page