URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 68253--------------------------------------------------
       Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E (April 2025)
   DIR By: brazilianx
       Date: April 23, 2025, 6:32 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hello
       I can see from searching on this forum that there have been
       several victims of the Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E PCN.
       This morning I became one (or my wife did).
       Based on the history of these PCNs I'm not certain of our
       chances - but looks like there are some reasons to think this is
       beatable - so wanted to get the opinion of those that know. It
       looks like this particular Bus Gate has been well discussed - so
       hopefully there is some precedent on how to counter it.
       I have uploaded a redacted copy of the PCN together with the
       video.
       Here are the previous cases:
       1
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/33e-camrose-avenue-(/<br
       />/ 2
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/re-harrow-camrose-avenue-bus-gate-33e/msg55483/#msg55483<br
       />/ 3
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-avenue-bus-gate-33e/msg66075/#msg66075<br
       />/ 4
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/33e-camrose-avenue-(/msg48474/#msg48474<br
       />/ 5
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-code-33e-route-restricted-for-busescyclestaxis-camrose-avenue-(again!)/msg16634/#msg16634/<br
       />6
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-avenue-pcn-33e/msg57426/#msg57426<br
       />/ 7
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/camrose-avenue-33e-using-a-route-restricted-to-certain-vehicles/msg11302/#msg11302<br
       />/ 8
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/camrose-avenue-harrow-bus-gate/msg88/#msg88<br
       />/ 9
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-code-33e-using-a-restricted-route-headstone-lane/msg58160/#msg58160<br
       />/ 10
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-ave-bus-gate-33e-pcn-33e-using-restricted-to-certain-vehicles-bus/msg28137/#msg28137<br
       />/ 11
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-code-33e-using-a-route-restricted-to-certain-vehicles-buses-cycles-and-ta/msg15859/#msg15859<br
       />/ 12
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-ave-bus-gate-33e-pcn-33e-using-restricted-to-certain-ve-3287/msg38624/#msg38624
       Any help appreciated as £80 is more than we can afford right
       now.
       Thanks in advance[attach=1][attach=2][attach=3][attach=4]
       [attachment deleted by admin]
       #Post#: 68403--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E (April 2025)
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: April 24, 2025, 4:34 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       We need the VRM and PCN details.
       #Post#: 68409--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E (April 2025)
   DIR By: brazilianx
       Date: April 24, 2025, 5:06 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Sure, wasn't sure how much to redact
       Here are the particulars
       Penalty Charge Notice No.  HR76917592
       Vehicle Registration Mark  WO06LME
       Date of this Notice  21/04/2025
       From what I'm hearing the approach to take is essentially: the
       signage is unclear
       How do we best log this in the initial challenge? What extra
       detail should be included?
       Here's the form - is it a case of challenging on the grounds:
       The alleged contravention did not occur or The relevant
       designation order was invalid
       [attachimg=1]
       I've been following Bustagate's appeal
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-avenue-bus-gate-33e/msg68437/#msg68437<br
       />(Appeal 2250053451), which is pending an adjudicator decision
       next Tues 29th April 2025 and took his key points and then ran
       it through Perplexity to provide some supporting citations. Pls
       see attached. If he is successful then it is likely this
       approach will work. Keen to get your thoughts and next steps.
       [attachurl=2]
       Thanks!
       [attachment deleted by admin]
       #Post#: 68478--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E (April 2025)
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: April 24, 2025, 11:27 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The images are flattened too.  2240515018
       #Post#: 68479--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E (April 2025)
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: April 24, 2025, 11:33 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: brazilianx link ---
       >
       > Sure, wasn't sure how much to redact
       >
       > Here are the particulars
       >
       > Penalty Charge Notice No.  HR76917592
       > Vehicle Registration Mark  WO06LME
       > Date of this Notice  21/04/2025
       >
       > From what I'm hearing the approach to take is essentially: the
       signage is unclear
       >
       > How do we best log this in the initial challenge? What extra
       detail should be included?
       >
       > Here's the form - is it a case of challenging on the grounds:
       The alleged contravention did not occur or The relevant
       designation order was invalid
       >
       > [attachimg=1]
       >
       > I've been following Bustagate's appeal
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-avenue-bus-gate-33e/msg68437/#msg68437<br
       />(Appeal 2250053451), which is pending an adjudicator decision
       next Tues 29th April 2025 and took his key points and then ran
       it through Perplexity to provide some supporting citations. Pls
       see attached. If he is successful then it is likely this
       approach will work. Keen to get your thoughts and next steps.
       >
       >
       > [attachurl=2]
       >
       > Thanks!
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       This is not a bus lane! You have entered the wrong details. It
       is a bus gate and their website is ok re this contravention.
       #Post#: 68526--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E (April 2025)
   DIR By: brazilianx
       Date: April 24, 2025, 4:16 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote ---
       > The images are flattened too.  2240515018
       --- End Quote ---
       I've had a look at the adjudicator's findings - great result!
       Not sure what you mean by the images being flattened, though.
       --- Quote ---
       > The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle used a
       route restricted to certain vehicles (local buses and cycles
       only) when in Camrose Avenue on 29 September 2024 at 16:31.The
       Appellant denies the contravention and through his
       representative has advanced a number of points.I have considered
       the evidence and I find that this PCN cannot be upheld for the
       following reason:First, I am not satisfied that the Authority
       has sufficiently proved the signage at this location.Second, the
       library photographs produced in the Map/Site evidence at 'J' in
       the evidence tree are undated, and I find that this weaken their
       evidential weight.Third, in 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.Further, the
       photographs on the Notice of Rejection do not show the signage
       and neither does the PCNIn light of this finding I am not
       required to resolve any other issues between the parties.The
       appeal is allowed.
       --- End Quote ---
       --- Quote ---
       > This is not a bus lane! You have entered the wrong details. It
       is a bus gate and their website is ok re this contravention.
       --- End Quote ---
       I haven't submitted anything as yet - but that would have been a
       schoolboy error.
       So it's a moving contravention?
       What's your advice for submitting the initial challenge and do
       you feel this is winnable?
       Thanks
       [attachment deleted by admin]
       #Post#: 68584--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E (April 2025)
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: April 25, 2025, 5:20 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Sorry. This one: 2240378030.
       Just say the signage is not fit for purpose and the video does
       not prove the alleged contravention.
       #Post#: 68601--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E (April 2025)
   DIR By: brazilianx
       Date: April 25, 2025, 6:24 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Understood
       I found the appeal you referenced above...
       --- Quote ---
       > The Appellant is appealing a Penalty Charge Notice issued in
       respect of using a route restricted to certain vehicles.
       > The Appellant was represented by Mr Phillip Morgan who has
       attended the hearing in person. The Appellant and her husband,
       who was driving on the day in question, attended by telephone.
       >
       > The Enforcement Authority relies upon photographic capture of
       the vehicle, a copy of the PCN, a copy of the relevant
       legislation, further photographic evidence and correspondence.
       >
       > It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that she and her
       husband were not familiar with the location. They saw no advance
       warning signage and tell me that the road appeared to be a
       straight, "normal" road.
       >
       > I have carefully considered all the evidence in this matter.
       >
       > The CCTV footage relied upon by the EA shows the vehicle
       driving towards the camera. The signage facing the vehicle is
       not visible but there is clear "BUS GATE" marking on the
       carriageway.
       >
       > The EA has provided photographic evidence of the signage which
       it contends faced the driver as he approached the restriction.
       This shows what appears to be blue and white bus, cycle and taxi
       only signage, although the photographs are of poor quality, and
       an advance warning sign denoting a width restriction. The
       quality of this evidence is such that the dates of these
       photographs cannot be readily determined. However, having
       expanded the photographs on both my screen today, and on Mr
       Morgan's laptop, it appears that they date back to 2021.
       >
       > Whilst it is not reasonable to expect an EA to provide
       contemporaneous photographs of the signage upon which it relied,
       it is nonetheless incumbent upon that EA to provide photographs
       which can be found to accurately show the signage at a location,
       within a reasonable time of the date of the alleged
       contravention. This cannot be said of the photographs provided.
       Changes may occur to signage - obstructions/damage and so forth
       - and the EA must demonstrate that all relevant signage was
       prominent, unobscured and unambiguous. I find that this has not
       been done in this case.
       >
       > I note that, on the CCTV footage of the incident, the back of
       what the EA contends is the restriction sign on the footway is
       visible. This sign appears to be a rectangular, "landscape"
       sign. The corresponding sign in the 2021 library photographs
       appears to be a square, or possibly "portrait" sign.
       Notwithstanding the possibility that this discrepancy may have
       been caused by a camera distortion, I cannot be satisfied to the
       requisite standard that they in fact show the same sign.
       >
       > For these reasons, I allow this appeal.
       --- End Quote ---
       #Post#: 69516--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E (April 2025)
   DIR By: brazilianx
       Date: May 1, 2025, 5:06 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi @Hippocrates
       So it's crunch time for me on this one...
       based on all we now know from Bustagate's tribunal
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-avenue-appeal-2250053451/,<br
       />and how the adjudicator went for the least helpful reason to
       allow the appeal, what are your thoughts on taking this all the
       way.
       Can I count on your support if we go to tribunal?
       Many thanks
       #Post#: 69518--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E (April 2025)
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: May 1, 2025, 5:14 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Yes of course.
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 3
   DIR Next Page