DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 69389--------------------------------------------------
Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: April 30, 2025, 9:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This post brings together redacted copies of the main documents
related to a PCN issued on 24 November 2024 which was won on
appeal on 29 April 2025:
- CamroseAppeal250329c.pdf: Appeal document
- CamroseAppealAnnexE.pdf: Annex E to Appeal document
- CamroseAppealSynopsis250417.pdf: Colour-coded collation of
Harrow's Case Summary; Appeal Synopsis; Harrow's Response; and
my Counter-Response
I hope that others will find this a useful source for their own
appeals. From the decision in this case, I surmise that the
grounds on which an appeal is allowed may well be chosen as that
which is least likely to be challenged by either party. I
wouldn't suggest that others deploy all the grounds which I
advanced; instead I would suggest choosing one "big" ground -
inadequate signage or the TMO does not apply as Harrow claim -
supplemented by something which is specific to your case.
In their Adjournment Evidence and at the hearing, Harrow did not
challenge my demonstration that the curved arrows and BUS GATE
road markings had not been placed in accordance with TSRGD 2016
(see CamroseAppealAnnexE.pdf). This is important as Harrow
typically assert that all their signage is in accordance with
TSRGD 2016 and it manifestly is not.
In particular, Harrow must be challenged if they make the claim
that the curved arrows were telling you to move out. By placing
those arrows other than in accordance with TSRGD 2016, Harrow
was acting ultra vires and those arrows are legally void. That
means that it is as if the arrows do not exist. Of course they
do, but as they are unlawful, the Adjudicator should disregard
them when assessing the adequacy of the signage.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 69398--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: brazilianx
Date: April 30, 2025, 10:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Nice One!
#Post#: 69426--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: April 30, 2025, 12:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1]cp8759[/member] The Fourth Musketeer has arrived. ;D
#Post#: 69432--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: April 30, 2025, 1:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Looking at the decision and The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic
Order 2016
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g7zUVgywOmhufM4DUZmWzSbqffg_ZC51/view,<br
/>two points emerge:
1) Mr Greenslade clearly meant article 5(2)(a) rather than
5(1)(a), and
2) The decision has nothing to do with the TSRGD or anything of
the sort, rather he decided that the driver drove in the bus
lane in order to avoid an accident.
That's not to say that the issues of signage are not valid, but
simply that we do not have a decision that specifically deals
with this issue.
#Post#: 69435--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: April 30, 2025, 1:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
With regard to cp8759's comments, I considered that it was the
documented challenge to Harrow's assertion that the signage
complied with TSRGD which led Mr Greenslade to demand a detailed
response from Harrow and send representatives to the reconvened
hearing. Harrow's detailed response ignored the TSRGD issue but
did not repeat the earlier claim of compliance. So yes, there
isn't anything on the public record for Camrose Avenue about
TSRGD, but Harrow are on the run on this.
I considered that the grounds on which Mr Greenslade allowed the
appeal were selected to be the least open to further challenge.
They also happen not to be helpful to other appellants. I've
seen this sort of approach elsewhere. I suggest that those
wishing to challenge compliance with TSRGD 2016 include
CamroseAppealAnnexE.pdf in their submissions.
#Post#: 69517--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 1, 2025, 5:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Each case is different of course. Same goes for their images,
conditions, times of day etc. This location reminds me of Cox
Lane, Chessington.
#Post#: 69575--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 1, 2025, 10:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Traffic Appeal 2250053451: Statement about Compliance of Signs
with TSRGD 2016
I prepared the documents for, attended and spoke at Appeal
2250053451: Andrew Simons v London Borough of Harrow. I am the
appellant's father.
Harrow's Case Summary
Harrow's Case Summary (included in attached document
EVI_B_redacted.pdf) asserted:
--- Quote ---
> There is signage at the location, situated on both sides of
the road, and in accordance with The Traffic Signs Regulations
and General Directions 2016.
--- End Quote ---
Appeal Document
The Synopsis of the Appeal document addressed this issue
directly:
--- Quote ---
> Compliance of Signage with TSRGD 2016
>
> This statement is false. It may well be that Harrow does not
understand what TSRGD 2016 actually prescribes, but the
following traffic signs in each direction are not in accordance
with TSRGD 2016:
>
>
- the two right-pointing arrows to diagram 1014 (Schedule 11
part 4 item 14
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/made)
>
- the BUS GATE road marking to diagram 1048.5 (Schedule 9 part 6
item 15
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made)
>
- the two width-restriction signs to diagram 629A (Schedule 3
part 2 item 26
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/part/2/made)
>
- the left-pointing arrow to diagram 1014
>
> The reasons why these traffic signs are not in accordance with
TSRGD 2016 are set out below. This is discussed further in
sections 3.7 and 3.8 and Annex D:
>
>
- diagram 1014: this is an advisory road marking which provides
advance notice of regulatory restrictions defined by white lines
and related markings. It is only prescribed in advance of such
road markings. None is present;
>
- diagram 1048.5: this road marking is regulatory. It is
prescribed within the section of road to which the restriction
applies. Harrow uses it as advance notice before the restricted
section of road;
>
- diagram 629A: prescribed diameters: 750, 900, 1200mm. Harrow
uses 450mm.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
The Synopsis, along with sections 3.7, 3.8 and Annex D are in in
the attached document CamroseAppealExcerpts250328.pdf.
Hearing
At the hearing, I challenged Harrow's assertion that the signage
was in accordance with TSRGD 2016. Mr Greenslade, the
Adjudicator, interrupted to ask whether I wasn't referring to a
failure to follow the guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual. I
replied no, I was well aware that the Traffic Signs Manual was
only guidance. I was talking about compliance with The Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, which was
statutory.
As the half-hour allotted for the hearing was coming to its end,
Mr Greenslade adjourned the hearing, saying that he would ask
Harrow to provide a detailed response to the appeal document and
to send representatives to attend the hearing when it
reconvened.
Harrow's Adjournment Evidence
This is attached as AdjournmentEvidenceRedacted.pdf.
As can be seen, Harrow's Adjournment Evidence did not directly
address my challenge to the signage's compliance with TSRGD
2016. The closest that it got was
--- Quote ---
> The Council maintains the signage at the location of Camrose
Avenue is correctly and clearly displayed in accordance with
current legislation to information motorists of the restriction
in question.
> . . .
> There is also a pair of Width restriction signs to diagram.
629, on westbound and eastbound directions at the point where
width restriction is in place as well as another pair of blue
roundel signs to diagram. 953 and 953.2 on grey backing board,
one pair each on westbound and eastbound directions. A blue
roundel sign is also available directly at the exit of Turner
Road.
>
> Furthermore, there is a give-way sign to diagram 602: one on
the eastbound directions.
>
> The sign to diagram.953 complies with all directions,
including direction 8(1), however our transportation traffic
team have advised that direction 8(2) is not a requirement to
comply for diagram 953. Direction 8(1) explains that diagram 953
and many others need to follow this direction.
--- End Quote ---
Another statement in Harrow's Adjournment Evidence was:
--- Quote ---
> Additionally, the restricted route is identified by thick
white demarcation line, the words "BUSES ONLY" is painted on the
carriageway itself, and, although not necessary to meet the
regulations, the roadway is paved with red asphalt.
--- End Quote ---
Counter-Response
After the hearing I prepared Annex E to the appeal document. It
consists of excerpts from TSRGD 2016 relating to the signs which
I challenged as being not in accordance with TSRGD 2016.
When Harrow produced their Adjournment Evidence, I prepared a
revised version of the Synopsis to include counter-responses on
each topic. For Compliance with TSRGD 2016 it was:
--- Quote ---
> Harrow’s response does not mention the “directional white
arrows”. By implication, Harrow has acknowledged that these road
markings have been placed ultra vires.
>
> Harrow now concentrates on the regulatory signs at the
restriction itself. The description of this signage relates to
the signs placed in 2006 under TSRGD 2002. These were replaced
between 2015 and 2022:
>
>
- width-restriction signs to diagram 629 showed only Imperial
measurements; they were replaced in 2015 with larger signs to
diagram 629A showing both Imperial and metric measurements.
These signs (which, in accordance with TSRGD 2002 and 2016 were
750mm diameter) were replaced in 2021/22 with non-prescribed
signs 450mm diameter;
>
- under TSRGD 2002, signs to diagram 953 had to be accompanied
by an “Only” plate to diagram 953.2; both signs were included on
a rectangular grey backing board. As a result of changes
introduced in TSRGD 2016, these signs were replaced in 2018/19
with signs without the “Only” plate. The references to
directions 8(1) and 8(2) relate to TSRGD 2002; directions in
TSRGD 2016 appear within the Schedules for the signs to which
they relate rather than as a single list.
>
> Harrow also refers to “advance regulatory signs ... prior to
the restricted route”; These are discussed further in the
section Advance Warning of the Restrictions.
>
> Harrow’s own photographs show that the advance signage relates
solely to the width restriction. There is no advance signage of
the bus restriction.
>
> The first that motorists see of the bus restriction are the
blue roundels to diagram 953 which, in accordance with TSRGD,
have been placed at the bus restriction itself. Those signs are
smaller than the Traffic Signs Manual recommends, being 600mm in
diameter rather than 750mm. Harrow’s contention seems to be that
the mere act of placing regulatory signs in accordance with
TSRGD imposes on road users
> [quote]the responsibility ... to make themselves aware of any
restrictions that are in force and drive accordingly
--- End Quote ---
Such an approach was rejected by Beatson J in [2010] EWHC
894(Admin). He examined in detail the notices placed in advance
of the regulatory signs at the bus restriction, finding:
--- Quote ---
> If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no
offence is committed; see James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676. Such
information is a requirement . . .
--- End Quote ---
On Camrose Avenue the bus restriction comes into force at the
diagram 953 signs; other motorists need to move out and use the
adjacent lane. This is very similar to nearside with-flow bus
lanes, where the bus restriction comes into force at the diagram
959B sign. Bus lanes have well-defined advance signage,
including the lead-in taper and diagram 958 advance signs placed
30m before the start of the taper.
It is the advance signage for bus lanes (which is not mandated
by TSRGD 2016) which ensures that motorists are not surprised
when a bus lane starts. They have already moved out in response
to the lead-in taper. The complete absence of advance signage of
the bus restriction on Camrose Avenue does not prepare road
users for what is about to happen to the nearside lane.
In accordance with Beatson J’s judgment, I ask you to find that
there was no contravention.[/quote]
In the Synopsis, Harrow's other statement came under the heading
"Additional Signage". The counter-response to this was:
--- Quote ---
> The reference to “BUSES ONLY” indicates that this paragraph
was drafted before 2008, when the road marking was changed to
“BUS & (cycle symbol) ONLY”. It echoes the report in the Harrow
Times of 4 July 2007:
> [quote]Harrow Council says the lane is "clearly signed" by a
thick white demarcation line, the words "BUSES ONLY" on the
carriageway and red asphalt paving.
--- End Quote ---
That enables the “thick white demarcation line” to be identified
as the continuous white line running in an arc from the exit of
Dale Avenue to the westbound traffic island (see Figure A.11).
There was never a similar line facing eastbound traffic.[/quote]
The revised Synopsis is in the attached document
CamroseAppealSynopsis250417.pdf. Annex E is the document
CamroseAppealAnnexE.pdf attached to the first post on this
thread.
Reconvened Hearing
At the reconvened hearing, Harrow was represented by Ms Solanki
and Mr Adekusibe. They skirted around the issue of whether the
challenged signs complied with TSRGD 2016. They preferred to
focus on the blue roundel signs and dismissed the road markings
as not being traffic signs. I pointed out that road markings
were every bit as much traffic signs as upright signs and that
everything defined in TSRGD was a traffic sign.
Mr Adekusibe appeared perturbed by the suggestion that a case
from 2010 in Oxford could have any relevance to the signage in
Harrow in 2024 and pointed to other recent appeals which Harrow
had won. I tried with limited success to explain that judgments
in the High Court set precedents which were binding on lesser
tribunals, such as this one, while decisions at the same level
of tribunal did not.
Conclusions
Harrow's response to my challenge to the compliance of the
signage with TSRGD 2016 was to narrow the scope of their
assertion of compliance to the regulatory signage (diagram 953).
They sought to dismiss road markings as "not traffic signs". No
attempt was made to justify the placing of the challenged signs
as being in accordance with TSRGD 2016.
Harrow's Adjournment Evidence includes references to
- signs to diagrams 629 and 953.2 in TSRGD 2002 which are not in
TSRGD 2016 (and which were replaced on Camrose Avenue between
2015 and 2019)
- the "BUSES ONLY" road marking, which was not in accordance
with any version of TSRGD and which was replaced in 2008
Harrow implicitly conceded that the challenged signs are not in
accordance with TSRGD 2016. The references in their Adjournment
Evidence to signage removed in 2008, 2015 and 2019 raises
questions about how they prepare their submissions for appeals
against PCNs and whether their assertions are to be taken at
face value.
I stand ready to appear as a witness at tribunal hearings to
attest to the veracity of this account.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 69589--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 1, 2025, 11:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I stand ready to appear as a witness at tribunal hearings to
attest to the veracity of this account.
I think you should represent people. 8)
#Post#: 69592--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: brazilianx
Date: May 1, 2025, 11:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Given the 'generic' circumstances of my pCN - and being wholly
reliant on the deficient signage argument the effort and
research you've put into this will surely not be in vain when we
get to tribunal.
Just to be 100% sure - are we talking about exactly the same
location as mine? See video attached.
Thanks
[attach=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 69608--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 1, 2025, 1:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My son was eastbound. You were westbound. The signage is
similar, but not identical. In particular, the position of the
curved arrows is different: the second eastbound arrow points to
the middle of the supposed bus restriction. The second westbound
arrow is further out and is pointing towards the width
restriction. These arrows have, however, been placed ultra vires
and legally should be treated as if they did not exist.
That, however, is a doctrine which adjudicators may struggle
with. They're used to weighing up conflicting evidence and
deciding whom to believe. This requires them to consider a third
factor: administrative law as it relates to acts (in this case
the placing of road markings) which have been done other than in
accordance with the powers of the relevant authority (in this
case London Borough of Harrow under s.66 of the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984).
Administrative law isn't easy: it's the result of cases in which
the lowest-level decisions are made in the High Court, with
appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court (or
Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, as it used to be).
There's a preliminary issue as to whether a humble tribunal can
even consider such a matter (it's known as a collateral
challenge). The answer is "Yes": a case about someone smoking in
a railway carriage ended up in the House of Lords.
After surmounting this issue over whether to void the curved
arrows (and also the BUS GATE road marking as it's been placed
outside the supposed bus restriction, contrary to TSRGD 2016),
the adjudicator then has to consider whether the remaining
signage is adequate. Here the judgment in the Oxford Bus Gate
case [2010) EWHC 894 (Admin) is crucial, with its examination of
the advance signage of the bus restriction there.
It might be worth pointing to Hippocrates' comparator site, Cox
Lane, Chessington. This has edge-of-carriageway road markings to
diagram 1010 separating the entrance to the bus gate from the
rest of the carriageway. That gives motorists some indication of
where they're meant to go. It is the complete absence of such
indication (once the curved arrows have been voided as ultra
vires) which makes Camrose Avenue so defective (and lucrative
for Harrow).
In my experience, when people are faced with a difficult
decision, they try to find a way around having to take it. This
means that if you give an adjudicator an alternative reason to
allow your appeal, he or she may do so rather than have to
tussle with the difficult issue. That's how I view the decision
in my son's case. There is the occasional adjudicator who will
rise to the challenge: Sir Gary Hickinbottom was a solicitor who
became an adjudicator and rose to become first a Recorder, then
a High Court judge and finally a Lord Justice of Appeal.
If I were in your shoes, I'd throw in the challenge to the TMO
(see section 2 of the appeal document) as well as that based on
inadequate signage. Harrow's response to this during the appeal
was that "northern traffic island" and "southern traffic
island" referred to the traffic islands as viewed by motorists
approaching the restriction.
That is belied by the fact that there is actually only one
traffic island in each direction, on the left of the
width-restricted lane. The other structure is technically the
"central median strip" and has been referred to as such in TMOs
from 1974 onwards (including the current (2007)
width-restriction TMO). TMOs are technical documents and use
technical language. To approaching motorists there may appear to
be two traffic islands in each direction. If there were, there
would be four traffic islands in total. There aren't: there are
three kerbed structures: two traffic islands and one central
median strip.
Don't fall for Harrow's approach of working back from the
signage and what they would like the TMO to mean. The law (s.66
of RTRA 1984 and Regulation 18 of LATOR 1996) works forwards.
The TMO is the legal document which defines the restriction. The
Council is then required to place signage which indicates what
the restriction is, not what it wanted it to be. If they get the
TMO wrong (and they do appear to have gone wrong in 1999 when
they consolidated their TMOs for individual sites into two
omnibus TMOs, one for width restrictions and another for bus
restrictions), they can't rescue it by saying "Oops. That's not
what we meant to do."
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 5
DIR Next Page