DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 94286--------------------------------------------------
Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: satsuki726
Date: October 16, 2025, 5:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I drove through the bus gates on Camrose Ave in Harrow since I
have never been there and the parked cars have made me focus on
them instead of the signage itself so that when I realised it
was to late. Also today was clear but just too dark for me to
actually see the bus gate text printed on ground, a car behind
me also went through so I suppose this would not be uncommon.
Please could anyone inform if I have any grounds to challange
this?
PCN images
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/BEh5jp2#2TPzHfB
#Post#: 94408--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: satsuki726
Date: October 16, 2025, 3:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
CCTV footage:
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/eTuJDnq#MfNfHAe
#Post#: 94430--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: October 16, 2025, 6:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: satsuki726 link ---
>
> CCTV footage:
>
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/eTuJDnq#MfNfHAe
>
--- End Quote ---
Here, I think : -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/2Br6fd5SmUrhEFkZ8
Signage seems correct
Advance warning of a width limit, but nothing about a bus gate:
-
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/hdBDPpTxoAgc8PLu5
If you decide to fight it, be aware that the council will refuse
your reps, so you'd have to take them to London Tribunals with
the full PCN in play. London councils make millions from PCN
penalties by refusing all reps, because they know that most
people (>95%), then just cough up. Its a nice little earner for
them and cheap to operate too.
#Post#: 94463--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: October 17, 2025, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
1. The alleged contravention is not proved because the video
does not show any alleged upright signage passed.
2. I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the
PCN as it is missing mandatory information as provided at Para.
4 (8 ) (v) of
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the
28 day period, an increased charge may be payable.
Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (iii):
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
Therefore, it follows that the statement: If you fail to pay the
Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a
period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this
notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable. adds to the
lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the
required information was included or not, it is also arguable
that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many
would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the
statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still
no clarity due to the missing information.
Therefore. please cancel.
#Post#: 94654--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: satsuki726
Date: October 18, 2025, 5:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> 1. The alleged contravention is not proved because the video
does not show any alleged upright signage passed.
>
> 2. I make this collateral challenge against the validity of
the PCN as it is missing mandatory information as provided at
Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of
>
>
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
>
> (v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of
the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable.
>
> Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (iii):
>
> (iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of
the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
>
> Therefore, it follows that the statement: If you fail to pay
the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a
period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this
notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable. adds to the
lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the
required information was included or not, it is also arguable
that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many
would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the
statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still
no clarity due to the missing information.
>
> Therefore. please cancel.
>
--- End Quote ---
Great appreciations for your help!
Also I have got a question (might indeed be a silly one). I am
not quite sure about which option to select when submitting the
challenge, should it be 'moving contravention (CCTV)' or 'bus
lane contravention (CCTV)'?
#Post#: 94655--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: satsuki726
Date: October 18, 2025, 5:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> [quote author=satsuki726 link=topic=8419.msg94408#msg94408
date=1760647384]
> CCTV footage:
>
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/eTuJDnq#MfNfHAe
>
--- End Quote ---
Here, I think : -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/2Br6fd5SmUrhEFkZ8
Signage seems correct
Advance warning of a width limit, but nothing about a bus gate:
-
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/hdBDPpTxoAgc8PLu5
If you decide to fight it, be aware that the council will refuse
your reps, so you'd have to take them to London Tribunals with
the full PCN in play. London councils make millions from PCN
penalties by refusing all reps, because they know that most
people (>95%), then just cough up. Its a nice little earner for
them and cheap to operate too.
[/quote]
Thanks a lot! For the hearing part would it be a telephone one?
Also would I still have a chance to take it to court if that was
also rejected?
Just wondering what is your opinion on whether those grounds are
sufficient to reject this PCN.
Many thanks indeed!
#Post#: 94658--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: October 18, 2025, 5:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Also would I still have a chance to take it to court if that
was also rejected?
--- End Quote ---
The adjudicators are the final part of the process. Why ?
Because government decided in 1990 that the full panoply of
civil courts in a decrminalised parking enforcement process was
disproportionate to the levels of penalties demanded which were
regarded at the time as fairly trivial. And to be fair, they
still are outside London, but in London are now seriously
disproportionate to the actual offences, being well over double
the rest of England and Wales. In addition, this process avoids
any possibility of a CCJ
Having said the above, if you disagree with an adjudicator's
decision, you can request a review, which may or may not be
granted. Finally you can request a judicial review, a very
costly thing to undertake, and, if you lose you must pay the
other party's costs. So my advice is forget this, and accept
that the process stops at the adjudicator's decision.
As for my opinion on whether your case is strong, depends.
Item 1 can be refuted by the council by providing evidence to
the adjudicators that signs were in position and show
photographs and a witness statement. An adjudication is a civil
venue and the test of evidence is "on the balance of
probabilities" It's much stronger to show in your appela
statement that signs are not present if they aren't.
Item 2 is what we call a "collateral" argument, not related to
the contravention itself, which has force by showing that the
council have failed in their statutory duty to follow the
regulations that they are obliged in law to do. This has
succeeded in the past, but for a full explanation, you'd be
better hearing from Hippocrates himself.
#Post#: 94659--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: satsuki726
Date: October 18, 2025, 5:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
>
> As for my opinion on whether your case is strong, depends.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks a lot for your explanation
#Post#: 94716--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: October 19, 2025, 11:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@satsuki726 My view is that the arguments against PCNs at
Camrose Avenue are strong. But you need to understand that you
are taking a risk as logic and legal argument may not prevail.
I suggest the representations below (which are not specific to
your case and could be used by anyone who receives a PCN on
Camrose Avenue).
While point 1 may seem abstruse, it's a bit like a "poison pill"
which companies put in place to protect against takeovers. Most
people, adjudicators included, like a simple life. They are on a
treadmill of cases and have a fixed time allocation for each
one. They prefer to avoid issues which are challenging. This is
especially true if allowing an appeal on those grounds would
lead to a demand from the council for a review.
In this case, allowing an appeal on ground 1 would amount to
finding that the TMO, although legally valid (because, by
legislation, that follows automatically if it hasn't been
challenged within 6 weeks of its being made) was unenforceable.
That would raise the question of whether all the PCNs issued
since 2007 would have been wrongful and needed to be refunded.
While Harrow might just sit out a few losses, if lots of appeals
went against them on these grounds or the political heat rose,
Harrow would eventually seek judicial review. This is the last
thing which the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators want. They
have a budget and have to bear the costs of defending themselves
in judicial reviews. The appellant against the PCN is named as a
third party in the judicial review but usually does not appear:
the case is between the council and the adjudicators as a public
body.
The consequence is that adjudicators inevitably shy away from
considering tough issues, especially if they may lead to a
finding that the TMO is unenforceable. But they're obliged to be
fair and they are trained lawyers. So they prefer to allow an
appeal on another, less controversial, ground. The council is
happy with this as it, too, much prefers the status quo.
By far the best outcome for both the adjudicators and the
council is if the adjudicator can allow the appeal on grounds
which do not set a precedent for other cases. This applies if
the appellant appears at the hearing and the adjudicator can
then say:
--- Quote ---
> Mr X appeared before me and said ... I found him a credible
witness and find, as a matter of fact, that ... I therefore
allow the appeal.
--- End Quote ---
Such findings of fact cannot be overturned except in extreme
cases.
I would therefore advise you, if at all possible, to add your
own final grounds of appeal. This should be something which
happened to you which you argue means that they should allow
your appeal. Don't worry if it seems a bit feeble. It's a
get-out which enables them to allow the appeal without setting a
precedent.
---------------------------------------------------------
Representations against PCN no. XXXXX for Contravention 33E on
Camrose Avenue
The PCN alleges contravention 33E - USING A ROUTE RESTRICTED TO
CERTAIN VEHICLES BUSES CYCLES AND TAXIS ONLY.
I reject this allegation. No contravention occurred for the
following reasons:
1. The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016, which
supposedly underlies the allegation, does not, in fact, restrict
traffic using the inside lane between the traffic island and the
footway to buses, cycles and taxis only. Instead the
restrictions which it defines apply in each direction between
the traffic island and the central median strip. This is because
the Council made a mistake in 1999 when consolidating bus
restrictions into a single TMO.
The Harrow (Prescribed Routes) (No. 2) Traffic Order 1976 was
the original TMO for Camrose Avenue. It defined both the width
restriction and the bus-only restriction (as they then were).
The latter applied:
--- Quote ---
> on the south-eastern side of the north-easternmost island site
[and] on the north-west side of the south-westernmost island
site
--- End Quote ---
In 1999 Harrow consolidated the various individual TMOs into two
TMOs, one for width restrictions and one for bus-priority
restrictions.
The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order
1999 defined "prohibited lengths" between "the eastern island"
and "the southern kerb-line" and between the "western island"
and the "northern kerb-line". All traffic was banned here unless
permitted under another TMO.
The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999 defined the areas
of road to which bus-restrictions applied as:
--- Quote ---
> Westbound: the carriageway to the south of the southern
traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale
Avenue;
> Eastbound: the carriageway to the north of the northern
traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale
Avenue.
--- End Quote ---
Thus the 1999 consolidated orders transformed the north-eastern
traffic island into "the eastern traffic island" in the
width-restriction order but "the southern traffic island" in the
bus-priority order. Likewise, the orders transformed the
south-western traffic island into "the western traffic island"
in the width-restriction order but "the northern traffic island"
in the bus-priority order. The mistakes in the bus-priority
order have been repeated in subsequent TMOs up to and including
the current ones.
Inspection of a plan of the site shows that the entire
south-western traffic island (which splits eastbound traffic)
lies to the south of the entire north-eastern traffic island
(which splits westbound traffic). There is only one possible
interpretation of "southern traffic island" and it is what the
1976 TMO referred to as "the south-westernmost island site". No
amount of creative interpretation can turn "southern" into
"western" or "northern". The bus-priority TMOs contain mistakes
in their compass-points. The consequences must be allowed to
play out.
The TMOs are local legislation. They define the restrictions
which apply. The signage is placed to show the effect of the
TMOs. The presence of signage purportedly restricting the lanes
between the traffic islands and the footway to buses, cycles and
taxis does not create such a restriction. Nor does the placing
of signage assist the courts in interpreting what the TMO means.
The TMOs themselves do that.
2. The Council has failed to provide adequate information about
the restrictions which it imposes. Regulation 18 of The Local
Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales)
Regulations 1996
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18<br
/>(LATOR) requires the placing of such traffic signs as the
Council
--- Quote ---
> consider requisite for securing that adequate information as
to the effect of the order is made available to persons using
the road
--- End Quote ---
In R (Oxfordshire CC) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894
(Admin)
HTML https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/894.html,<br
/>Beatson J found:
--- Quote ---
> 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; see James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676.
--- End Quote ---
In James v Cavey, Winn LJ wrote (Ashworth and Widgery JJ
concurring):
--- Quote ---
> The short answer in my view which requires that this appeal
should be allowed is that the local authority here did not take
such steps as they were required to take under that regulation.
They did not take steps which clearly could have been taken and
which clearly would have been practicable to cause adequate
information to be given to persons using the road by the signs
which they erected. ...
--- End Quote ---
This paragraph was quoted with approval by Burnton LJ at
paragraph 36 of the judgment in R (Neil Herron et al) v The
Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWCA Civ 905
HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/905.html
(Aikens
LJ and Sir David Keene concurring). It remains current
jurisprudence binding on the High Court as well as on tribunals
and adjudicators.
The assessment of the adequacy of the signage therefore covers
not only signs which were present but also signs which could
have been placed but which had not.
The first signage of a bus restriction which motorists see are
the blue roundels (diagram 953) at the restrictions. Long before
this, there are notices of the width restriction ahead,
including on side roads warning of the width restriction if
motorists turn towards the restriction. Those advance notice
signs show one of the effects of the width-restriction TMO: the
width-restriction which applies to the outer lane at the
restriction.
But the width-restriction TMO actually applies restrictions to
both lanes westbound and both lanes eastbound. In the inside
lane, it allows vehicles which are permitted by other TMOs. The
Council asserts that the bus-priority TMO allows buses, cycles
and taxis in the inside lanes. It follows that, as far as the
Council is concerned, the effects of the width-priority TMO
include permitting buses, cycles and taxis to avoid the width
restriction in the outer lane. Yet the Council has chosen not to
show these as effects of the width-restriction TMO. This means,
for instance, that drivers of vehicles with 8 or more seats for
passengers (the definition of "bus"), such as those used by
schools and care homes, are not told that they can bypass the
width restriction in the outer lane.
If the full effects of the width-restriction TMO were shown in
advance, motorists who are not driving buses would be aware that
a bus restriction lay ahead in the inside lane while a 2m width
restriction applied to the outer lane (such a sign has only been
prescribed since 2016; before then, special permission would
have been required).
Motorists would also be aware of the bus restriction ahead if
signs to diagram 877 were placed 20m before the restrictions.
This sign, which shows that the inside lane turns into a bus
lane at the junction ahead, has been available since 1975.
Since 2016, more explicit "lane gain" signs have also been
available under Schedule 12 of TSRGD 2016. These can be
configured to show that a single lane splits into two lanes
ahead and the restrictions which apply to each: in this
instance, that the inside lane is for buses, cycles and taxis,
while the outer lane has a 2.0m width restriction. These signs
can also show where turns can be made into side roads.
In an important report into the bus gate on John Dobson Street,
Newcastle
HTML https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/TPT-Adjudicator-Decision_John-Dobson-Street-Bus-Gate_Newcastle_150720.pdf,<br
/>the Chief Adjudicator observed:
--- Quote ---
> 5.17. ... Buses can reasonably be anticipated on a bus route,
in both directions, and in bus lanes. There will inevitably be
frequent times when a driver is following a bus, which is also
likely to stop at a bus stop. Therefore, the presence of buses
must be factored in to sign design and engineering.
--- End Quote ---
When bus lanes start, there is a dashed white line (diagram
1010) 250 or 300mm wide diagonally across the lane which tells
motorists that the lane is about to become a bus lane. This
isn't present for bus gates, so upright signs such as diagram
877 are vital.
As it is, there is no advance signage on Camrose Avenue of the
bus restriction. The first indication motorists see are the blue
roundels to diagram 953. These are not advance notice signs:
they are regulatory signs which must be placed at the
restriction. Those on Camrose Avenue are 600mm diameter.
Appendix A to Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf<br
/>specifies that, where the 85th percentile speed of private
cars
using the road is between 21 and 30 mph, this sign should be
750mm in diameter. As the Appendix notes:
--- Quote ---
> It should be borne in mind that smaller signs are likely to be
seen later, and do not become legible until drivers are closer
to them, with less time to react.
--- End Quote ---
3. The Council asserts that the restriction is correctly and
clearly signed and can be seen at any time of the day. By
default, councils are entitled to the Presumption of Regularity.
This holds that councils do things correctly in accordance with
the law and that what they say is true. The previous two points
have shown that Harrow Council have:
- made mistakes in drawing up the 1999 bus-priority TMO which
have been repeated ever since;
- placed advance signs for the width-restriction TMO which
failed to comply with Regulation 18 of LATOR 1996;
- failed to provide advance signage of the bus-priority
restriction.
I shall now demonstrate how some signage which has been placed
(and on which Harrow rely) is not as prescribed in the Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). This
makes the placing of those signs ultra vires. While the signs
are indeed present on the highway, administrative law dictates
that the misfeasor (Harrow Council) cannot use those signs in
making its case.
It follows that the adjudicator must disregard the signs in
assessing the adequacy of the signage. This is quite different
to the latitude granted by the judgment in R (Neil Herron et al)
v The Parking Adjudicator to minor defects in the signage of
zones. That case was concerned with a parking zone where there
are many signs across the zone. The court held that defects in a
few signs, which were remote from the site of the alleged
contravention, did not invalidate the zone as a whole. Here we
are concerned with whether individual signs have been placed
lawfully.
The signs in question are two curved white arrows on the
carriageway before the restriction. Harrow calls these
"directional white arrows" which "give motorists guidance as to
the lane they should be travelling in".
These arrows are known technically as "deflection arrows". They
are defined as diagram 1014 at Item 14 in TSRGD 2016 Schedule 11
Part 4
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/part/4/made.<br
/>The description is:
--- Quote ---
> (a) direction in which vehicular traffic should pass a road
marking [followed by a list];
> (b) obstruction on the carriageway ahead;
> (c) reduction in the number to traffic lanes in the
carriageway ahead; or
> (d) path to be taken by vehicular traffic to avoid a route for
tramcars only
--- End Quote ---
Of these, (d) is irrelevant, as is (c). As regards (b), it would
be stretching the meaning of “obstruction” to regard a traffic
island as an obstruction. That leaves passing one of the
specified road markings.
The relevant road markings specified in TSRGD 2016 are:
--- Quote ---
> Schedule 9 Part 6
> Item 7: boundary of a mandatory cycle lane (diagram 1049B);
> Item11: boundary of a bus lane (diagram 1049A);
> Item 23: white line markings which must not be crossed and
where it is prohibited to stop (diagram 1013.1);
> Schedule 11 Part 4
> Item 23: white hatching with broken boundary between opposing
directions of travel (diagram 1040);
> Item 24: white hatching with a solid boundary at an offside
reduction in width (diagram 1040.3);
> Item 25: white hatching with a broken boundary at a nearside
reduction in width (diagram 1040.4).
--- End Quote ---
None of these is present on Camrose Avenue. The markings in
front of the traffic islands are to diagram 1041, which is very
similar to diagram 1040 but has chevron hatching rather than
diagonal hatching.
As there is no relevant road marking, the signs to diagram 1014
are not as prescribed in TSRGD 2016.
Section 65 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 empowers Councils
to
--- Quote ---
> cause or permit traffic signs to be placed on or near a road
--- End Quote ---
Section 64 defines "traffic signs" as signs specified by
regulations (i.e. TSRGD) or authorised by the relevant authority
(i.e. specially authorised by DfT). Harrow has not obtained
special permission to place diagram 1014 in a non-prescribed way
on Camrose Avenue.
It follows that the signs have not been placed in accordance
with the powers granted to the Council. The Council acted ultra
vires in placing those signs. They must not be considered as
present on the carriageway when assessing the adequacy of the
signage.
4. Case-specific argument to be written by the appellant.
#Post#: 94771--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: satsuki726
Date: October 20, 2025, 5:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bustagate link ---
>
> 4. Case-specific argument to be written by the appellant.
>
--- End Quote ---
I would add the grounds provided by Hippocrates as well as from
my understanding it causes no harm?
I would also say that it was dark so not enough time to react
and too dangerous to reverse out since there's another car
behind (shown in CCTV)?
Again, thank you so much for you help.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page