DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 94798--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: October 20, 2025, 7:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just put everything into the mix. They will have met it all
before.
#Post#: 94884--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: October 20, 2025, 2:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=7063]satsuki726[/member] Yes, very much to saying that
it was dark and that, as you were being followed, it was unsafe
for you to brake suddenly and then swerve back into the outer
lane. If you appear at the hearing, that is precisely the sort
of thing which enables adjudicators to say that they've heard
you, you are a credible witness and that they are satisfied that
there was no contravention as it was unsafe for you not to go
through the bus gate.
#Post#: 94905--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: satsuki726
Date: October 20, 2025, 7:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=3617]Bustagate[/member]
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member]
[member=12]Incandescent[/member]
Great appreciations for all of your help.
I have just submitted a challenge (Harrow Council) but I guess
it's just a part of procedure which will do nothing.
Just wondering if I should attend the hearing for London
Tribunals in person? Or it just does not make a difference.
Thanks again.
#Post#: 94920--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: October 21, 2025, 3:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: satsuki726 link ---
>
> . . .
>
> Just wondering if I should attend the hearing for London
Tribunals in person? Or it just does not make a difference.
>
> Thanks again.
>
--- End Quote ---
It it can make an enormous difference, as in person (these days
= by telephone or video-link) you can answer any queries the
adjudicator may have and can make any last minute points etc.
Advice is to never choose a decision on papers.
But you are not yet at the stage of registering at the Tribunal
- wait and see how Harrow respond.
Meanwhile, please post up a copy of what you submitted.
#Post#: 94965--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: October 21, 2025, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=7063]satsuki726[/member] In due course, please also post
Harrow's response to your representations.
I don't think Harrow understand their TMOs on Camrose Avenue. I
asked them about the overlap between the two TMOs. They said
that when a new bus-priority TMO was made, this automatically
revoked the width-restriction TMO insofar as it applied to the
bus lanes.
That is not correct. The authors of the width-restriction TMO
were clever: they set it up to allow for other TMOs on the
non-width-restricted parts of the carriageway, so both TMOs
apply simultaneously.
Harrow's explanation of why the bus-priority TMO specifies that
westbound the bus-priority restriction lies to the south of the
southern traffic island is that the traffic island which splits
westbound traffic is the southern of the two traffic islands
facing westbound traffic. This appears to me to be post hoc
rationalisation of something which they couldn't understand but
which had been in the TMO for years, "so it must be true" (aka
"it's too ghastly to admit we've ***ed up").
If there were two traffic islands facing westbound traffic and
two traffic islands facing eastbound traffic (as required to
explain the "northern traffic island" in that part of the TMO),
there would be four traffic islands in total.
There are not. There are three kerbed structures at the
restrictions:
- the south-western traffic island, which splits eastbound
traffic
- the north-eastern traffic island, which splits westbound
traffic
- the central median strip, which divides eastbound from
westbound traffic
TMOs use formal language. There is nothing in the TMO to suggest
that the geographic designation "southern" relates to "as viewed
by an approaching motorist who regards the central median strip
as a traffic island".
The fact that the width-restriction TMO transforms the
south-western traffic island into the "western" one for the
prohibited length and the north-eastern one into the "eastern"
one demonstrates that these compass points have their normal
meaning and are not relative to some other (unspecified) object.
#Post#: 94981--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: satsuki726
Date: October 21, 2025, 7:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> 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 (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
>
> In R (Oxfordshire CC) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC
894 (Admin), 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.
>
> 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. ...
>
> 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 (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, 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.
> 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 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.
>
>
> 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:
>
> •
have been repeated ever since;
> •
failed to comply with Regulation 18 of LATOR 1996;
> •
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. 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
> 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).
> 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
> 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. The alleged contravention is not proved because the video
does not show any alleged upright signage passed.
>
> 5. 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.
>
> 6. In my case, the time for anticipating the sign was not
enough, also due to the fact that it was dark. Therefore, it was
too late for me to drive into the width limit. There was also a
car behind so it was too dangerous to reverse out.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
I just copy and pasted basically, adding my 'case-specific'
part. Will post any response if received.
Again, great thanks to all who have helped.
#Post#: 95009--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: October 21, 2025, 8:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Put them to strict proof that the sign was illuminated.
#Post#: 95050--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: satsuki726
Date: October 21, 2025, 12:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member]
Sorry a bit confused about what you have said. Please could you
kindly clarify that. From my understanding I should say the sign
was not illuminated when going to london tribunals? Or should I
just say 'please prove'.
Thanks
#Post#: 95104--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: October 21, 2025, 4:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have thought about this. I will redraft tomorrow as it is too
long.
#Post#: 95223--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E Used a bus gate Camrose Ave
DIR By: satsuki726
Date: October 22, 2025, 2:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member]
Just wondering if you could kindly explain. No rush since I have
not yet received anything from harrow yet, just still confused
about what to do. Many thanks.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page