Jump to content

RBKsuck

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RBKsuck

  1. Many points here. The main one being the fact that RBK submitted to the Adjudicator only a diagram/map showing signage and markings, and no other evidence as apparently the video evidence did not show the status. It appears the entry camera is not capable, on any day or week, of showing the sign status. It could be in Night Club mode, defaced or removed, therefore a diagram is not evidence that ANY signage or markings were in place at the time.
  2. They need the extra money to pay for the costs and refunds. We now don’t go to Apple Market to buy bread but go to Hinchley Wood. Also discovered very good Butchers and Fruit/Veg so £40 a week not spent in the Royal Borough.
  3. To be honest I’m fed up with it all and was at the point of paying up so it would go away. What makes me really cross is that talking to these RBK people, none of them live in the borough and they walk past this every morning. I am fuming that this is MY borough. I pay £2400 a year in council tax and how much is being squandered on Court costs, admin and general refunds. Furthermore RBK relies on shopping and general business in town and just how many money spending visitors have been put off returning to the town to spend or make money for other business. If RBK carry on like this IT WILL impact on shoppers and at a time when the business in the town need spending customers more than ever. I led with the argument of the markings according 17.2 and the start commencing half way across the junction. I was later asked by the adjudicator if I had any further information to add and I hit them with the entire list. They went for the lack of CCTV in the end, basically incomplete. Yes going for costs, my solicitors fees are nearly £600, at least I would like this back. What an appalling and totally ridiculous position at time when every penny is needed by the borough for proper services. Will send other details later, I don’t want them to see anything.
  4. Is this a new twist? After more than a year I have finally concluded this with the adjudicator recently ruling in my favour. The new twist in the whole saga was that it was kicked out on the grounds of lack of photographic/video evidence to show clearly what markings and signage were in place at the time of the offence. RBK video evidence, from the high camera opposite to old Post Office showed my car in the alleged bus lane BUT they were unable to produce matching evidence from the other camera (above Chinese) to match the time. In other words they used some old footage! In any event this later camera does not sufficiently pan to see a clear image of the sign face on. In other words there could be a pole with a defaced or missing sign, as it records a side view. Make of this what you will. Are the council incompetent and have no understanding of their legal obligations or own Code of Conduct? Or is it an attempt to contrive evidence? During this whole waste of time my solicitor expressed doubts over the July 2009 Order in which the council misspell St Jamess Road. He also discovered that the new ‘rotating’ sign used to re-sign the alleged (nearly 24hour) bus lane is switched during the early hours of the morning to allow traffic leaving the night club area to depart along Eden Street. In fact travel the wrong way up a one way street! BTW It appears the PATAS team are running about 8 weeks behind.
  5. Very bizarre, surely it is a full time bus lane or it is not. Can it be something else albeit temporary or does it require some Order? Please tell us if you find the mystery.
  6. I note that they have recently changed the Sign 953 you refer too (Eden Street/Union Street Junction), although still located on the same post. It is now a sign that can the ‘flipped’ or changed for whatever reason, by a folding hinge. I just wonder what is on the reverse!
  7. Fines Could Be Reclaimed - Says this weeks (2nd July) Surrey Comet A recent victim of this C/F Bus Lane won on the grounds of a wrongly worded PCN. The Royal Borough withdrew the charge for Mr Morgan after he informed them the wording was incorrect. A PCN must state “an enforcement notice MAY be served” but since 2005 RBK wording has be “Will be served”. This is information according to the Surrey Comet and it also states that last year 5,686 motorists paid the council a total of £342,000 for bus lane contraventions. As yet, this in not on line on the Comet site.
  8. You are correct. The sign 962 is not a requirement. The camera sign is also not also a requirement but is recommended good practice. For bus lane enforcement there is no requirement for an approved device under London Local Authorities Act 1996. The 1996 Act requires that the equipment be a prescribed device, described in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (as amended) as: "a camera designed or adapted to record the presence of a vehicle on an area of road which is a bus lane or route for use by buses only." If bus lane enforcement is being performed under the Transport Act 2000 then an approved device is required. Approval is similar to that for parking enforcement except that the system must additionally comply with the Bus Lanes (Approved Devices) (England) Order 2005. This section of Eden Street is not a bus lane. The east-west section, from Union Street to opposite the Old Post Office (Brook Street) is a contra flow bus lane according to an order passed in July 2009. Viewing Page 11882 of Issue 59124
  9. Green and Mean. The person has said they have been caught driving or being in a bus lane - that is the alleged offence. I don’t think they have been charged with turning right. Clearly he/she has turned right and not seen the sign, there is a picture of an example of how it can be obscured. Bus Lanes require a Traffic Management Order, as do simple on street parking arrangements and one way streets etc. Turning right into a bus land. Do you work for Kingston Council? Of course a sign is required. If approaching head on the sign (I think 935) is required at a ratio of 1:30, in other words 30 metres before, if in a 30 mph area. Joining junctions required a sign prior to the junction. If CCTV is being used as enforcement, then the appropriate signage must be displayed at all approaching roads (the area). I cannot comment on the end of bus lane sign as I wasn’t there today. Of course approval is required for ANY enforcement camera. There are very strict specifications (ignored by RBK) for the device, for the control, maintainance, recording, storage of material and use of such material. If you don’t work for the Royal Borough of Kingston, then it must be London Borough of Barking.
  10. I’ve have a load of problems with RBK over the Eden Street Bus Lane Scheme. It really is a money making [problem] and totally unlawful. On one Saturday I videoed 19 drivers enter the Lane unawares during the period of about 80 mins. This is netting MY council up to £7000 - £10,000 a day on a busy Saturday, let alone the rest of the week. Even people at the Council have admitted that it is unlawful and the people running the collection do not have any control or contact with the engineers installing the signage system. I even spoke to the Head of Highways and he told me that the team were unhelpful and even named names of people not worth trying to talk to. There is one person there who is openly anti-car and told me as such. What makes me fume is that most of them don’t live in the borough but actually walk past these signs twice a day on the way to their [problem] factory. The section of Eden Street you mention is NOT a Bus lane, although it was proposed to make it a Contra Flow Bus Lane. When I asked the RBK about the lawfulness of that section, they actually replied in writing, they were not sure! As far as I can see, the section is a Bus Only Street as, although proposed to change in 2009, the northern section of Eden Street did not appear on the Notification under the Traffic Management Act. What is the code reference on the PCN? I think 34J only applies to a Bus Lane Contravention. The whole area is a dog’s dinner and has been ‘adjusted’ piecemeal over the years. If it wasn’t for collection access for Eden Walk, the street really should be car free but a complex mess of part-regulation make it a motorists nightmare and a council honey pot. There was a case in 2008 where a motorist (Mr Adnan Majeed) proved that the then current ‘powers’ used on Eden Street were unlawful because they were only granted on an experimental basis for 18 months. You might want to look into this. I do not think you are going to get very far with RBK as they don’t have a clue and will reject any claim and fail to answer any questions, only to waste money going to appeal. I have spent hours of my time and paid a solicitor to advise me, all of which will have to be refunded by RBK. I am afraid you will have to do all the work yourself and the only way they will confirm anything is by requesting under the Freedom of Information Act. There are several points of appeal and I would say regardless of the no right turn sign being obscured, there is not an advanced warning of a bus lane when approaching. If you were caught on camera, where is the statutory sign in Lady Booth Road warning you that camera enforcement is being used. The end of Bus Lane sign is missing, therefore rendering the Bus Lane not compliant. The Camera used (probably Number 8) is not approved for this purpose either. RBK has a CoP on their website regarding the use of cameras, although it is part of a standard document issued by all councils, it interestingly omits a few paragraphs in reference to what footage is required to fully support their enforcement actions. For the other section of Eden Street the TMO is invalid because they didn’t spell the name of the road correctly. They do not have the powers to enforce a No right turn so don’t even bother with that. Keep us all informed.
×
×
  • Create New...