Bus Lane offence Bromley

[graybear]

I recently received a PCN from Bromley Council for being in a bus lane. I appealed on several grounds - the killer one (I thought) being that the photos of the offence did not list the date, time, day of the week (not listed at all), and location of the offence in the correct order according to Section 5.12 of the Home Office's The Bus Lane Enforcement Camera Handbook (Second Edition) - but the appeal has been refused. Is that because there is a new edition of the Bus Lane Enforcement Handbook (that I don't know about) which has changed the above regs or is it just that the council can ignore these conditions if they choose? If so I am going to appeal again on the grounds that some of the wording on the Enforcement Notice is incorrect. Any advice would be helpful. Cheers.

[crem]

I suspect they have refused the appeal (even though you are right) on the basis that they think you will just believe them, roll over, and pay the fine.

 

I'm not an expert on these regs, but do think they require that info as you have stated, so hang tight and someone more clued up on it will be along shortly not doubt.

[graybear]

Ok, thanks crem. I ll hang on in there.

[lamma]

write (email) to the Homeoffice and ask for a copy of the new edition which supersedes the 2nd edition and quote Bromley's reference to it.

[green_and_mean]

There is no reference to photos in the section you quoted it refers to the cctv/dvd recording any photos sent to you are a seperate matter not covered in the guide.

[lamma]

the 'photos' are stills taken from the in place camera. so they edit the 'photo' to remove the information. I wonder why ? and if they are allowed to alter evidence ?

[green_and_mean]

the 'photos' are stills taken from the in place camera. so they edit the 'photo' to remove the information. I wonder why ? and if they are allowed to alter evidence ?

 

You dont have to edit the photo its digital you can either select to print the date or not, my own camera does it and it is just a cheap digital camera.

[lamma]

your camera is irrelevant. its what the images should contain for bus lane 'snaps' that counts. editing evidence not good and there is no reason at all for any council to do it. after all they have nothing to hide.

[green_and_mean]

your camera is irrelevant. its what the images should contain for bus lane 'snaps' that counts. editing evidence not good and there is no reason at all for any council to do it. after all they have nothing to hide.

 

It is possible that the software that transfers the photos to the PCN either cannot transfer the timestamp or that the size of the photo is cropped to fit the PCN removing the timestamp. It is all irrelevant since there is no legal need to have ANY photos on the PCN let alone ones with timestamps.

[lamma]

until a victim asks for one or forces on to be produced at adjudication. meanwhile lets see what happens about the alleged new version of the document that we are told Bromley spoke about. As its not on the HO site it could be interesting. is the HO wrong ? Is Bromley right ? Or is Bromley wrong ? if they are wrong is it just incompetence or is it deception ? And if either what about the mandated training for the back officer staff ? has it happened at all ? is there any kind of oversight ? If they are wrong was it just a rogue back room person ? if so how did they get such a letter out into the system ? where is the management oversight ? we can add all that to the issues around a compliant image. As ever the burden is on the council not the motorist. Make them carry the full burden that are supposed to carry. they take enough money on the basis of it. And after all they do employ 'professionals'.

[green_and_mean]

until a victim asks for one or forces on to be produced at adjudication. meanwhile lets see what happens about the alleged new version of the document that we are told Bromley spoke about. As its not on the HO site it could be interesting. is the HO wrong ? Is Bromley right ? Or is Bromley wrong ? if they are wrong is it just incompetence or is it deception ? And if either what about the mandated training for the back officer staff ? has it happened at all ? is there any kind of oversight ? If they are wrong was it just a rogue back room person ? if so how did they get such a letter out into the system ? where is the management oversight ? we can add all that to the issues around a compliant image. As ever the burden is on the council not the motorist. Make them carry the full burden that are supposed to carry. they take enough money on the basis of it. And after all they do employ 'professionals'.

 

Haven't got a clue what you are on about as no one has said (apart from in a question by the OP) that there is a new version of the manual. The OP appealled on the grounds the photos he got had no time on it and it was rejected correctly by Bromley as they are correct photos taken from the CCTV do not need to contain the information displayed on the video. What purpose you rant has defeats me??