Kingston Eden Street Bus Lanes

[HYMN AND MI]

Your story is yet another testament to the poor signage. Request all photographic evidence and an appointment to see the video, as you have already gleaned from this thread.

[smartymarts]

Hello

 

Was a bit bewildered to receive a ticket from Kingston for driving in a bus lane in Eden Street. I have looked at Google streetview, and although this is old photos, it does seem there is a 'bus lane' after all. I drove straight along Eden street and onto the bus lane. Looking at the streetview images, there are no signs to indicate that a bus lane is upcoming. Does anyone know if this is still the case, and if so is this grounds for appeal? Also, if this is not grounds for appeal, are there any other grounds for appeal. Looking at previous posts, it seems that this catches out a lot of people.

 

Thanks in anticipation.

[green_and_mean]

Hello

 

Was a bit bewildered to receive a ticket from Kingston for driving in a bus lane in Eden Street. I have looked at Google streetview, and although this is old photos, it does seem there is a 'bus lane' after all. I drove straight along Eden street and onto the bus lane. Looking at the streetview images, there are no signs to indicate that a bus lane is upcoming. Does anyone know if this is still the case, and if so is this grounds for appeal? Also, if this is not grounds for appeal, are there any other grounds for appeal. Looking at previous posts, it seems that this catches out a lot of people.

 

Thanks in anticipation.

 

As far as I recall there is a sign stating all traffic should turn right but this is infact not lawfully placed as buses taxis and cycles can go straight on so it only adds to the confusion.

[HYMN AND MI]

I think it would be useful to obtain the Traffic Order for this sign from the Council.

[HYMN AND MI]

Another case won at PATAS - on the wording issue re PCN: will be served as opposed to may be served. However, what concerns me is the number of cases not allowed at PATAS with the same wording! Do these adjudicators actually read the paperwork I have to ask myself? The EN of RBK is even more riddled with similar errors.

 

Unfortunately, this loophole is now closed. Perhaps the 23,000 who received similar PCN's should take RBK to the Small Claims Court retrospectively in light of this decision. I defer to the original OP to provide further details. Nevertheless, the EN is even more outrageous in its non-compliance.

[Dolph]

Hi all.

 

I have done a google search on the issue of PCNs in Eden Street as I have just recieved one.

I came across this thread and I was wondering how I go about trying to cancel the PCN as it is totally out of order. I would be very grateful if the people who have successfully had their PCNs cancelled could let me know the basis of their appeal.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Many thanks.

[HYMN AND MI]

The first thing to do is require all photographic and video evidence from the Council. The former they should send to you, the latter you will have to arrange to view at their offices in Kingston. Look for all signage in place on the day and whether your car is proved to have passed it. They will put the case on hold when you ask for the photographic evidence etc. Take pictures of all current signage. I would correspond in writing, via e-mail: their website has a standard form to challenge a PCN.

[green_and_mean]

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/StatReg/case.aspx?caseref=2110201669 The most recent victory

[HYMN AND MI]

Thanks. Had problems with the link so had to go to PATAS direct. Very useful case.

[HYMN AND MI]

This case is useful re video evidence and defintion of a bus lane and sign used: 210063849. I don't think the inexact locus on the PCN has been argued before: simply states "Eden Street". This case is useful: 2060381000.

 

They have changed the wording on the Enforcement Notice: gone is the "will" re issue of a Charge Certifcate, changed to "may". I still believe the grounds statements are confusing and prejudicial and the timing issue "within". This case is useful: 2100433329

[HYMN AND MI]

There is another issue with the signage. You can hardly read the BUS LANE legend on approach as it is painted on the downward slope of the road: had a good look at it today. In fact, I would even argue that you could not read it even when you are on the lane, certainly from the height of your seat in the car.

[DavidWilkins]

I have received a bill in the post for entering this "bus lane" - at 18 30 on Sat 11 June. As St James Rd was closed northbound for roadworks, I followed yellow diversion signs from Wheatfield Way via Ashdown Rd & Eden St, wanting to get to All Saints Church via Union St. There was a "No right Turn" sign on the lamp post at the Eden St/Union St crosssroads so I carried on to the next roundabout, turned round & came back. I was completely flummoxed to find then a "No left turn" sign facing me & in my confusion entered this so-called bus lane.

 

I feel completely "had" by Kingston Council as there should be red-ringed prohibitory signs, not a blue sign, which only means that buses MUST follow that route. When I checked on site yesterday the "No right turn" sign has disappeared, but there are marks on the post where it was. Was it supposed to face northbound traffic on St James Rd?

 

The PCN refers to the Road Traffic At 1984 & London Local Authorities Act 1996 & the code for the alleged offence is 34J.

 

Does anyone have any advice for me?

[HYMN AND MI]

E-mail the council for the photographic evidence and make an appointment to view the video evidence. All sound advice is given in this thread as to what to look for. Act within 14 days of date of the PCN so that they will freeze the rate of the penalty charge.

 

That was quite a route you took - may be useful as a mitigating circumstance.

[green_and_mean]

I feel completely "had" by Kingston Council as there should be red-ringed prohibitory signs, not a blue sign, which only means that buses MUST follow that route.

 

No it doesn't you need to brush up on your highway code it means that no more than the blue cycle lane sign means cycles must use it.

[DavidWilkins]

Thanks. Yes I have acted within the timeframe. Yes I have visited the town hall & seen the video- which only seems to show me crossing the crossroads- but presumably they have more footage which they didn't show me.

 

It's the No Right Turn sign which bugs me because if it hadn't been for that I would have had no problem. Does anyone with previous knowledge of the Council's squirming on this "bus lane" issue have any knowledge of this sign at the top of St James Rd to stop traffic turning onto the Eden St bus zone?

 

D

[HYMN AND MI]

In the original authorisation and plan which I have seen and have in my possession, the turn right sign(s) - there are two, one just before the lane itself - do not form part of the authorisation. I trust you have a picture of them both and you should write to RBK about this, asking them if they have added this trun right sign with the DfT's approval or not.

[DavidWilkins]

Thanks, but this was a NO right turn sign, which was facing me at the crossroads, when heading west on Eden St. It's gone now, but I'm wondering if it was intended to face northbound traffic on St James Rd & got turned round.

 

D

[HYMN AND MI]

You mean a pole sign? If so, and you say it is gone, a Traffic Order (temporary) must have been in place. Again, ask the council.

[green_and_mean]

Case Reference:2100646953

Appellant:Mrs Anna Neville

Authority:Kingston Upon Thames

VRM:GF07YXB

PCN:KT55280527

Contravention Date:29 May 2010

Contravention Time:12:52

Contravention Location:Eden Street

Penalty Amount:£120.00

Contravention:Being in a bus lane

Decision Date:01 Jul 2011

Adjudicator:Andrew Harman

Appeal Decision:Allowed

Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.Reasons:This appeal was scheduled for personal hearing earlier today.

Neither party to the proceedings attended.

It has now been listed before me for determination on the papers.

I have considered all of the detailed submissions made by the appellant and am not persuaded as to the merit of any of the points she makes but in cases such as this where an appellant raises the issue of signage it is incumbent upon the council to establish that its signage complies with the legal requirements. The council submits that non-prescribed signage at this location is subject to Department of Transport (DOT) authorisation but although it provides a DOT drawing showing such signage it does not supply a copy of the Secretary of State's authorisation. I cannot therefore be satisfied on the evidence adduced by the council that its signage is compliant and find that the contravention has not been proved. I must accordingly allow the appeal.

[HYMN AND MI]

Well done that lady! Fascinating. Actually, the council did the drawing and this decision begs the question: does/did Kingston ever produce any such evidence in prior cases?! A stroke of luck!

 

Of course, this has ramifications re consistency amongst PATAS adjudicators.

 

Thanks for posting this, G and M.

Edited July 12, 2011 by HYMN AND MI

[pierskarsenbarg]

Firstly, I haven't read all the posts as I'm at work and I think I know what the answer will be, but I thought I'd see what suggestions come up.

 

On the 27th November 2010 I drove down this street, allegedly breaking the law. The first I heard about it was last Thursday when I got a letter from a collection agency threatening me with a warrant of execution. I asked for and received the photo evidence about this (which I can attach if necessary). They had sent the letters to my old address (I changed address just after this) so I knew nothing about it.

 

I'm not from Kingston and I don't know the town at all (I was there for the Christmas market) so I had no idea that I was not supposed to be on there (nor do I even remember the signage).

 

Now, the issue that I have, is that I'm being threatened with a warrant of execution by the collection agency, so time is possibly very short here (TBH, I'm not entirely sure what a warrant of execution really is) and although I've asked, Kingston say they won't hold it off.

 

Does anyone have any advice, or should I just bite the bullet and pay, although it seems that Kingston may not be in the right here.

[green_and_mean]

Firstly, I haven't read all the posts as I'm at work and I think I know what the answer will be, but I thought I'd see what suggestions come up.

 

On the 27th November 2010 I drove down this street, allegedly breaking the law. The first I heard about it was last Thursday when I got a letter from a collection agency threatening me with a warrant of execution. I asked for and received the photo evidence about this (which I can attach if necessary). They had sent the letters to my old address (I changed address just after this) so I knew nothing about it.

 

I'm not from Kingston and I don't know the town at all (I was there for the Christmas market) so I had no idea that I was not supposed to be on there (nor do I even remember the signage).

 

Now, the issue that I have, is that I'm being threatened with a warrant of execution by the collection agency, so time is possibly very short here (TBH, I'm not entirely sure what a warrant of execution really is) and although I've asked, Kingston say they won't hold it off.

 

Does anyone have any advice, or should I just bite the bullet and pay, although it seems that Kingston may not be in the right here.

 

It has gone beyond the did I or didn't I do it point so you need to get the warrant cancelled by doing a statutary declaration..

 

Statutory Declaration

 

 

Where an Order for Recovery has been made, liability for the penalty can then ONLY be challenged in the following circumstances:

 

• you did not receive the Enforcement Notice in question; or
  

• you made representations to the local authority concerned but did not receive a Notice of Rejection from that authority; or
  

• you appealed to the Adjudicator against the rejection by the local authority of your representations but had no response to the appeal.
  

If, and ONLY if, one of these applies, you may make a Statutory Declaration.

 

The completed Statutory Declaration should be returned to the Traffic Enforcement Centre within 21 days beginning with the date of service of the Order for Recovery, although there are provisions for the court to allow longer.

 

A Statutory Declaration may only be made by the person against whom an Order for Recovery has been made.

 

It is a criminal offence to make a false Statutory Declaration.

 

For information available from the Traffic Enforcement Centre on the Statutory Declaration procedure and downloadable forms, click here. (Please note that PATAS cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy of information on third party web sites)

 

Next steps

 

What happens next depends on the grounds for making the Statutory Declaration.

 

• if the ground is that the Enforcement Notice was not received, the Order for Recovery, the Charge Certificate and Enforcement Notice are cancelled. The local authority may then issue a new Enforcement Notice;
  

• if the ground is that the Notice of Rejection or a decision from the Adjudicator was not received, the local authority must refer the Statutory Declaration to the Adjudicator who will decide what will happen next.
  

 

 

NOTE: the original Penalty Charge Notice is NOT cancelled.

[pierskarsenbarg]

Thanks for that. I appreciate it.

 

The second link you posted (and I can't quote it here as I don't have enough posts to enable me to post links but it's the one just above "Next Steps") doesn't work. Could you re-post it please?

[green_and_mean]

Thanks for that. I appreciate it.

 

The second link you posted (and I can't quote it here as I don't have enough posts to enable me to post links but it's the one just above "Next Steps") doesn't work. Could you re-post it please?

 

Sorry about that it seems HM GOVT has decided to to spend our money on a nice new website to replace the HMCS one.....

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/bulk-centre/traffic-enforcement-centre/statutory-declarations/OOTApplicationPack.pdf

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/northampton-bulk-centre/traffic-enforcement-centre/statutory-declarations.htm

[HYMN AND MI]

See this decision. At last, an adjudicator has been down there to see for himself...........................

 

Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable

 

 

 

Case Reference:2110177167 Appellant:Mr

Authority:Kingston Upon Thames VRM:

PCN:KT55340753 Contravention Date:03 Oct 2010 Contravention Time:12:39 Contravention Location:Eden Street Penalty Amount:£120.00 Contravention:Being in a bus lane Decision Date:28 Jul 2011 Adjudicator:Edward Houghton Appeal Decision:Allowed Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice. Reasons:This appeal is allowed for reasons similar to those in the case of Kostylo (2011) which I set out in full below:-

 

 

On the 10 th April 2010 the Appellant's vehicle was seen on camera entering the contraflow bus lane in Eden Street in the centre of Kingston. The Appellant's case is that the signage indicting the presence of the bus lane is neither clear nor technically correct. The onus is on the Council to prove, on balance, that it is. The case raises the interesting and not particularly easy question as to the correct way to sign the entrance to a contraflow lane for buses, taxis and cycles.

 

In considering these issues I have had the benefit of some well presented and clear technical submissions from the Appellant and equally clear and detailed submissions from the Council in reply. I have also had the advantage of inspecting the location in the company of the Appellant and Council representatives

 

It seems to me the starting point in this case is what is provided by the relevant Traffic Management Orders as it is these that decide what it is that has to be signed. The Kingston upon Thames (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2001 as amended by the Kingston upon Thames (Bus Priority)(Amendment No.8) Traffic Order 2009 creates an eastbound contraflow bus lane for buses, taxis, pedal cycles, and dial- a- ride buses, running from the extended eastern kerbline of Union Street to the extended western kerbline of Brook St at the other end. I am therefore concerned in this case with a bus lane, not a bus only route.

 

The Council's plan illustrates the location and the signage at the start of it at the western end. The key elements are a single round blue sign to diagram 953 on the left of the carriageway and the legend BUS LANE on the carriageway itself. To the right of the contraflow entrance there are two no entry signs guarding the exit point of the one way lane running east to west to prevent drivers heading straight into oncoming traffic.

 

The correct marking of contraflow bus lanes is covered in some detail in the Traffic Signs Manual ("TSM"). One needs to remind oneself that the TSM is not law as such. Nevertheless it is official guidance from the Department for Transport and in my view its detailed recommendations must carry some weight, if for no other reason than they are of national application and set out what drivers might reasonably expect to see on the roads wherever they may happen to be. They cannot, however, override statutory provisions such as the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 ("TSRGD").

 

The relevant parts of the TSM are Chapter 5 para 17.12 and Chapter 3 Para 15.18ff. These agree in recommending a similar type of configuration (- one round blue sign plus bus lane, or bus and cycle symbol, lane, as the case may be -) to what is there in the present case; see in particular Figures 15.8 and 15.10. However there is no specific recommendation as to what to do with a bus, cycle and taxi lane. The difficulty is that although diagram 953 can be varied to indicate buses cycles and taxis, the carriageway legend to diagram 1048.1 cannot. (If the blue sign is used to indicate a bus only route or bus gate the difficulty evaporates , since the carriageway legend to diagram 1048.4 (BUS ONLY etc) does allow TAXIS as a permitted variant. Why this distinction is made is a matter for the Department, but the fact that it is made must have some significance).

 

The Council, faced with this difficulty, wisely sought the advice of the Department the upshot of which was an e-mail of the 29 th September confirming that "the use of the road marking to diagram 1048 will be acceptable". However there appears to be no more formal authorisation for its use.

 

Although it might be acceptable as a solution to the problem, having considered the matter carefully I am not satisfied that it is lawful. Although signs to diagram 953 are more usually associated with bus gates there is nothing in the TSRGD which positively prohibits them from being used with the carriageway legend BUS LANE to diagram 1048. However the converse does not apply. Direction 18(3) Table 2, Item 6 provides that this legend can only be placed on a road in conjunction with Diagram 1049 and either 959 or 960. "In conjunction with" in my view connotes a close degree of spatial connection which is not satisfied by the presence of the contraflow bus lane sign ( which is not in any event to diagram 960 but specifically authorised) at the far end of the contraflow facing the oncoming traffic. The carriageway legend to diagram 1048 at this location is in my judgement not being used in conjunction with diagram 960 but in conjunction with diagram 953. The upshot is that the entry to the bus lane is incorrectly signed, and that is sufficient for the Appeal to be allowed. The Council, however, will no doubt have no difficulty in obtaining promptly the Secretary of States' authorisation for the retention of this combination in view of the indication given by the Department's officer in his e-mail.

 

In the circumstances I will deal only very briefly and incompletely with the Appellant's other submissions on the signage none of which I find persuasive, ingenious and well presented though they are. I do not consider that minor defects in the carriageway markings of the bus lane further along the road have any bearing on the clarity of the bus lane at its point of entry - and in any event I would apply the principle of de minimis. Bus lane signage should not be continued over pedestrian crossings - see Chapter 5 Para 17.17 TSM. Should any question arise in the future as to the correctness and clarity of the signage for vehicles entering the one-way street at the other end and trespassing into the contraflow lane, the question of the correctness and clarity at that end would fall to be decided on its merits. So far as the present case goes it appears sufficiently clear and compliant.

 

Similarly I would apply de minimis to the marginal variations in the dimensions of the various signs measured by the Appellant if not already covered by the variation provisions in the TSRGD itself.

 

Although the sign to diagram 953 is a sign the contravention of which is enforceable under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 the location in the present case is a bus lane; and Oxfordshire CC v Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin) is authority for the proposition that something that is a bus lane can be indicated by signage more usually associated with a moving traffic contravention (in that case signs to diagram 619) and still be enforced as a bus lane. The High Court in that case said "Moreover, as Mr Straker QC's skeleton argument states (paragraph 49), Diagram 953 of the TSRGD 2002) indicates a bus lane but is in the list of signs defined as moving traffic contraventions in the 2004 Act. This strongly suggests that the legislature did not conceive of the two categories being mutually exclusive".

 

As to the clarity of the signage generally, in particular the lack of sufficient advance warning it seems to me the Appellant is on firmer ground. I agree with him that more advance warning is required. For most bus lanes motorists have the benefit of the large blue advance warning signs and carriageway taper. In the case of contraflow lanes there is no such signage, merely the signage at the entrance. This is to all intents and purposes identical to the signage for a bus gate, and in my view similar considerations should apply. Although Figures 15.8,9,and 10 Chapter 3 TSM, which illustrate the entry signage for a contraflow bus lane, do not show any recommendation for warning signage, Figure 15.14 illustrating a two-way bus gate, does show a recommended warning sign to what appears to be a permitted variant of diagram 2108. I regard it as significant that the road layout illustrated in this Figure (unlike the former ones) is of a very similar type of configuration to what appears on the ground in the present case i.e. with the main road turning a corner in front of the bus gate.

 

The motorist is approaching what is fairly uncommon type of entry prohibition in a busy street, signed in a way that is non-standard enough to need specific authorisation. . There is other signage about, including a pair of no entry signs which inevitably catch the eye first and distract from the single blue sign to the left close to a tree, and a keep left sign which ( whilst lawful) is normally some sort of implied invitation to traffic to continue to pass on that side. . The Council points to the sign indicating "all routes" and a right pointing arrow as giving sufficient warning. However whist not actually contradicting the prohibition on proceeding ahead, this sign is intended to be, and will be read as, a navigational aid rather then a warning that going straight ahead is actually prohibited. The motorist does not have the luxury of inspecting and analysing the signage in the manner of a visiting Adjudicator but has to absorb the signs virtually instantly.

 

In summary, whilst rejecting the majority of the Appellant's submissions I have come to the conclusion that for the reasons given above the signage to indicate the prohibition relied on is neither strictly compliant nor in context sufficiently clear. The vehicle was therefore not in contravention and the Appeal is allowed.

 

*********************************************

 

Also, this linked case: 210055021A

Edited July 28, 2011 by HYMN AND MI