Jump to content


Kingston Eden Street Bus Lanes


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2090 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I've just spent two weekends in Aberdeen, the first was to organise a funeral, and start the clearance of the deceased house; the second for the funeral.

 

Their Bus lanes appear to be in use, by all, except me, all of the time.

 

They are very popular, I even noticed Buses travelling through them on Monday and Tuesday!

All of these are on behalf of a friend.. Cabot - [There's no CCA!]

CapQuest - [There's no CCA!]

Barclays - Zinc, [There's no CCA!]

Robinson Way - Written off!

NatWest - Written off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 394
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I've just spent two weekends in Aberdeen, the first was to organise a funeral, and start the clearance of the deceased house; the second for the funeral.

 

Their Bus lanes appear to be in use, by all, except me, all of the time.

 

They are very popular, I even noticed Buses travelling through them on Monday and Tuesday!

 

And any Celtic sheep? We used to get up really early when I stayed at Youth Orchestra Courses in Ogmore-by-Sea to try and catch one!

:grin:

Edited by HYMN AND MI
Link to post
Share on other sites

Say hello to that large complex of lanes near the Celtic Manor Hotel, commonly known as the M4, I believe!

 

It's been redesignated as the M25 extension, since it shares a similar average speed and level of congestion.

 

What the yanks will make of it in September, God only knows.

 

Two years of road works and 50mph speed limits. Only another year to go before they introduce variable speed limits.

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received a PCN for Eden Street - Lady Booth junction. Wasnt aware of any signage - and no road markings visible. I plan to appeal. Can anyone who has appealed provide text for a letter?

 

Also plan to write to MP asking him to complain to Secretary of State about RBK abusing their powers and raising revenue from unsuspecting motorists. This guarentees a written reply from a Minister (I know as I used to work in govt). Will cc Mayor/councillors.

 

Help appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received a PCN for Eden Street - Lady Booth junction. Wasnt aware of any signage - and no road markings visible. I plan to appeal. Can anyone who has appealed provide text for a letter?

 

Also plan to write to MP asking him to complain to Secretary of State about RBK abusing their powers and raising revenue from unsuspecting motorists. This guarentees a written reply from a Minister (I know as I used to work in govt). Will cc Mayor/councillors.

 

Help appreciated

 

I'll send you a copy of my letter thats on another thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received a PCN for Eden Street - Lady Booth junction. Wasnt aware of any signage - and no road markings visible. I plan to appeal. Can anyone who has appealed provide text for a letter?

 

Also plan to write to MP asking him to complain to Secretary of State about RBK abusing their powers and raising revenue from unsuspecting motorists. This guarentees a written reply from a Minister (I know as I used to work in govt). Will cc Mayor/councillors.

 

Help appreciated

 

Please post this PCN and DO NOT PAY IT. This story is bigger than you think! I will send you message. What is the contravention?

icon7.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received a PCN for Eden Street - Lady Booth junction. Wasnt aware of any signage - and no road markings visible. I plan to appeal. Can anyone who has appealed provide text for a letter?

 

Also plan to write to MP asking him to complain to Secretary of State about RBK abusing their powers and raising revenue from unsuspecting motorists. This guarentees a written reply from a Minister (I know as I used to work in govt). Will cc Mayor/councillors.

 

Help appreciated

 

DfT have no paperwork for this part of the lane and RBK "do not enforce this bus priority."! I assume you were done doing a right hand turn! Forget MP etc. Press time and big time. Your recent PCN is tip of the iceberg!

Link to post
Share on other sites

DfT have no paperwork for this part of the lane and RBK "do not enforce this bus priority."! I assume you were done doing a right hand turn! Sorry. Yes to MP etc and Press. Your recent PCN is tip of the iceberg!
Edited Wednesday a.m. This unjust enrichment has to stop. Try Ombudsman and Audit Commission, too.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have still not received a reply to my letters to the parking shop, or the mayor of Kingston - not even an acknowledgement. I have left a telpehone message at the mayor's office and also emailed asking for a response. Nil so far. Surely they are obliged to respond within a reasonable time llimit? I wrote on 14 July.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I haven't posted for a while as have been waiting on a response to my appeal but have kept an eye on discussions.

 

Well, to my surprise I received and enforcement notice in the post on Saturday requesting payment of £120! Prior to this, and despite chasing, I had not received any reply from Kingston BC to my appral against my original PCN dated 11/5/10.

 

The good news is that I have just phoned the enquiry helpline and was told that the enforcement notice was a mistake and that a letter has been sent today advising of the sucess of my appeal.

 

Thanks to all those who provided advice and support!

 

Cheers

 

Boonburger

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have still not received a reply to my letters to the parking shop, or the mayor of Kingston - not even an acknowledgement. I have left a telpehone message at the mayor's office and also emailed asking for a response. Nil so far. Surely they are obliged to respond within a reasonable time llimit? I wrote on 14 July.

 

Hello. Can do no better than advise you to look at pepipoo forum aka fightback forum in this regard. Consider the FOI information recently provided, and your next step: Eden street thread. RBK have NOT complied with DfT guidance as well as the wording. Some bloke called Phil Morgan got his story re the wording WILL BE SERVED in London Evening Standard and Surrey Comet and suggest you start there! The letter posted is completely at odds with info as contained on pepipoo forum FOI response from DfT! And this forum,too, but cannot copy and am too tired.

 

Cheers,

 

A good friend of the said Welshman and good luck!

What is occurring here is called misfeasance and fraud, apparently, if you read and dig!

Edited by HYMN AND MI
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Green & Mean, Hymn & Mi (and others)

Following telephone and email follow ups to the Mayor's office, regarding my PCN appeal - I have finally received the attached letter from the appeals supervisor. I feel this is unsatisfactory and seems to absolve RBK of the non compliant signage and legislation used, which have been mentioned by a number of users on this and other forums. The letter states that I can go nowhere with this appeal because the fine has already been paid (if followers recall - by my lease company, without notifying me of the PCN until after they had paid the fine). The lease firm have charged me £29.37 admin (inc VAT) - basically for sending me an email. They are looking to claw back £89.37 from me, and now RBK are telling me the PCN was correct - I still don't think so. Please tell me - is this a problem with RBK or my leasing co, or both!?

RBK letter attached

 

Many thanks for your advice

Kingston reply.doc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Message sent to Silver Service re possible avenue: signage, authorisation and statutes fully referred to, if you want the help. Have just read the letter, sorry, after reading your post. Wrong in law. If you consult the LLA Act and refer to the relevant part (Two, para 4(3) if I am not mistaken though I say this from memory!), it CLEARLY states what "MUST" be included on a PCN! Must, not should, so why did they change it? The PCN, if it states "will be served" is flawed and, therefore, the contravention did not occur, apart from all the other reasons!

 

Further, when you hired the car, did you sign an agreement in this eventuality of committing a contravention?

 

Will PM you my details: best not to discuss this any further in detail, publicly.

 

Hymn and Mi

Edited by HYMN AND MI
missed previous post
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 Penalty charge notices under Part II

 

(1) Where a council, on the basis of information provided by the use of a prescribed device, has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable under this Part of this Act with respect to a vehicle, they may serve a penalty charge notice on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle.

(2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a penalty charge is payable to a borough council with respect to a vehicle if the person in charge of the vehicle acts in contravention of or fails to comply with an order under section 6 or 9 or regulations under section 12 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in so far as provision is made thereby for the reservation of all or part of a carriageway of a road as a bus lane.

(3) A penalty charge notice under this Part of this Act must state—

(a) the grounds on which the council believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

© that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;

(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an enforcement notice may be served by the council on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;

(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and

(g) the effect of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act.

(4) In subsection (3)(d) above, “specified proportion” means such proportion, applicable in all cases, as may be determined for the purposes of this section by the borough councils acting through the Joint Committee.

 

So, we are concerned with 4(3) and 4(3)(e)

 

I would also ask them, under a FOI request, when their Senior Appeals Officer last received training in semantics and the laws upon which his department rely when they issue PCN's! I am not joking.

 

According to your first post, I read it that the penalty charge has been paid by the hire firm? Have you paid anything? If not, DON'T!

 

The letter also misstates their original intention , which was to place diagram 1048.4 as the legend. This is what their original drawing states! The comments re taxi and 960 road sign are irrelevant since they apply to the other end of the street i.e. the eastern end. We are concerned with the Union Street end. If you care to study all the references in my letter sent privately, you cannot possibly come to any other conclusion than the correct signage must be, according to statute, 1048.1. Therefore, the alleged contravention did not take place as the lane is unenforceable because of the non-compliant signage, whether DfT have allegedly verbally authorised this or not! If they have, which I doubt, then they are at fault, too, and are contradicting their own guidance and the statute! When the Enforcement Notice arrives, please post up so that we can analyse and plan next move and response.

Edited by HYMN AND MI
to be exact re the wording, statute and tactics
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received a pcn from RBK for an alleged contravention in this bus lane.

 

I appealed the contravention on 4 points :-

 

The road legend being wrong - for a contra-flow bus lane to allow cycles, this should be detailed on the road with diagram 1048.1, as prescribed in Chapter 3 Traffic Signs Manual;

 

The right turn is blocked off in the evenings when Hippodrome is open so the bus lane cannot therefore be 24 hour operational as is suggested by no operational times sign;

 

The 'BUS LANE' legend on the road is not visible until a driver is in the supposed bus lane due to its placement on the road table;

 

The DFT advises that on the approach to a contra-flow bus lane sign to diagram 877 of Traffic Signs Regs should be used to advise motorists that there is a bus lane ahead.

 

The response I have so far received from the Council is laughable - I have had a large paragraph about the sign which is used to advise drivers of the contra-flow bus lane on the opposite side of the road (that which the traffic goes against the supposed bus lane) - this sign is not disputed; a mention that diagram 877 is only to be used for a with-flow bus lane; AND an admission that the right turn is closed off on the advice of the police and this being the case the bus lane is permissible to use at those times!!!

 

I also note that the Council since my alleged contravention have put detailed on the road new signage in the approach to the 'bus lane' which advises all traffic to turn right. This caused no end of entertainment on Saturday night when the bollards were up and people did not want to enter the 'bus lane' since it is implied to be a 24 hour lane with no operational signs.

 

I have gone back to the Council and respectfully asked them to deal with the points raised in my letter before sending out the enforcement notice.

 

The Council received my original letter (dated 4th June 2010) on 9th June and their reply was dated 6th September - and these are the experts!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello. Very interesting and, as you say, hilarious! Presumably, your PCN states the incorrect wording? They describe it as substantially compliant! FOI response awaited when wording was changed by another member on another forum. Again, I urge you to contact Martin George @Surrey Comet. This story is only just beginning. The figures are outstandingly high re the revenues collected by this unjust enrichment.

 

Try this for a further laugh:

 

Subject: Response - Further FOI CRM:00281604

 

Dear

Thank you for your email dated the July 2010 concerning the above matter. Your request for information has now been considered by Parking Services and the information we hold relating to your request is as shown below in the order requested.

 

1. The case numbers requested are 100299918, 2100086214, 2100116712, 2100129623, 210009976a

2. We do not enforce this bus priority.

3. We do not enforce this bus priority.

4. The wording “will be served” was used from the commencement of enforcement in 2005. From 30 March 2005, when we began using our current computer system, until the wording was changed 20,393 PCNs were issued.

The surcharge was imposed only on payments by credit card made by web from 01/08/08 until 15/06/09. In that time 6784 Penalties were paid using the web service. Refunds of that surcharge would be considered if applications were made in writing.

 

One of the locations in 2 or 3 above, they DO enforce as evidenced by two members of this thread! Lady Booth Road , illegally signed turn into Eden Street, top end.

 

Also, here is another laugh:

 

FYI: RB Kingston provided the following FOIR response mid 2009 on part of this issue.

The implication here is that the surcharge was also applied to credit card payments made otherwise than via their website.

My understanding is that ALL PCNs issued during the period when a surcharge was in operation were unlawful PCNs - se the money invol

 

Thank you for your email dated the 16 June 2009 concerning the above matter. Your request for information has now been considered by Contracts Officer relating to the Council's Penalty Charge Notices (PCN's) paid by credit card with a handling charge.

To clarify the Council accept payment for PCN's by credit card via the Council's web site, on an automated telephone system and in the Council's parking shop. Only those payments made via the web site receive a handling charge. Therefore in answer to question 4, has only taken into account those with a handling charge.

Your questions have been answered in the same order as your request:-

1. The date when the Council first issued such PCN's:- Phil Powell has assumed that by such PCN's that you refer to those PCN's that have received a credit card handling charge. If this is the case the date was 1 June 2008.

2. The date when the Council ceased to issue such PCN's:- The Council ceased to add a handling charge to payment by credit card for PCN's on the 12 June 2009.

3. The total value of penalty payments taken during the period of issue:- £2,073,383.74.

4. The total value of penalty charges taken by credit card payments:- As stated above this figure relates only to those PCN's paid by credit card via the Council's web site. If you do require all credit card payments please let me know. The value is £352,517.00

5. Before the initial issue of such PCN's, did the suggestion of introducing a credit card surcharge originate within the Council. The decision to introduce a credit card handling charge was taken within the Council.

If you have any queries or concerns then please do not hesitate to contact Phil Powell, Contracts Officer on 0208 547 5968.

If you have any queries or concerns about the handling of your enquiry then please contact:

Records Manager & Data Protection Officer

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

High Street

Kingston upon Thames

Surrey

KT1 1EU

Telephone 0208 547 5757

Edited by HYMN AND MI
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am yet to dig out the PCN again - I thought I had enough to throw at them for now - especially since they didn't respond to the points actually raised in my 'informal challenge'. It feels like a response has been given to ensure that the notice wasn't cancelled by default!

 

Should they ignore my most recent letter (which I am expecting since it was worded strongly that should I not pay I will get an enforcement notice) I will look into the legal consequences of the newly placed turn right sign and the bollards to take to formal appeal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should the PCN contain the defective wording, they should cancel as a matter of consistency. Surrey Comet would be fascinated to know that they are still enforcing other motorists' PCN's even after they changed the wording. If they didn't respond fully to your points, this is procedural impropriety IMO. When they wake up, they may well fold before the nice person at PATAS reads their PCN and flawed reasoning.

 

As per previous advice, please post up the EN to see if anything is wrong with that, too!

 

Re the time taken to respond, I am off to research if this is acceptable or not.

 

Can you please post their reply, privately, if you prefer? Thanks.

 

From guidance to local authorities:

Challenges – also known as informal representations

11.10 Statutory representations cannot be made until an NtO has been served but

many motorists are likely to write to authorities before then if they do not believe

that a PCN is merited. These objections are known as informal representations

or challenges. They can be made at any time up to the receipt of the NtO. It is

likely that an enforcement authority will receive informal challenges

against PCNs before they issue the NtO and authorities must129 consider

them (the concept of informal challenge does not apply to PCNs issued

by post where the PCN will act as an NtO). Authorities are likely

to receive these within the 14 day discount period. Enforcement

authorities should give proper consideration and respond to these

challenges with care and attention, and in a timely manner in order

to foster good customer relations, reduce the number of NtOs sent

and the number of formal representations to be considered. The

Secretary of State suggests that authorities should respond within

14 days. Enforcement authorities should also have suitably trained

staff with the appropriate authority to deal with these challenges.

 

Worth chucking this in, too.

Edited by HYMN AND MI
Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the time taken is ok - the informal boundary is 6 months - according to the Council and other bits of information I could get my hands on.

 

However there is a government consultation document which addresses the fact that Councils should have a set amount of time to get back to the layman - since they are supposed to be the experts and should be 100% confident in the legality of their actions!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...