Jump to content


Kingston Eden Street Bus Lanes


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2148 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

  • Replies 394
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

My actions are to help other motorists to get off their tickets, as I did at the same location in June. If they reject your informal representation, they will extend the discount for another 14 days, after which it will increase; however, you can still make further representation and go to PATAS. As already stated, they seem to be taking ages to respond at present.

 

 

ok then, so even if they don't respond until December, I then have the 14 days to pay? That's ok then, let's go for it.

 

My PCN states "any enquiry regarding this notice should be amde in writing within 14 days. If your enquiry is received after 14 days you will lose the opportunity to pay the reduced amount".

 

Just for info........

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is correct. But do not respond until I have had a look. What is the date of the PCN? We count that as day one. Please post up the PCN - there may be something flawed. This is important. How have they described the location? If just "Eden Street", this could be an argument re insufficient description of exact location of alleged contravention: need to see the whole two pages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to appeal my pcnlink3.gif ref. KT#### on the grounds that there was no breach of the bus lane order.

The Kingston Council has issued the PCN using the London local authorities act 1996 to enfoce the contravention 'being in a bus lane'. The LLA 1996 describes a Bus lane as follows:

“bus lane” has the meaning given in regulation 23 of the [Part I of S.I. 1994/1519.] Traffic Signs Regulations 1994 and any regulation amending or revoking and re-enacting that regulation.

The contra flow bus lane in Eden street is not correctly signed as a Bus Lane using the TSRGD 1994 or 2003 regulations which states.

 

23. - (1) In the signs shown in the permitted variants of diagrams 877 and 878 in which the expression "bus lane" appears and in diagrams 962, 962.2, 963, 963.2, 964, 1048 and 1048.1, "bus lane" has the meaning given in paragraph (2).

 

(2) "Bus lane" in the signs referred to in paragraph (1) means a traffic lane reserved for -

 

 

  • (a) motor vehicles constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers (exclusive of the driver);
     
    (b) local buses not so constructed or adapted; and
     
    © pedal cycles and taxis where indicated on the sign shown in diagram 958 or 959 and pedal cycles where indicated on the sign shown in diagram 960, 962.2, 963.2 or 1048.1.

The Bus lane in Eden street uses the TSRGD diag. 953 sign to indicate a route provided for Buses and cycles and varied to include taxis. This sign is not included in the legal definition of a bus lane for the puroses of the LLA 1996 and should be enforced using the LLA&tfl act 2003 as a moving traffic contravention. Kingston council has no legal authority to enforce a bus and cycle route using LLA 1996 legislation.

 

I would also like to add the following:

The Traffic order for this restriction created on 10th July 2009 states that the Bus lane ends at the junction of Brook street and therefore the bus lane ends sign is missing at this point.

 

If the Council maintains that the lane continues down Eden st and does not end at Brook st then the rest of the lane is also non compliant as it does not have a solid white line in the centre of the road nor does it warn drivers that the opposite carriageway is a bus lane as there are no diag. 960 signs. The lack of both the solid white line and the 960 sign is required to prevent drivers heading towards Brook st from McDonalds doing a legal 'u' turn and driving down the bus lane, the lane is therefore un-enforceable.

 

The bus lane road markings commence in the middle of the junction which is non compliant as they are prior to the 953 sign.

The diag 953 sign should be placed at the start of the bus lane not several metres inside it. If the sign is in fact the start of the prohibition on vehicles other than buses then the bus lane road markings are painted prior to the bus lane start point making the bus lane non compliant as all bus lanes should be marked in white on the road at the start of the lane.

The section of bus lane prior to the traffic island with the 'no entry' sign on also has no thick solid white line diag 1049 which should be 25-30cms wide.

The Dept of Transport traffic signs manual also states that contra flow bus lanes should not extend over side turnings.

 

I therefore request that the PCN is cancelled forthwith, if a rejection is issued I shall escalate to PATAS and will requests costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to appeal my pcnlink3.gif ref. KT#### on the grounds that there was no breach of the bus lane order.

The Kingston Council has issued the PCN using the London local authorities act 1996 to enfoce the contravention 'being in a bus lane'. The LLA 1996 describes a Bus lane as follows:

“bus lane” has the meaning given in regulation 23 of the [Part I of S.I. 1994/1519.] Traffic Signs Regulations 1994 and any regulation amending or revoking and re-enacting that regulation.

The contra flow bus lane in Eden street is not correctly signed as a Bus Lane using the TSRGD 1994 or 2003 regulations which states.

 

23. - (1) In the signs shown in the permitted variants of diagrams 877 and 878 in which the expression "bus lane" appears and in diagrams 962, 962.2, 963, 963.2, 964, 1048 and 1048.1, "bus lane" has the meaning given in paragraph (2).

 

(2) "Bus lane" in the signs referred to in paragraph (1) means a traffic lane reserved for -

 

 

  • (a) motor vehicles constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers (exclusive of the driver);
     
    (b) local buses not so constructed or adapted; and
     
    © pedal cycles and taxis where indicated on the sign shown in diagram 958 or 959 and pedal cycles where indicated on the sign shown in diagram 960, 962.2, 963.2 or 1048.1.

The Bus lane in Eden street uses the TSRGD diag. 953 sign to indicate a route provided for Buses and cycles and varied to include taxis. This sign is not included in the legal definition of a bus lane for the puroses of the LLA 1996 and should be enforced using the LLA&tfl act 2003 as a moving traffic contravention. Kingston council has no legal authority to enforce a bus and cycle route using LLA 1996 legislation.

 

I would also like to add the following:

The Traffic order for this restriction created on 10th July 2009 states that the Bus lane ends at the junction of Brook street and therefore the bus lane ends sign is missing at this point.

 

If the Council maintains that the lane continues down Eden st and does not end at Brook st then the rest of the lane is also non compliant as it does not have a solid white line in the centre of the road nor does it warn drivers that the opposite carriageway is a bus lane as there are no diag. 960 signs. The lack of both the solid white line and the 960 sign is required to prevent drivers heading towards Brook st from McDonalds doing a legal 'u' turn and driving down the bus lane, the lane is therefore un-enforceable.

 

The bus lane road markings commence in the middle of the junction which is non compliant as they are prior to the 953 sign.

The diag 953 sign should be placed at the start of the bus lane not several metres inside it. If the sign is in fact the start of the prohibition on vehicles other than buses then the bus lane road markings are painted prior to the bus lane start point making the bus lane non compliant as all bus lanes should be marked in white on the road at the start of the lane.

The section of bus lane prior to the traffic island with the 'no entry' sign on also has no thick solid white line diag 1049 which should be 25-30cms wide.

The Dept of Transport traffic signs manual also states that contra flow bus lanes should not extend over side turnings.

 

I therefore request that the PCN is cancelled forthwith, if a rejection is issued I shall escalate to PATAS and will requests costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Council maintains that the lane continues down Eden st and does not end at Brook st then the rest of the lane is also non compliant as it does not have a solid white line in the centre of the road nor does it warn drivers that the opposite carriageway is a bus lane as there are no diag. 960 signs. The lack of both the solid white line and the 960 sign is, which are required to prevent drivers heading towards Brook st from McDonalds doing a legal 'u' turn and driving down the bus lane, renders the lane is therefore un-enforceable.

 

G&M, can I suggest this para reads better with the red bits added and the purple bit took out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding G and M's letter:

 

1. There are a few typos remaining.

 

2. The 953 and 953.2 are correct for a contra flow and, unfortunately, the location has been authorised by the DfT, even to the extent of allowing legend 1048 to be placed on the road - albeit incorrectly in its relation to the pole signs, positioning etc - which legend is the incorrect one to be used for a contra flow. RBK's response will be that they are entitled to use 953 and 953.2 to enforce the bus lane, even though theses diagrams are more usually associated with code 33 contraventions. Indeed, I have been privy to correspondence which exactly supports this view.

 

3. The argument of the lane after Brook Street is irrelevant because RBK do not enforce, according to them, that part of Eden Street. So I would just leave that part out.

 

4. I would also include the addition of the Turn Right legend which is a mandatory instruction for all traffic and refer to all points made by previous contributors recently on this.

 

5. Regarding the description of the location of the alleged contravention, I have sent the Adamou v Haringey case to the OP since it may add another argument in that "Eden Street", in my view, does not sufficiently describe the exact location: Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of a PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention, but where it was said to have occurred.

 

Like G and M, I would like to see this resolved at PATAS since the full authorisation and correspondence would be made available (either by me or one of a few others) and that 1048 legend, at least, is not the appropriate legend on the road, and an adjudicator would be tested to rule against the DfT themeselves.

 

Lastly, I would "require" them to cancel the PCN, and with immediate effect, and add that, should the matter continue to PATAS, that would be entirely their responsibility.

 

I suggest amending as outlined and sending at the very last minute so as to buy time. As this is a bus lane matter, I really do think that using all arguments available is the correct approach, if only to see what their response to each one will be.

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

NO! Do it later, if you call them now, it is too early, and they will extend the 14 days from your call! Hit them with everything on 8th November by e-mail and ask in particular for the following:

 

1. Traffic Management Order, plans, and amendment re Turn Right legend. (Omit reference to order in letter above.)

2. All photographic evidence re alleged contravention.

3. CEO's notes

4. Code of Conduct re CCTV.

 

This will keep them busy and buy you time! Trust me, if you make any enquiries now, you will lose time!

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

The 14 days is extended from the date of the photograph they send. My only concern about waiting to request the photographic evidence is that it could put J.W on a back footing in that they might consider that it has been dragged out - as we know - they assume that people only contest the penalty to buy themselves times anyway!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 14 days is extended from the date of the photograph they send. My only concern about waiting to request the photographic evidence is that it could put J.W on a back footing in that they might consider that it has been dragged out - as we know - they assume that people only contest the penalty to buy themselves times anyway!

 

There is no need for any concern as the PCN clearly states she has 14 days from the date of the notice! She could be on Mars for all they know! Trust me - I know how this lot operate and have won one.

 

Also, could you please draft something re the Right Turn and your other observations to be included in the proposed draft letter as this will help IMO? Thanks. Then I suggest the OP submit everything on 14th day from date of notice i.e. including the date as day 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding G and M's letter:

 

1. There are a few typos remaining.

 

2. The 953 and 953.2 are correct for a contra flow and, unfortunately, the location has been authorised by the DfT, even to the extent of allowing legend 1048 to be placed on the road - albeit incorrectly in its relation to the pole signs, positioning etc - which legend is the incorrect one to be used for a contra flow. RBK's response will be that they are entitled to use 953 and 953.2 to enforce the bus lane, even though theses diagrams are more usually associated with code 33 contraventions. Indeed, I have been privy to correspondence which exactly supports this view.

 

Irrelevant since they cannot change the statute, they can use whatever signs they like and the DofT can authorise them but it still does not make it a bus lane as described by the LLA 1996

3. The argument of the lane after Brook Street is irrelevant because RBK do not enforce, according to them, that part of Eden Street. So I would just leave that part out.

 

Why does it matter if they enforce it or not its still part of the bus lane and has to be marked correctly. Maybe you can convince the people that have posted on here after getting bus lane PCNs outside Heals its not enforced.

 

 

4. I would also include the addition of the Turn Right legend which is a mandatory instruction for all traffic and refer to all points made by previous contributors recently on this.

 

5. Regarding the description of the location of the alleged contravention, I have sent the Adamou v Haringey case to the OP since it may add another argument in that "Eden Street", in my view, does not sufficiently describe the exact location: Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of a PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention, but where it was said to have occurred.

 

How does Eden Street not describe the location, there is only one bus lane in Eden street and its less than 800m long?

Like G and M, I would like to see this resolved at PATAS since the full authorisation and correspondence would be made available (either by me or one of a few others) and that 1048 legend, at least, is not the appropriate legend on the road, and an adjudicator would be tested to rule against the DfT themeselves.

 

Lastly, I would "require" them to cancel the PCN, and with immediate effect, and add that, should the matter continue to PATAS, that would be entirely their responsibility.

 

I suggest amending as outlined and sending at the very last minute so as to buy time. As this is a bus lane matter, I really do think that using all arguments available is the correct approach, if only to see what their response to each one will be.

 

There is only one argument and that is its not a Bus lane.....end of!

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO! Do it later, if you call them now, it is too early, and they will extend the 14 days from your call! Hit them with everything on 8th November by e-mail and ask in particular for the following:

 

1. Traffic Management Order, plans, and amendment re Turn Right legend. (Omit reference to order in letter above.)

2. All photographic evidence re alleged contravention.

3. CEO's notes

4. Code of Conduct re CCTV.

 

This will keep them busy and buy you time! Trust me, if you make any enquiries now, you will lose time!

 

Why, just send in the appeal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the enforcement notice I have received - I think there is a wording issue in relation to the increase in the charge to £180 - they say it WILL happen but LLA says it should state this may happen - any comments?

Edited by frontseatdriver
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kingston Council has issued the PCN using the London local authorities act 1996 to enfoce the contravention 'being in a bus lane'. The LLA 1996 describes a Bus lane as follows:

“bus lane” has the meaning given in regulation 23 of the [Part I of S.I. 1994/1519.] Traffic Signs Regulations 1994 and any regulation amending or revoking and re-enacting that regulation.

The contra flow bus lane in Eden street is not correctly signed as a Bus Lane using the TSRGD 1994 or 2003 regulations which states.

 

23. - (1) In the signs shown in the permitted variants of diagrams 877 and 878 in which the expression "bus lane" appears and in diagrams 962, 962.2, 963, 963.2, 964, 1048 and 1048.1, "bus lane" has the meaning given in paragraph (2).

 

(2) "Bus lane" in the signs referred to in paragraph (1) means a traffic lane reserved for -

 

 

    [*](a) motor vehicles constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers (exclusive of the driver);

     

    (b) local buses not so constructed or adapted; and

     

    © pedal cycles and taxis where indicated on the sign shown in diagram 958 or 959 and pedal cycles where indicated on the sign shown in diagram 960, 962.2, 963.2 or 1048.1.

    .

 

I interpret this completely differently - I interpret that a bus lane is one that is reserved for the use of buses and other permitted vehicles.

 

This section of legislation is in fact only defining what a bus lane is at subsection 2 within the signs detailed in subsection 1.

 

I think the important point is that the sign used is not consistent with the 953 upright - as I think the legislation says 1048 is not applicable with this sign but it is however applicable with the 960 used on the approach in the other direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the enforcement notice I have received - I think there is a wording issue in relation to the increase in the charge to £180 - they say it WILL happen but LLA says it should state this may happen - any comments?

 

As the thread is now becoming more interesting..............:smile:

 

1. Agree the wording is non-compliant.

2. The instruction to tick one of the boxes fetters and contradicts previous statement re :" If you think that one or more of the listed grounds applies to your case....", therefore creating confusion and prejudice.

3. You are also allowed to offer "compelling reasons"/mitigating circumstances of which the Council is dismissive. But: even if one of these grounds does not apply, you may ask the local authority to consider other reasons for cancelling the penalty, such as compassionate grounds or mitigation. However, the local authority is only legally bound to cancel the Enforcement Notice if they accept that one of the grounds above applies although they do have a duty to consider compassionate grounds as well.

 

This document is very seriously flawed. OP: redact your details!

 

Compare with what the Act states:

 

(2)An enforcement notice must state—

 

(a)the amount of the penalty charge payable;

 

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

 

©that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the enforcement notice is served;

 

(d)that failure to pay the penalty charge may lead to an increased charge being payable;

 

(e)the amount of that increased charge;

 

(f)that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 2 below; and

 

(g)the effect of paragraph 6 below.

 

PATAS it is, I suspect, and both the Council and DfT should be in the firing line of the adjudicator in view of the signage allowed: diagram 1048 as the road legend for a contra flow? Are donkeys allowed, too!?

 

Addendum: it also incorrectly informs you in advance re the service of a Charge Certificate:

 

Rejection of representations against enforcement notice

 

5Where any representations are made under paragraph 2 above but the council concerned do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (10) of the said paragraph 2 (in this Schedule referred to as “the notice of rejection”) must

 

(a)state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 8 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—

 

(i)the penalty charge is paid; or

 

(ii)the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge; and

 

(b)describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made;

 

and may contain such other information as the council consider appropriate.

 

Therefore, they are even pre-empting the NOR and seem to be bullying the recipient into paying even before s/he has appealed! I cannot believe that PATAS have not picked up on this in the 5 cases which have reached it! And then, even further threats ensue. Is it any wonder why we constitute the minority of motorists who fight back!?

 

This is wholly unreasonable and a total misrepresentation of the law. The shouting down the telephone at the recipient certainly=vexatious. Perhaps someone brighter than I can find some frivolity in the Council's conduct so as to nail them on costs. BTW, could we see your original informal representation and their response to that, please?

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

  • 2 weeks later...

WOW! So much information on here, my head is spinning, but I am not letting this one rest. I too have been stung entering the 'Bus Lane' in Eden Street by the junction with Union Street. I will be using all of the arguments on here to appeal my case. Unfortunately for me, the 'contravention' occured on 29th May and all correspondence has been sent to my old address (cheers DVLA).

 

I am therefore now in the position of having to fight the 'court' to which my case has been referred. Further research into this suggests that this 'court' is not a court at all and it's techincal name is 'The Traffic Enforcement Centre' It does not offer fair trial and will issue Warrants of Execution on behalf of the council on the assumption that a contravention has occured, enabling bailiffs to come and recover costs. Anyone who is interested, go on google and put in Traffic Enforcement Centre the name forms part of the address and it is a .org address, (I am unable to post links at the moment). This website suggests that the passing on of personal details is a breach of data protection and that all in all, the whole of this system is unlawful. Could we be on to something, or will there be a clever little loop hole that proves us all wrong?

 

 

I have contacted Watchdog and will be interested to see if they come up with anything, if everyone else did the same, we may get somewhere...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...