Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Bus Lane PCN for Kilburn High Road, London (Northbound). - Enforcable?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4116 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

Hello all!

 

I recently received a Bus Lane PCN for Kilburn High Road, London (Northbound). There is CCTV footage of me driving along the lane. It was at 11:41 on a Saturday. My understanding was that the lane was not 'active' except on Mon-Fri. I have since checked and in fact the lane is active 10am-7pm on Sat.

 

I am considering my options for appeal.

 

My main consideration is that the Bus Lane is not enforceable as it is not correctly signposted/marked. I would be very grateful to any thoughts. I will attempt to describe my thoughts.

 

The section I was caught in is a 'continuation' of an earlier bus lane, after a junction with traffic lights. Immediately after the junction is a diagram 959 sign (correctly stating the hours). approximately 7m after that starts a 'lead in taper' which finishes after about 6m, exceeding 1:10. There is no 'bear right' arrow by the taper. The solid white line defining the bus lane then begins about 14m after diagram 959. The 'BUS LANE' diagram 1048 is approximately 5m after the start of the solid white line. There are no other diagram 959 signs.

 

Thoughts on this section of bus lane alone:

 

Should diagram 1048 AND diagram 959 be used in parallel with the start of the bus lane's thick white line. They are approximately 20m apart?

 

The diagram 1048 is fairly worn; the 'L' of LANE is almost gone completely. The 'B' is 2/3 missing. The road surface is deformed as a result of the bus' weight. Is this an argument?

 

As far as that section is in context, it seems to me that the whole of that bus lane is not 'started' correctly as there is no diagram 958 with the hours on, ONLY diagrams 959.

 

There are a lot of 'sections' of bus lane on this road.

 

Section 1 (Mon-Fri, 7am-10am, 4pm-6pm) - Correctly signed and marked. No issues that I can tell.

 

No 'End of Bus Lane' Sign.

 

Left turn off road.

 

Section 2 (No hours therefore 'At ant time' though does not have 'at any time' sign) - It just starts. No 'lead in' broken lines.

 

Then there is an 'End of Bus Lane' sign.

 

Set of traffic lights.

 

[This is the start of the bus lane that I was in]

 

After a set of traffic lights:

 

No diagram 958 (bus lane ahead) sign.

 

Very short (about 6m, exceeds 1:10) lead-in taper, with bear-right arrow. Diagram 959 and 1048 in correct position. Diagram 959 shows the hours as now including 'Sat 10am-7pm'.

 

Break in bus lane. Left turn junction. Diagram 959. Zig-zags of pedestrian crossing. After crossing only 3m of zig-zags then replaced by thick straight bus lane line. Traffic lights.

 

After the traffic lights is the section I was seen in.

 

Me question here is:

 

If the start of the bus lane that shows the restriction of including Sat 10am-7pm is missing diagram 958 and the lead-in exceeds 1:10, are the following 'sections' enforceable even if they each have a diagram 959?

 

Can I argue that the whole section of road leading up to where I was seen has differing restrictions and is not correctly signed causing confusion?

 

Sorry to go on and on but (if you can make sense of this) I'd be very grateful for any thoughts, experiences and advice.

 

Thank you very much!

 

CF

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may find this helpful;

 

http://www.ticketfighter.co.uk/bus.htm

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello.

 

As promised, here is an image of the road layout and observations I have made:

 

Layout and Details

...and a photo of the deteriorated quality of diagram 1048 ("Bus Lane"):

 

Diagram 1048

 

A photo speaks a thousand words!!!

 

Has anyone successfully contested a PCN on any of these issues?

 

Thanks again for your time and thoughts.

 

CF

Link to post
Share on other sites

This may also be useful; here is a link to the start of the section that the CCTV saw me in:

 

http://goo.gl/maps/ZUABE

 

If it's relevant, the link to the first section with the change of hours to include Saturday:

 

http://goo.gl/maps/77jzd

 

Unfortunately, as you'll see, the lane in question is mostly hidden from Google by traffic but I'm sure it will reveal enough info.

 

CF

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I would agree that the markings are a tad faded, it all looks compliant to me. Did you check the link I provided in post #4?

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I would agree that the markings are a tad faded, it all looks compliant to me. Did you check the link I provided in post #4?

 

Yes, thanks for that.

 

In section '3. Roadmarkings' is says "The words ‘Bus Lane’ should be written at the start of the lane and at at regular intervals (approximately every 300m) and/or at the commencement of every side road". In this case although sign 959 is after the junction as required, the words 'Bus Lane' are 18m further after sign 959. When they should be 'used in conjunction' with each other how is that defined?

 

A key factor seems to be the absence of sign 958 prior to the beginning of the whole bus lane. Would this make the whole of the lane non-compliant?

 

Thanks for your help.

 

CF

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it would appear from your Google link that there is no sign 958 (advanced warning) at the start of the bus lane. So yes, there could be an avenue of appeal there. Having said that, I think it would depend on how far down the bus lane you drove before moving out of it to weather the adjudicator would think that you were not aware of the start of the bus lane.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Bus Lane PCN for Kilburn High Road, London (Northbound). - Enforcable?
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...