Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you so much for heads up.
    • Thanks DX - I wondered about the blacked out bits. That's their doing not mine obviously.   Attached is the exhibits part of the bundle. Sorry about this, no matter what I compressed the whole thing down to I got the oversize message, even if the filesize on my computer was showing as well under 4.8mb   The_exhibits-compressed.pdf
    • Thanks Bankfodder!   Hello again everyone.    I received my SAR back from Elderbridge and what and absolute load of **** it is!   1.  They did not send any transcripts or recordings of any phones calls  - both myself and my husband spoke to them in Aug 2016 (noted in their diary notes) and I called them in Dec 2018 (again noted in their diary notes) it was the same day they sent the reply even though they have mentioned me calling in their notes on that day, so not sure I should let that go or not!   I also spoke to them in July 2016 (again in the notes) and I spoke to them in Dec 2012 (again in the notes)    2.  Going through the diary notes in the beginning notes were sporadic mainly because we were making payment and everything was ok, then later as things changed there were notes almost once a month, then in NOV 2012 and Dec 2012 frequency of notes increase as this is when they began court proceedings.  and throughout 2013 again lots of notes made - mostly their in house stuff about court dealings and so on - so that's fine. then in NOV 2013 hey made a not re the court date in OCT - saying that they were ordered to treat the loan as having a fixed rate from inception and sent off etc.  BUT from 21 Nov 2013 to 17th June 2014 there are no notes at all!  Now the hearing was on the 10th Jan 2014!   17/06/2014 14:43 *****Substantial EVS costs to be added to any SF ****** 17/06/2014 14:43 EVS Defended + At the hearing on 10/01/2014 an SPO for 500 on 26/01/2014 and then CMI + £60 wef 26/02/2014 plus MJ for £103,331.03 suspended on the same terms. It was also held that we could add our costs - Defended costs on this case are £33,879.80. 17/06/2014 00:00 Reviewed Reviewed 17/06/2014 00:00 ***Defended Costs*****:To be added to any SF ***Defended Costs*****:To be added to any SF 21/11/2013 04:13 ADHOC Statement Printed From 03/10/13 To 13/11/13 Batch 2015 Sequence 28 Printed 13/11/2013 00:00:00   Above you can cleary see the gap then suddenly the first notes talk about the court case and costs etc, at the trial in OCT the judge reserved cost till the next hearing (also stated on the documentation from the court)  but then at that hearing in Jan 2014 we did not discuss costs - the 6 month gap I feel is very suspicious.    The final court document  dated 13th Jan 2014 says to pay the claimant £103,331.03 which is the amount outstanding under the mortgage and goes on to says order were not to be enforced as long as we pay etc.  no mention of costs at all - so they seem to just be adding them   3.   They sent a field agent to me in Jan 2018, I only knew this as on the 9th Jan 2018 I was working at home and heard the letterbox, thought it was the postman, went to the door to find an envelope shoved through the door with a letter in it saying they had been requested to visit me and that they called today but I was not in! and gave a number for me to call ( I saw the woman walking down the driveway - but she did not ring the bell! and I wasn't about to run after her!)   But in the notes they have written this utter lie!   30/01/2018 12:44 Field Agent Report Received The field agent visited the security address on three occasions. The customer was spoken to through the window. They refused to discuss and refused to answer the door. The contact number on file is not recognised. RFA - Not known Reasons for items not verified:N/A Details of variances of items outside of expenditure guidelines and reasons N/A Property is a detached house in good condation valued at £406,000. Equity not known. I actually cannot believe what I have read here! Can I ask them for some kind of proof of this, because I don't know who they are talking about but it certainly wasn't me!   4.  the documents they had sent me a joke, they have sent 77 documents in total, none of these are copies of letter from Elderbridge (which is who I sent the SAR to) all from First Plus and certainly not ALL of them, they have been bulked out by sending me copies of documents that I sent TO THEM for my court defence and there are strange Black boxes over some of the text!? which I don't understand!     After receiving this info from Elderbridge I decided to send a SAR to Barclays and I got a small package with a couple of letters, some diary notes and screen shot of the account, as well as a short statement of account. This was for our ORIGINAL loan from Feb 2006,  (we topped it up in June 2006) and the first one was closed.  The second one is the one that has been transferred to Elderbridge but Barclays seem to know be denying ALL knowledge of it! and I know that they still hold the beneficial interest of these loans and that Elderbridge regularly contact Barclays for help and advise - I have contact with other account holders who have diary notes from Elderbridge showing contact to Barclays!..   This week I also had a reply from the FOS (only from an adjudicator not an ombudsman) and his initial opion is that it's ok for Elderbridge to claim the costs as we defaulted, he seems to be ignoring my argument that the relationship is unfair etc but I will be sending this back and asking for it to be looked at by an ombudsman.   But was hoping that someone here could give me any advise re all of this - sorry I know it's a lot!!
    • why all the blanked out stuff in the parking contract? and no proof its paid this year either?  
    • pop the exhibits as a sep file i'll merge them for you
  • Our picks


Westminster Bridge Road - **Appeal Successful! Bus Lane Ticket Cancelled**

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1442 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts



Firstly a big thanks to this forum and the people here for their tips!


Recently had a bus lane PCN cancelled by Lambeth Council. Hopefully anyone in a similar situation can benefit from the resources and information below.


Judging by the c.£172k (!!!) in average annual income from this single location. This is very nearly almost resembles a racketeering operation by Lambeth Council. No doubt there are some legitimate contraventions, however the nature of this particular area would suggest some motorists are caught out due to failings on the behalf of Lambeth Council to follow Traffic Sign Regulations.




On driving southbound on Westminster Bridge Road towards Lambeth North station, unwittingly ended up in a bus lane as road markings and signage was incorrect and/or insufficient (see images). Received a letter a few weeks later with an initial £65 fine if paid in 14 days, or £130 thereafter.


Scoured this forum and a few others for some advice as I'm usually quite vigilant with bus lane operating times and didn't recall seeing one. Found some good advice as to how a Bus Lane, and indeed other road systems, should be set-up in ‘The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002’. Went back in person and walked the area, took a few pictures of everything. In particular, the very poor lighting, and blocking (ironically) by parked buses of the first sign; lack of distance between 1st & 2nd signs; potentially unsafe conflict area with pedestrian crossing markings; twisted signs and short road markings and so on.


I did this not to be pedantic. One would imagine roads systems are designed to allow road users to travel as safely as possible, giving consistent and recognisable warning of any changes in the road ahead. Our appointed officials must play by the rules if they expect us to, and be held accountable when they do not.


Having gathered some evidence I drafted the following letter as an informal appeal:




Dear Sir/Madam


I am writing to informally challenge the issuing of the above PCN on the following grounds:


The bus lane in question is non-compliant with the ‘The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002’ deeming the PCN unenforceable. The restrictions were not correctly signed and the road markings were incorrect.


1. The sign to diagram 958 is not located 30 metres in advance of the lane taper. As shown in the attached image, a sign is only located at the start of the taper. (Fig. 1 – taken 07/11/2014)

a. Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3

15.9 Advance indication of a with-flow bus lane is provided by the sign to diagram 958. Where the speed limit is 20 mph or 30 mph, the sign should be sited 30m in advance of the lead-in taper formed by the road marking to diagram 1010, with a minimum clear visibility distance of 45 m.


2. The sign to diagram 958 is not clearly visible. As shown in the attached image, the sign has been rotated to a position near-parallel to the flow of traffic. Rendering it not possible to safely view from the usual left lane driving position. (Fig. 2 – taken 07/11/2014)

a. Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3

15.9 Advance indication of a with-flow bus lane is provided by the sign to diagram 958. Where the speed limit is 20 mph or 30 mph, the sign should be sited 30m in advance of the lead-in taper formed by the road marking to diagram 1010, with a minimum clear visibility distance of 45 m.


3. The taper to indicate the start of the lane is not the required length or ratio of 1:10. (Fig. 3 – taken 07/11/2014)

a. Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5

17.5 The bus lane is separated from the rest of the carriageway by a continuous line to diagram 1049. The width of the line will be 250 or 300mm depending upon site conditions, particularly the width of road available. The start of the lane is marked with a broken line to diagram 1010, the same width as the 1049 marking, and laid at a taper no sharper than 1:10. The lane should not start in such a position that the taper would extend across a side road junction.


4. The deflection arrows to diagram 1014 are not positioned correctly and are not the correct length. There are no deflection arrows upstream of the start of the taper as required. The position the arrows should be, would actually conflict with pedestrian crossing road signs. (Fig.4 – extract from Google Maps on 07/11/2014)

a. Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5

17.7 Deflection arrows to diagram 1014 should be placed 15m and 30m upstream of the start of the taper. The arrows should be 4.5m long for speed limits up to 40mph, 6m for 50 or 60mph, and 9m for 70mph. Traffic should be deflected to the right when the bus lane occupies the near side lane and to the left when it occupies the off side lane.


b. Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5

15.25 The Pedestrian Crossings Regulations permit markings to diagrams 1029 (see paras 22.26 to 22.28 and diagram 6 in Schedule 4 of the Pedestrian Crossings Regulations) and 1062 to be used at or near a crossing. The use of diagram 1062 is described in paras 21.7 to 21.16. No other marking may be used within the controlled area, except hatched and chevron markings in the circumstances described in para 15.26.

5. The pictures of the alleged contravention supplied on the PCN do not conform to ‘The Bus Lane Enforcement Camera Handbook’ published by the Home Office. Failure to show the correct information in the correct order must prove that the images are not admissible and render them void therefore there is no evidence that any contravention occurred. Therefore the instrument used does not appear to be an approved device.

a. Bus Lane Enforcement Camera Handbook clearly states as an ‘operational requirement’ in paragraph 5.1.2 that; “Every image of the offence shall show, in addition to the offending vehicle, in the order given: the date in months and years, the time in hours, minutes and seconds, the day of the week, the location and frame count from the beginning of the recording. The date shall be imprinted on the image or included in the violation record at the time the offence is recorded.”


6. Further, on inspection of the footage provided:

a. No buses were hindered in their progress – alleged contravention would be de minimis

b. There is no gain in position on another vehicle – alleged contravention would be de minimis

c. Any attempt to rectify my driving position would have necessitated a rapid lane change to the adjacent right hand lane before another rapid lane change to the left, in order to turn left at the traffic lights ahead to continue my journey. Actions which I would deem confusing and hazardous to other road users, particularly cyclists.


Should these representations be rejected then please treat this as a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the following documents:


a. A copy of the bus lane order or regulation giving effect to the Bus Lane.

b. A copy of the Safety Audit for this road layout.

c. A copy of the engineer’s scale diagrams showing the layout of this Bus Lane, the road markings and the signage (including warnings of camera enforcement).

d. Copies of any approvals of deviations of signage from The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions.

e. Logs of maintenance visits verifying existence and condition of the signs.

f. Certification of type approval of the CCTV device.

g. Details of the number of times that the videotape used has been degaussed and reused.

h. A copy of the Camera Enforcement logbook recording the alleged contravention.

i. Copies of the still images showing all the required information in the correct order.

j. The number of PCNs issued by London Borough of Lambeth in respect of this location.

k. The number of PCNs issued by London Borough of Lambeth in respect of this location and cancelled by them following informal challenges.

l. The number of PCNs issued by London Borough of Lambeth in respect of this location and cancelled by them following formal appeal to them.

m. The number of PCNs issued by London Borough of Lambeth in respect of this location and cancelled following appeal to a PATAS adjudicator.

n. The number of PCNs issued by London Borough of Lambeth in respect of this location and not pursued by them for any other reason.

o. The average monthly penalty revenue raised by London Borough of Lambeth in respect of this location.


I ask that you acknowledge this challenge at your earliest convenience and respond with your reply.




Yours sincerely,





The informal appeal was rejected, to little surprise. Being quite adamant this bus lane was incorrect, I was quite willing to take this the full 12 rounds of appeals PTAS etc. For the formal appeal I sent the same letter, less the FOI requests. After several months of waiting the PCN was then cancelled!


I do hope the above is of some use to anyone in a similar situation!




Link 1: google maps (retrace your steps!)

Link 2: pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t81781.html

Link 3: consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?290879-Bus-Lane-PCN/page11

Link 4: davidmarq.com/uploaderv6_1/files/7/PATAS.pdf

Link 5: forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=92678&pid=992720&mode=threaded&start=#entry992720

Link 6: londonbikers.com/forums/840159/Bus-Lane-Fine,-but-I-think-I-can-get-away-with-it?PageIndex=3





Drove in a bus lane as road markings and signage were incorrect. Informal appeal failed, formal appeal successful. £130 saved!

Edited by hashtagdotcom
  • Confused 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi would it be possible to put the pictures up of the signage so i know what to go back and look- I got a charge notice for the same lane today.,traveling in the same direction thank you :

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...