Adjudicators' decisions and case studies
We set out below some adjudicators' decisions which relate to contraventions of bus lane regulations. Some of these are published on the adjudicators' website as “key cases” but most are not. These cases will provide you with a unique insight into how cases are dealt with, what matters the adjudicators take into consideration and the decisions which the adjudicators make and why.
In all the following cases the adjudicators have upheld the appeals of the motorist. You can refer to any of these cases in an appeal either to the adjudicator or indeed to the local authority before it reaches the appeal stage. Please let us know if you would like the actual case number or a copy of the full decision as the following cases are summerised. Alternatively you are entitled to attend at an adjudicators office and view details of all cases. Of course every case is dealt with on its own merits but these cases will give you an idea of your chances of success. To make it easier to look through the cases we have grouped them according to what the appeal was based on. For example incorrect signs and lines.
The following cases are where the motorist used incorrect or missing signage or linage as the basis for their appeal
Case 1 - Appropriate signage not in place.
The appellant had turned into a road and there were no signs in the road from which he turned indicating a bus lane. The council provided pictures of a sign that the appellant would have seen but the appellants evidence suggested that the council had only installed the additional signage after the contravention occurred and he had made representations to the council. The adjudicator agreed that the signage at the time was inadequate and allowed the appeal.
There should be signs on side roads leading into a road where there is a bus lane stating “Bus Lanes” click here for signs and lines There are very strict rules relating to the submission of evidence to the adjudicator.
Case 2 - Signage and road markings - TFL
The appellant was in a bus lane at night. The 24/7 sign was however "markedly out of alignment and crucial surface marking really rather scrappy and worn" The adjudicator accepted that the markings "were not adequately prominent" and the appeal was allowed.
All signs must be legible and facing the correct way which is 90 degrees to the pavement.
Case 3 - Signage and lineage
The appellant stated that he did not see either the first or the second blue sign warning of a bus lane because they were obscured by a bus. The adjudicator said "that normally a motorist’s failure to see a prescribed sign would not avail him. However it is incumbent of TFL (transport for London) to demonstrate that the bus lane was correctly signed in all respects, particularly when, as here, the operational times change in a relatively short length of road. He also noticed that the tapering dotted white lines indicating the start of a new bus lane were not in place which he said was " not merely incorrect but, in context, positively misleading to a motorist who has been driving perfectly lawfully down a stretch of non-operational bus lane. He stated that because of the incorrect marking the contravention did not occur and the appeal was allowed.
We have seen quite often situations like this for example in Baker Street where the hours of enforcement change and the enforcing authority have not marked the bus lane correctly. The rules are clear in that if the enforcement hours change then a separate bus lane must be created with a 1 in 10 taper at the start and the correct signs as well as a sign at the end of the previous Bus Lane stating “end of Bus Lane”. Cick here for signs and lines.
Case 4 - Bus lane markings
The appellant took photo's that showed that the surface markings for the bus lane were faint and worn to an unusually high degree. TFL claimed that the signage was very clear. However the signs were not at the correct angle to the road either so the appeal was upheld.
All signs and road markings must be legible and facing the correct way which is 90 degrees to the pavement.
Case 5 - Inadequate signage
This appeal was allowed because the appellant contested that the signage was not adequate and the pictures supplied by TFL were over a year before the alleged contravention occurred and the adjudicator said "I am not satisfied as to the adequacy of the signage in place warning of the restrictions".
All signs must be legible and facing the correct way which is 90 degrees to the pavement.
Case 6 - TFL road markings
The appellant did not deny driving in the bus lane but said he could not see where the actual bus lane commenced. He produced pictures. the video evidence showed him entering but immediately exiting the bus lane after he noticed that he was in a bus lane. The appeal was allowed because the adjudicator was "not satisfied that the road markings of the bus lane were adequate at the time of the contravention".
All signs must be legible and facing the correct way which is 90 degrees to the pavement.
Case 7 - Poor markings and signs placed incorrectly
The adjudicator allowed the appeal because the road markings were barely visible and the blue signs were in the wrong positions.
The appellant did not deny driving in a bus lane but said that there were signs indicating that the bus lane was not in operation. The adjudicator said that TFL "is under a duty to provide reasonable signing so as to give the motorist fair warning of any restrictions which are in force". "This duty extends to all signs detailing restrictions including signs indicating a temporary suspension of a particular restriction" Tfl did not provide proof of the adequacy of the signage so the appeal was allowed.
All signs must be legible and facing the correct way which is 90 degrees to the pavement. Sometimes temporary signs allowing use of bus lanes are not clear. You should take photographs.
Case 8 - Signs and lines
The bus lane markings were not clear throughout the length of the bus lane. The signs were not in accordance with the 2002 regulations particularly signs shown in diagrams 958 and 959. The appeal was allowed.
All signs must be legible and facing the correct way which is 90 degrees to the pavement. See diagrams 958 and 959 below.
Case 9 - No “bus lane “ legend
The lady did enter the bus lane and did cross the solid white line but she did not think she was in a bus lane because the signage was inadequate. In particular the “bus lane” legend that should be repeated on the road surface was not. Therefore the appeal was allowed because the bus lane signage was not clear.
The legend “BUS LANE” must be painted on the road at the commencement of the Bus Lane and immediately after each junction and at intervals of no more than 300 metres.
329 before NPAS - Obscured Signage
In Milton Keynes case number 329 before NPAS, a perfectly legible sign had been placed near a tree and became obscured by foliage during the summer months. Although the sign was in good condition and may well have been visible in the winter, it was found to be insufficiently visible during August when the trees were in full leaf and the appeal was allowed.
In the following case the local authority did not provide the evidence in time
Case 10 - Evidence not served in time
The motorist said that there were no signs in the road from which he turned into the bus lane warning of restrictions and that therefore by the time he realised it was too late. However he wanted the camera operator to attend but he could not give the required 3 days notice because he had only received the authority’s evidence late (not within the 7 days minimum required). The evidence by the authority therefore was not admissible and the appeal was therefore allowed.
Cases where vehicles simply crossed a bus lane to turn left or travelled in it for less than 20 metres and lack of video evidence
Case 11 - Crossing exemption and lack of video evidence
The appellant stated that he entered the bus lane in order to turn left. The adjudicator said “the crossing exemption applies to a vehicle crossing a bus lane in order to get to or from any road adjacent to the bus lane or any vehicular access to the premises adjacent to the bus lane. The council had only provided still images which “did not show the entire episode”. The council did not provide the video evidence requested and the adjudicator allowed the appeal because he “was not satisfied that the contravention occurred”.
A bus lane must end at least 10 metres before a minor junction and 30 metres before a larger junction. At a larger junction there should be a broken solid white line for the 30 metres length but at a minor junction the solid white line should simply stop. In London we have recently had our complaint against transport for London upheld by the local government ombudsman as their bus lanes quite often extend right up to the junction and are therefore incorrectly marked and unenforceable.
Case number 20701586A insufficient evidence - 2 wheels in bus lane and lack of video evidence
Case 12 - Insufficient evidence - 2 wheels in bus lane and lack of video evidence
In this case the motorist had 2 wheels of her car just into the bus lane. She said she probably manoeuvred slightly into the bus lane to let another bus pass. The local council failed to provide video evidence merely stills which did not confirm nor deny what the lady had said. The adjudicator allowed the appeal because of insufficient evidence by the local authority.
This just shows the lengths that councils will go to to collect a fine.
Case 13 - 20 metre rule and vehicle accessing bus lane in order to manoeuvre into a parking space. Lack of video evidence.
The council said that the vehicle was in the bus lane for more than 20 metres although the motorist stated that he only entered the bus lane in order to park. The stills provided by the council did not show how far the car actually travelled in the bus lane but they did show the vehicle at an angle across the bus lane moving towards the inside. The traffic management order allowed such a manoeuvre in order to gain access to a parking place and as the council only produced the stills and which did not show what the driver eventually did the adjudicator said that “on the balance of probabilities” the exemption applied and allowed the appeal. It is vital for the council to produce video evidence in cases like this and if they are unable to do so then quite often they will have an appeal upheld against them.
It is for the council to prove that the contravention occurred not for a motorist to prove that it didn’t.
Case 14 - 20 metre tolerance, turn left exemption and lack of evidence
In this case the vehicle entered the bus lane quite close to its end. The council stated that the vehicle had travelled more than the 20 metre tolerance in the bus lane but they did not produce photos of the signage and a scale plan showing the distances travelled. The adjudicator said that it is “best modern practice” for the council to provide this. On the evidence provided to him he could not see where the bus lane actually ended and allowed the appeal under the “the turn left exemption”.
The turn left exemption allows a motorist to travel in a bus lane for up to 20 metres before a pcn should be issued. Also in London (and we suspect elsewhere) the guidelines issued to enforcing authorities say that they should observe a vehicle for 20 metres before issuing a PCN.
Case 15 - Contravention being in a bus lane
The vehicle was straddling the bold white line preliminary to turning left. The appeal was upheld because "the case is covered by the turn left exemption. (that is to say that the car was crossing for this purpose rather than travelling down it prematurely)" .
The turn left exemption allows a motorist to travel in a bus lane for up to 20 metres before a pcn should be issued. Also in London (and we suspect elsewhere) the guidelines issued to enforcing authorities say that they should observe a vehicle for 20 metres before issuing a PCN.
Case 16 - Driver maintained that he was in the bus lane for less than 20 metres
In this case the driver said that he entered the bus lane for the purpose of turning left and had not travelled more than 20 metres. The adjudicator said “where an exemption applies for a vehicle to be in or cross over a marked bus lane, a driver may use up to 20 metres of the bus lane immediately before or after the length to which the exemption reasonably applies after legitimately entering the bus lane.” The local authority did not provide evidence to the contrary so the appeal was allowed.
The turn left exemption allows a motorist to travel in a bus lane for up to 20 metres before a pcn should be issued. Also in London (and we suspect elsewhere) the guidelines issued to enforcing authorities say that they should observe a vehicle for 20 metres before issuing a PCN.
These cases relate to experimental traffic orders which have expired. It may be that the bus lane that you were allegedly driving in only has an experimental traffic order in place which may have expired.
Case 17- Experimental traffic orders
This is one of many cases in Euston road where Transport for London sought to rely on an experimental traffic order which was issued in 2003. However experimental orders usually have a limited life of 18 months and they are not renewable. The appeal was allowed.
An enforcing authority is not legally allowed to enforce a Bus Lane that has no traffic order in place. It’s a disgrace that TFL seek to penalise motorists for every minor infringement of the rules and yet they can’t even check their own traffic orders.
Case 18 - (Concerns out of date experimental traffic order.)
The traffic management order that TFL produced was an experimental order which had a limited life of 18 months. They did not provide evidence that the order was still in force. TFL were also criticised for not addressing the fact that the Lady suffered an asthma attack and they were criticised for this and also being unaware of the order.
These cases relate to incorrectly worded penalty charge notices or where a motorist did not receive the penalty charge notice or the notice to owner.
Case Mr Macarthur Vs Bury Council, The national parking adjudicator service sent the following circular to local authorities which is self explanatory.
The case concerns the wording of the PCN form. Mr Macarthur argued that the Bury standard PCN failed to comply with section 66(3) of The Road Traffic Act 1991 in ways that were “significant, material and potentially prejudicial” so as to render it void and unenforceable. The appeal was allowed, both at first instance and again following a review under Regulation 11 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, although the original decision was varied in some respects.
The key points emerging from the decision are:
• Section 66(3) requires every PCN to convey certain specified information. The exact words of the sub-section are not mandatory but the PCN must accurately convey the information there set out.
• A PCN which follows the precise wording of section 66(3) or otherwise accurately conveys the specified information will not be criticised by the Adjudicator.
• However, councils may not play fast and loose with statutory requirements designed to inform the subject of his legal rights and obligations in relation to an authority possessed of penal powers; thus, a PCN which fails accurately to convey the information specified by section 66(3), although not necessarily void, may be vulnerable to challenge at a hearing before the Adjudicator.
• It must be established that any inaccuracy produces a real possibility of prejudice to the appellant; it need not be shown that actual prejudice was caused.
• Many councils have based their standard PCN’s on the model set out in the Department of Transport’s Guidance on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Outside London (Local Authority Circular 1/95). This model itself differs from the statutory formula in the following respect.
The DoT model states:
“You are required to pay a penalty of… within 28 days”, whereas section 66(3)(c) actually provides: “A penalty charge notice must state… that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice”.
There is a similar discrepancy in relation to the 14 day discount period. The legal effect of the “within” formula is to exclude the date of issue of the PCN from the calculation of time and therefore to extend by one day the time for the recipient of the PCN to pay. Real prejudice cannot be said to arise from extending
time for payment. Thus, a PCN based on the DoT model is unlikely to attract criticism from the Adjudicator.
• Councils which adopt forms which deviate both from the statutory requirements and the DoT model do so at their own risk.
• The Bury PCN, as well as adopting the (unobjectionable) “within” formula, failed to comply with section 66(3) in three further respects. These are as follows:
1. The Bury PCN does not have a date. Although the date of the contravention is stated, the date of the notice itself appears only on the tear-off payment slip. Thus, it differs not only from the statute but also from the DoT model, which says “Date of Issue” at the top. The Adjudicator decided that to comply with section 66(3)(c) a PCN must have a date. The date of the contravention is not the date of the notice even if, in most cases, the PCN will be issued on the same day as the contravention. A real possibility of prejudice arises from potential uncertainty as to when the 28 day and 14 day periods for payment begin and end.
The date issue and the date of the contravention must be stated on the face of the PCN the date of the notice itself only on the tear-off payment slip.
2. The Bury PCN says:
“If we have not received your payment after 28 days from the date of this notice, we will send you a letter called the Notice to Owner, and you will have lost the chance to pay the reduced amount”. This wording fails to acknowledge that the driver / user of the vehicle may not be the owner and is misleading as to whom the Notice to Owner will be sent. It does not convey accurately the statutory information and produces a real possibility of prejudice.
3. The Bury PCN refers to payment of “a sum” instead of “a penalty”. This discrepancy is both significant and potentially prejudicial; the PCN must make clear the penal nature of the obligation to pay.
For these three specific reasons the Adjudicator allowed the appeal.
Case 19 - Penalty charge notice not received through the post.
The driver did not deny that he was in the bus lane but stated that he had not received the original pcn through the post. By the time he received the enforcement notice he had lost his right to pay at the reduced rate.. The adjudicator said that under section 7 of the interpretation act 1978 “service (by Post) is deemed to be successful in the absence of a contrary indication” he went on to say however that “there is no presumption against the evidence of the other party if it transpires that they did not, in fact, receive it. He said he found the appellant to be a credible and convincing witness and allowed the appeal.
This speaks for itself.
Case 20 - Incorrect wording on notice of rejection
The motorists appealed on the basis of poor signage but the adjudicator said that they complied with the rules.
However Under paragraph 5(a) of schedule 1 to the 1996 London local authorities act as amended a notice of rejection must contain the words “a charge certificate may be served unless before the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice of rejection (1) the penalty charge is paid, or (2) the person on whom the notice is served appeals to the traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge.”
The notice of rejection in this case contained the words “unless you appeal within 28 days of the date of this rejection you must pay the penalty charge of £100 to transport for London. “ It also stated Please note that failure to may result in the issue of a charge certificate which will increase the charge to £150.”
The adjudicator said that the statement that the PCN must be paid within 28 days of the notice of rejection itself, rather than the service of the notice “is incorrect and wrong in law”. The appeal was allowed for this reason.
There is very precise wording that must be included on all penalty charge notices and subsequent notices. It the wording is not exactly as per the requirements then the notice is invalid.
Often the adjudicator will himself find a discrepancy in the traffic management order or in the pcn or other statutory notices which a layman would not find. So even if you are not successful on the point you make your appeal could be upheld in any even council also occasionally do not provide the correct evidence in order to prove that a contravention took place.
Case 21 - PCN not received in post by motorist
The appellant sated that he did not receive the original PCN. The adjudicator said “I am not satisfied that it was properly served accordingly I allow the appeal.”
We believe that it is for the local authority to prove that a pcn was correctly served
Case 22 - PCN not received by appellant
The appellant stated that she had not received the PCN. The council said that they had posted it on 9th January 07 but could not provide any documentation to support this. The appeal was upheld.
We believe that it is for the local authority to prove that a PCN was correctly served.
Case 23 - Penalty charge notice not containing specified information
Section 4(3)(b) and (d) of the London local authorities act 1996 requires that amongst other things that a penalty charge notice specifies the amount payable and that if the charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice that the amount payable will be reduced by the specified proportion. The pcn issued to the motorist stated “the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by 50%”. However, the copy provided by the council had the additional required words “to £50”. The adjudicator upheld the appeal on the basis that the PCN did not comply “with the requirements of section 4(3) of the 1996 act.”
There is very precise wording that must be included on all penalty charge notices and subsequent notices. It the wording is not exactly as per the requirements then the notice is invalid.
Case 24 - Concerns incorrect PCN
The adjudicator said that the PCN was insufficiently specific as to the location of the alleged contravention so as to fall foul of the requirements of the London Local authorities act 1996 (as amended) which states" (3) a penalty charge notice under this part of the act must state (a) the grounds on which the council believe the PCN is payable with respect to the vehicle." The pcn did not contain superimposed photographs or a description of the location for example adjacent premises.
There is very precise wording that must be included on all penalty charge notices and subsequent notices. It the wording is not exactly as per the requirements then the notice is invalid.
Case 25
In the case of Bell Vs London Borough of Southwark, a penalty charge notice had been issued by post for a parking contravention. The appellant stated that he had not received the PCN even though it had been posted by the council. Although the adjudicator said that where legislation provides for the service of a document by post service was deemed to have been effected 2 working days after the document was posted, he said this presumption was rebuttable. The local authority proceeded to issue a notice to owner because they had not received payment for the penalty, but the adjudicator found that they were not entitled to serve a notice to owner because the penalty charge notice had not been properly ‘issued’ under the 1991 act. He allowed the motorists appeal on the basis that the motorist had not received the penalty charge notice posted by the council.
It is for the local authority to prove that a pcn was correctly served.
In a bus lane due to an emergency, roadworks or to allow an emergency vehicle to pass.
Case 26 - Vehicle unsafe to drive
The appellant said that he had to stop in the bus lane because it was unsafe to drive. TFL said that at no time did the vehicle stop. However the video footage shows that the vehicle did in fact stop and that the PCN was actually issued at a time when the vehicle was stationary. The adjudicator said "Upon close questioning the appellant satisfied me verbally as to the circumstances occurring beyond his control." The appeal was allowed. even though the receipt for the works carried out to the car were dated a month later.
You are allowed to enter a bus lane in an emergency or to allow an emergency vehicle to pass.
Case 27 - Vehicle moving into bus lane due to emergency vehicle
In this case the appellant stated that he moved into the bus lane upon hearing an emergency siren. The video footage was poor and a clear view of the traffic was obscured. The appellant produced a witness who was also in the car at the time. The red route traffic order for the site provides that the prohibition does not apply "if the vehicle enters or stops in a bus lane to allow a person to get or give help in consequence of an accident or emergency or otherwise take action for public safety" The appeal was allowed.
You are allowed to enter a bus lane in an emergency or to allow an emergency vehicle to pass.
Case 28 - Moved into bus lane due to road works - TFL
This case concerned a motorist who was driving in a bus lane due to roadwork's blocking the main carriageway. The adjudicator found that the relevant exemption applied and allowed the appeal.
Quite incredible that a motorist would receive a PCN for using a Bus Lane when the main carriageway is closed.
Case 29 - Moved into bus lane due to mechanical failure
The appellant moved his vehicle into the bus lane and stopped because the vehicle kept loosing power. He produced a letter from a dealer stating what would happen in such circumstances. The adjudicator found that a contravention did not occur because "the vehicle was in the bus lane to avoid an accident and/or taking action for public safety and thus under article 5(2)(a) and (b) a contravention did not occur).
You are allowed to enter a bus lane in an emergency or to allow an emergency vehicle to pass.
Case 30 - Exemption regarding getting help in an emergency
The motorist was in the bus lane in order to reach a disabled parking space so he could make an adjustment to his catheter failing which he could have sustained serious injury or even death. TFL were criticised by the adjudicator for suggesting that the motorist should have made planned stops and pursued the PCN.
You are allowed to enter a bus lane in an emergency or to allow an emergency vehicle to pass. Unbelievable!
YOU CAN QUOTE ANY OF THESE CASES TO THE ENFORCING AUTHORITY OR TO THE ADJUDICATOR
> Next Section: Enforcement procedure for a bus lane ticket (PCN)
We hope that you have found our website helpful
All of our work takes time and costs money.
If you would like to make a contribution then please click here.
Did you know that in the year ending 2005 transport for London spent £20m on installing CCTV camera’s and projected that they would receive £23m in fines. Now that’s a good investment!
Click here to read about our impact and success stories.
|
