Bus lane fine, Denmark Hill

[Ladharrbeinn]

Hi all,

just in case of interest to anyone in similar position...

In March I got fined ?130 for momentarily stopping in a bus lane to pick someone up from Denmark Hill station (on the same side of the road as the Salvation Army).

The fine - ?130 - is more than 2 days pay for many people, after tax, which seems wildly disproportionate.

Anyway I appealed it because roadworks meant most of the Bus Lane signs were obscured. Southwark rejected my appeal so i took it to the independent adjudicator. At a hearing this morning the adjudicator agreed with me and cancelled the fine - despite the fact that Southwark sent two members of staff to try to argue their side.

My point is really just that if you've been caught out there when roadworks were on, it's worth fighting.

(also - what a waste of council resources to fight it so hard!)

[ruffers]

Or just don't stop in the bus lane.

Possibly a bit blunt but it's not that hard surely? There are big white lines on the road which must surely have at least raised some suspicion no?

[DulwichFox]

The fact there were road works is even more reason not to stop.

IMHO

dulwichfox

[rendelharris]

As you don't claim you didn't know there is a bus lane there (which is frankly very obvious from road markings and signage, and was during the roadworks) it sounds more like it was you wasting council resources by making a prolonged attempt to get off your ticket on a technicality when you knew, in reality, you'd broken the rules.

[se22cat]

I don't know man, I disagree that anyone should be fined for a momentary lapse in concentration / judgement which didn't put anyone in danger or cause any harm. The morally bankrupt council of Southwark sending 2 people to fight the case is pretty disgusting and another typical example of just how ethically challenged they are.

Good on you for fighting the scumbags and winning.

[KidKruger]

?momentary lapse in concentration / judgement?

If Council didn?t act on ?justifications? like that, utter anarchy would ensue.

[uncleglen]

If you are in a bus lane for a very short time, as the op was, and there is NO traffic in it, i.e. taxis, bikes, buses etc you are not causing an obstruction and they should not fine you imho. If you do cause an obstruction in the bus lane then you should definitely expect the fine.

2 reps from Southwark is ott but given they have so much rental debt to make up it is not surprising

[peckham_ryu]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> when you

> knew, in reality, you'd broken the rules.

There are clear rules about what is and what is not a bus lane. If it?s not properly marked, it?s not a bus lane, accotidjbg to the tiles. So Southwark doubtless know they broke the rules by trying to enforce a bus lane when the roadworks obscured critical markings. And if you know the rules, and you can see the rules mean it?s not a bus lane, no problem with using it.

[Rumbero]

If Southwark are so committed to enforcing bus lanes perhaps they could start by removing the abandoned vehicle on Denmark Hill. It's been there for at least two weeks now.

[cella]

se22cat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't know man, I disagree that anyone should be

> fined for a momentary lapse in concentration /

> judgement which didn't put anyone in danger or

> cause any harm. The morally bankrupt council of

> Southwark sending 2 people to fight the case is

> pretty disgusting and another typical example of

> just how ethically challenged they are.

>

> Good on you for fighting the scumbags and winning.

Seriously, calling council workers scumbags for doing their jobs when the op is clearly in the wrong - totally out of order.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Fair comment, cella, 'scumbags' is way too strong, although the fact the adjudicator found in the OP's favour suggests that normal and reasonable indicators weren't in place so it wasn't completely fair to fine them.

Have to say that when you're on your way to work on a bus that's stuck in a blocked bus lane ?130 doesn't seem that unreasonable, but maybe that's just me!

[edcam]

Moral is, don't stop in bus lanes. They're there for a reason.

[Lynne]

It would be very helpful if there was somewhere outside Denmark Hill to drop off/pick up people.

[JohnL]

It's the OPs right to fight all the way mind you (and if he had lost its probably a lot more money for that privilege)

[ruffers]

It is.

It's also mine to say they should have just took it on the chin instead of trying to get off on a technicality, ending up costing the council the effort they put in to defend it, which is a fair few quid they could have spent elsewhere.

Or just not not stopped there in the first place.

[Abe_froeman]

The tribunal found that the driver was right and the council were well out of order though. HTH.

[rendelharris]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The tribunal found that the driver was right and

> the council were well out of order though. HTH.

And the driver knew the bus lane was there, apparently, and knew they shouldn't have stopped (OP please step in and correct if you had a genuine belief that the bus lane didn't exist or was suspended?) but wasted council money appealing on a technicality. HTH some more.

[redpost]

I look forward to seeing this case on daytime TV, probably narrated by Jamie Theakston

[rendelharris]

Just to add, OP, if you'd paid the fine immediately it would have been ?65 - isn't your time, and the council's money which you seem so keen they should not waste, worth more than the many hours it must have taken to get you off on a technicality when, prima facie, you knew you shouldn't have done it?

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And the driver knew the bus lane was there,

> apparently, and knew they shouldn't have stopped

> (OP please step in and correct if you had a

> genuine belief that the bus lane didn't exist or

> was suspended?) but wasted council money appealing

> on a technicality. HTH some more.

If the signs are obscured then there is a genuine reason to believe that the bus lane is suspended. That's presumably why the independent adjudicator sided with the OP and not Southwark Council.

The roadworks were probably the ones around Easter which essentially took over the entire bus lane on Champion Park for several weeks. The works obscured the metal bus lane signs and they were digging up the street so also took out the 'bus lane' paint on the road. Under those circumstances I'm not surprised that the independent adjudicator sided with the OP and I'm amazed Southwark sent two people to fight their case.

[rendelharris]

If a bus lane is suspended then you can tell because there will be big signs reading bus lane suspended. If the OP is local, which I presume s/he is, they know there's a bus lane there (and as I recall during the works there was plenty of signage and road markings still visible). By all means, appeal a ticket if you must, and if you can get away with it on a technicality then so be it, but let's not bother with this "oh I didn't think it was a bus lane any more" nonsense. The OP did something they knew wasn't allowed and then argued the toss on a technicality.

[ianr]

You can see and download the determination by going to https://londontribunals.org.uk/, and then to pages

Statutory Registers

Search (within Environment and Traffic Adjudicators (ETA))

and then searching on these values:

Enforcing Authority -> Southwark

From -> 17/07/2018

To -> 17/07/2018

It seems to be the last of the three. For the asserted copyright conditions, see https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/copyright-statement. I don't see how that can be taken to prohibit fair use, such as limited quotation for the purpose of discussion, but don't take my word for it.

Incidentally, Southwark had a representative at the other two appeals, in which the decision was not overturned.

And of ? several hundred hearings listed for the next week, none of them seems to have any cases where an enforcing authority is listed as attending.

[rendelharris]

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

The works

> obscured the metal bus lane signs and they were

> digging up the street so also took out the 'bus

> lane' paint on the road. Under those circumstances

> I'm not surprised that the independent adjudicator

> sided with the OP and I'm amazed Southwark sent

> two people to fight their case.

If you read the adjudication Ian's so helpfully provided, the bus lane markings were visible as were the signs. The main reason for allowing the appeal seems to be that two vans, which may not have been part of the works, might have been in the way of the signs. I'm surprised the appeal was allowed and not in the least surprised Southwark decided to contest it.

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you read the adjudication Ian's so helpfully

> provided, the bus lane markings were visible as

> were the signs. The main reason for allowing the

> appeal seems to be that two vans, which may not

> have been part of the works, might have been in

> the way of the signs. I'm surprised the appeal

> was allowed and not in the least surprised

> Southwark decided to contest it.

"a barrier erected which partially obscures the thick white line on the road, and completely obscures the "BUS LANE" markings on this stretch of road."

And

"two large white vans which obscured both the traffic lights and the bus lane sign until the Appellant was virtually at the crossing"

So I was correct to say that the metal bus lane signs and 'bus lane' paint were obscured. Thanks for the confirmation.

The adjudicator said that under normal circumstances the bus lane signage is adequate and I don't think anybody would argue with that. But there weren't normal circumstances on the day of the incident: it was the combination of lengthy roadworks and the position of the vans which meant that some of the signage was obscured.

[Growlybear]

In all the years that the pay and display parking bays have been in operation on the other side of the road, I've never yet not been able to get a parking space at any time of the day or night. Was there not a vacant space when the OP stopped at the station?