Bus lane fine: Worth contesting?
Discussion
No harm in trying I guess but suspect it'll be more hassle than it's worth and arguing on a point of principle is generally just not worth it I find. That said I made a genuine error in a council car park earlier this year and sent an email explaining why etc and they binned the fine and asked me to pay the £3.50 it would have normally cost. Happy days and common sense prevailed in my case.
Edited by Osinjak on Wednesday 30th December 15:23
Ultimately, there's no point contesting it because, despite the fact that she possibly didn't go "completely into" the bus lane, she certainly did go in there a little bit, as the photo proves! The bottom line is that the only way to avoid the fine, as frustrating as it might be, is not to drive in the bus lane at all.
Boo-urns said:
and it appears that she clipped the solid white line before the end of the bus lane in a slightly too hasty move to turn left at the traffic lights.
She, on the other hand, wants to contest it on principle, and feels understandably peeved that she's being charged £30 for a technicality. I have to concede that it seems hugely petty, especially given she was only partly in the bus lane at the time.
Haha she clearly didn't "clip" the solid white line, there are at least 2 pictures with half the car in the bus lane & there may well be another few hundred yards of her driving completely in the bus lane that you aren't showing us. She, on the other hand, wants to contest it on principle, and feels understandably peeved that she's being charged £30 for a technicality. I have to concede that it seems hugely petty, especially given she was only partly in the bus lane at the time.
The problem with the old "there was no one around it's only a technicality why not let me off" defence is where do you draw the line in allowing misdemeanours go unnoticed.
I say this as someone who had to accept 3 points and £65 fine for going through a red light at 5Am on a sunday morning. I'd been sat stationary at the lights for minutes, could see all the junctions at the road were clear so I made the decision to proceed through the light only to get a letter weeks later informing me that I was spotted & because the lights are near a secondary school there was no option but to prosecute.
Of course I tried a nicely worded letter explaining my thought process, the lack of danger, that I had no points, that i was on my way to work & at 5am on a Sunday there is a distinct lack of school children, no result.
It's not what you want to hear but pay up an put some headphones in when your wife wants to carry on arguing she did nothing wrong
H.N.Y
I presume that you aren't in London but the below TfL guidance might be of help;
I found this guidance when I was contesting a PCN for a similar offence a few years ago. Apparently, this guidance is given to Local Authorities by TfL.
The first is the Potential Offence Test, which will likely show that an offence was committed if any of the last 4 factors apply.
If an offence was committed, follow the Minor Infringement Test to see if a PCN should legitimately be issued. This test points out quite a few factors which could be used as mitigation in an appeal.
My appeal was successful but YMMV, particularly if your Local Authority does not take the same approach as TfL.
I hope that this helps.
I found this guidance when I was contesting a PCN for a similar offence a few years ago. Apparently, this guidance is given to Local Authorities by TfL.
The first is the Potential Offence Test, which will likely show that an offence was committed if any of the last 4 factors apply.
If an offence was committed, follow the Minor Infringement Test to see if a PCN should legitimately be issued. This test points out quite a few factors which could be used as mitigation in an appeal.
My appeal was successful but YMMV, particularly if your Local Authority does not take the same approach as TfL.
I hope that this helps.
Have you checked the times of operation of the bus lane to make sure her actions were prohibited at the time of the alleged offence?
I had a ticket sent to me erroneously because the council operative failed to understand the time stamp on the photograph (which was in 24 hour clock format).
I had a ticket sent to me erroneously because the council operative failed to understand the time stamp on the photograph (which was in 24 hour clock format).
On the basis that penalties for entering bus lanes are intended to discourage people from 'using' them, I'd contest it.
But then my wife tells me I'm inclined to be bloody-minded.
But then my wife tells me I'm inclined to be bloody-minded.
Edited by clive_candy on Wednesday 30th December 16:55
Edited by clive_candy on Wednesday 30th December 18:37
I've dug out the PCN photos that I received at the time (2013) and I've also copied below the letter that I put together when appealing the bus lane PCN.
Dear sirs
I write in relation to the PCN no. ***********, relating to an alleged bus lane contravention.
Please accept this letter as a representation against the PCN on the basis that the contravention did not occur, and I offer the following reasons:
1. The CCTV video and still images that you have provided show the vehicle entering the left turn filter lane, as the vehicle is intending to turn left into Theobalds Road. This is in accordance with the road markings defining the filter lane.
2. If it is your contention that the vehicle entered the filter lane prematurely, then please note that a) the vehicle entered the filter lane at the appropriate road markings, b) any alleged encroachment on to the end of the bus lane was de minimis, c) no advantage was gained over other vehicles by entering the filter lane, and d) no buses were impeded by the vehicle entering the filter lane.
3. The CCTV video shows a VW van (reg: ********) in front and a BMW Mini (reg: *******) behind, who both perform similar manoeuvres in entering the filter lane. This is indicative of the reasonable actions of an average driver.
4. Based on the Transport for London guidance flowcharts for Potential Offence Test and Minor Infringement Test, the PCN should not have been issued in the circumstances shown on the CCTV footage.
5. There are a number of documented successful PATAS Appeals relating to alleged bus lane infringements based on similar circumstances, including also at this specific location. I am aware that previous successfully appeals may not set a binding precedent, however it is indicative of the unreasonableness in the Council issuing the PCN in the circumstances described above. This will also form part of the formal appeal if this representation is rejected.
Dear sirs
I write in relation to the PCN no. ***********, relating to an alleged bus lane contravention.
Please accept this letter as a representation against the PCN on the basis that the contravention did not occur, and I offer the following reasons:
1. The CCTV video and still images that you have provided show the vehicle entering the left turn filter lane, as the vehicle is intending to turn left into Theobalds Road. This is in accordance with the road markings defining the filter lane.
2. If it is your contention that the vehicle entered the filter lane prematurely, then please note that a) the vehicle entered the filter lane at the appropriate road markings, b) any alleged encroachment on to the end of the bus lane was de minimis, c) no advantage was gained over other vehicles by entering the filter lane, and d) no buses were impeded by the vehicle entering the filter lane.
3. The CCTV video shows a VW van (reg: ********) in front and a BMW Mini (reg: *******) behind, who both perform similar manoeuvres in entering the filter lane. This is indicative of the reasonable actions of an average driver.
4. Based on the Transport for London guidance flowcharts for Potential Offence Test and Minor Infringement Test, the PCN should not have been issued in the circumstances shown on the CCTV footage.
5. There are a number of documented successful PATAS Appeals relating to alleged bus lane infringements based on similar circumstances, including also at this specific location. I am aware that previous successfully appeals may not set a binding precedent, however it is indicative of the unreasonableness in the Council issuing the PCN in the circumstances described above. This will also form part of the formal appeal if this representation is rejected.
Mandat said:
I've dug out the PCN photos that I received at the time (2013) and I've also copied below the letter that I put together when appealing the bus lane PCN.
Dear sirs
I write in relation to the PCN no. ***********, relating to an alleged bus lane contravention.
Please accept this letter as a representation against the PCN on the basis that the contravention did not occur, and I offer the following reasons:
1. The CCTV video and still images that you have provided show the vehicle entering the left turn filter lane, as the vehicle is intending to turn left into Theobalds Road. This is in accordance with the road markings defining the filter lane.
2. If it is your contention that the vehicle entered the filter lane prematurely, then please note that a) the vehicle entered the filter lane at the appropriate road markings, b) any alleged encroachment on to the end of the bus lane was de minimis, c) no advantage was gained over other vehicles by entering the filter lane, and d) no buses were impeded by the vehicle entering the filter lane.
3. The CCTV video shows a VW van (reg: ********) in front and a BMW Mini (reg: *******) behind, who both perform similar manoeuvres in entering the filter lane. This is indicative of the reasonable actions of an average driver.
4. Based on the Transport for London guidance flowcharts for Potential Offence Test and Minor Infringement Test, the PCN should not have been issued in the circumstances shown on the CCTV footage.
5. There are a number of documented successful PATAS Appeals relating to alleged bus lane infringements based on similar circumstances, including also at this specific location. I am aware that previous successfully appeals may not set a binding precedent, however it is indicative of the unreasonableness in the Council issuing the PCN in the circumstances described above. This will also form part of the formal appeal if this representation is rejected.
OP's wife entered about where the white VW van is in your first pic. Dear sirs
I write in relation to the PCN no. ***********, relating to an alleged bus lane contravention.
Please accept this letter as a representation against the PCN on the basis that the contravention did not occur, and I offer the following reasons:
1. The CCTV video and still images that you have provided show the vehicle entering the left turn filter lane, as the vehicle is intending to turn left into Theobalds Road. This is in accordance with the road markings defining the filter lane.
2. If it is your contention that the vehicle entered the filter lane prematurely, then please note that a) the vehicle entered the filter lane at the appropriate road markings, b) any alleged encroachment on to the end of the bus lane was de minimis, c) no advantage was gained over other vehicles by entering the filter lane, and d) no buses were impeded by the vehicle entering the filter lane.
3. The CCTV video shows a VW van (reg: ********) in front and a BMW Mini (reg: *******) behind, who both perform similar manoeuvres in entering the filter lane. This is indicative of the reasonable actions of an average driver.
4. Based on the Transport for London guidance flowcharts for Potential Offence Test and Minor Infringement Test, the PCN should not have been issued in the circumstances shown on the CCTV footage.
5. There are a number of documented successful PATAS Appeals relating to alleged bus lane infringements based on similar circumstances, including also at this specific location. I am aware that previous successfully appeals may not set a binding precedent, however it is indicative of the unreasonableness in the Council issuing the PCN in the circumstances described above. This will also form part of the formal appeal if this representation is rejected.
OP: just pay it.
Pothole said:
OP's wife entered about where the white VW van is in your first pic.
OP: just pay it.
I would say that distance is sufficiently close to the end of the bus lane to argue de minimis, particularly coupled with the fact that there is an upcoming left turn filter lane, no advantage was gained over other vehicles and that no buses were impeded (which is perfectly shown in the OP's photos as being the only car visible on the road).OP: just pay it.
Mandat said:
Pothole said:
OP's wife entered about where the white VW van is in your first pic.
OP: just pay it.
I would say that distance is sufficiently close to the end of the bus lane to argue de minimis, particularly coupled with the fact that there is an upcoming left turn filter lane, no advantage was gained over other vehicles and that no buses were impeded (which is perfectly shown in the OP's photos as being the only car visible on the road).OP: just pay it.
Mandat said:
I would say that distance is sufficiently close to the end of the bus lane to argue de minimis, .
You can't see the end of the bus lane, or indeed where driver entered (which judging by the angle of the car was some distance back) 
It's a fair cop. Driver was well into the bus lane with no mitigating reason. Clear road, no traffic.
Which ever way you look at it the conundrum was caused by a poor decision.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff