Dear Lambeth Borough Council,

The House of Commons Transport Select Committee has stated that it expects councils to quickly rectify signage that causes confusion. On 15 Sep 2011 Case Number 2110447884 Adjudicator Anthony Engel upheld an appeal at the Clapham Park Road bus lane stating quote 'I have viewed the DVD and I agree with the Appellant that the left turn arrow renders the signage confusing'. Five years later on 16 Jan 2016 Case Number 2150471374 Adjudicator Anju Kaler upheld an appeal stating 'there is also an arrow in the main carriageway indicating to the left as one approaches the junction. The purpose of the arrow is, I believe, to tell motorists that they must move into the left hand lane of the main carriageway in order to turn left, and, whilst there is no break in the white line for the bus lane, the placing of the arrow has the potential of misleading motorists into thinking that they can go into the bus lane here. Thus, whilst the marking and signs comply with the legal requirements, the placing of the signs combined with the white arrow on the ground misleads the driver.' In all, at least 7 adjudicators over the past 5 years have upheld appeals stating that the left arrow road marking at this location confuses motorists.

Why has the council not complied with the House of Commons Transport Select Committee and made improvements to the signage to remove the confusion especially since nearly 100,000 motorists have followed the left arrow into the bus lane during this period. Also why have the council not implemented the recommendation in the 2010 W S Atkins review of this bus lane to put red tarmac in the bus lane using some of the £6m taken in fines here.

Yours faithfully,

Charles Dawson

Dear Richard Carter,

Thank you for your response. As you will note from the findings below, the fact that signs are compliant with regulations does not mean that they are adequate. If adjudicators find signs are confusing then so will motorists. There were 30,651 PCNs raised at this location in 2015 and the Secretary of State statutory guidance objectives state that you should be aiming for zero. W S Atkins recommended that you use red tarmac in 2010 but this has not been implemented. I request an internal review because you have not answered my question concerning why red tarmac has not been used. You have a duty to act fairly and that includes making sure that signs are not confusing by providing additional visual clues as suggested by W S Atkins and London Tribunals adjudicators who have specifically suggested the use of red tarmac.

The obligation under Regulation 18(1) of the 1996 Regulations goes further than merely placing the minimum signs required by the Regulations. Adequate information must be made available to the motorist in the particular circumstances of each location. Furthermore in exercising any of its functions under the statutory scheme, an authority must not only comply with the regulations : it also has a duty to act fairly. Following R -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 at 560, per Lord​ ​Mustill : “Where an Act of Parliament confers an​ ​administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner​ ​which is fair in all the circumstances. In addition not only must signs be present they must also comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.

In R(Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin) Mr Justice Beatson confirmed that, “the fact that signs are prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient for securing adequate information as to the effect of an order is made available to road​ ​users is clearly correct. If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed”

Yours sincerely,

Charles Dawson