PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Code 52M Threadneedle Street (bank junction), Help Please
01greg01
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 14:40
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 22 May 2019
Member No.: 103,989



Hello,

I received 2 PCN at Bank junction. Coming from Threadneedle street and going to Mansion House/Poultry.
I know there a few threads about Cornhill and Mansion House for the same junction but I couldn't find a specific one for Threadneedle and I'm unsure the same applies.

PCN letter:


Evidence:
https://youtu.be/dFnem9Uin_w

To put some context of how I ended with the PCNs:
- I commute daily from south east London through London Bridge.
- I usually take Canon Street but it's been closed for ages.
- I followed diversion signs leading to bank junction via Threadneedle street.
- Canon Street is still closed but they removed the 'diversion' sign from Threadneedle street probably around the time of my 1st PCN.
- I never noticed it was a 'Bus & cycle way' only and I just received two PCN from 09/05 and 14/05
- I stopped to take this way as soon as I got the 1ST PCN.


My question is, what arguments should I give to contest the PCNs and how to formulate?
I now know this road is not allowed for motorcycle although I believe the signs are unclear and I would expect to get away with it or at least just pay one (Some might follow as I stopped to use the road the day I received the PCN on the 17/05).
There's no road marks to suggest a 'bus only' way. There's no diversion possible once you see the 'bus and cycle only' sign on the left of the road unless you do a U turn in the middle of the street.
It probably wouldn't be considered but I find it a bit hard to be able to go the 'bus cycle only' way for months because of the diversion sign and get fined as soon as they removed it as it's not the most noticeable (always hidden by buses).

I would greatly appreciate any help to formulate as I'm not a native English and the wording gets technical when it gets to this. Also my knowledge of the rules is not as good as it can be just being in London for 3 years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 10)
Advertisement
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 14:40
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 16:00
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,509
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



The PCN is for cornhill, but for all of bank junction the reasoning in this case is sound

2180198194

Representations are made by Mr Dogan on the basis that the signage in Lombard Street does not comply with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The appellant refers to a decision of Adjudicator Edward Houghton appeal 2170469229. In that appeal the Adjudicator initially adjourned the appeal and asked the City of London to explain why the legend Bus Gate was not on the carriageway. The Enforcement Authority did not reply. The appeal was allowed on the basis that the requirement for the legend Bus Gate was mandatory. No application for review was made.
In this appeal the local authority argues that the legend Bus Gate is not mandatory because there is no link from the Route for Bus and Cycle Only sign in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The case summary does not refer to Schedule 9 Part 5 para 1 TSRGD 2016 which provides that the information etc. of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in Part 6 “must” be conveyed by a road marking shown in column 3. The legend bus gate is one of the items in column 3 of part 6 of Schedule 9.

Item 15 of the sign table in part 6 contains the description ” Road or part of a road with access permitted only for buses and other vehicles when so indicated by any of the signs at items 10, 33 to 35 and 37 to 40 in the sign table in Part 2 of Schedule 3”.

The restricted access of that type in the present case is indicated by a (permitted variant of) a sign to Diagram 953 shown in the Schedule 3 Part 2 sign table at item 33.
I find that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 state that the bus gate legend is mandatory.
The local authority refers to a decision of Adjudicator John Lane. I am not bound by the decision of any Adjudicator. In this case I follow the decision of Adjudicator Edward Houghton.
The appellant was well aware that the restriction was in operation and to that extent the appeal has little merit. Previous Penalty Charge Notices issued to the appellant had been cancelled.
I am satisfied that the bus gate requirement is mandatory therefore I must allow this appeal.


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
01greg01
post Thu, 23 May 2019 - 09:48
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 22 May 2019
Member No.: 103,989



Thanks Pastmybest,

Should I take this same text and put my name instead of 'Mr Dogan' and 'Threadneedle street' instead of 'Lombard street'?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 23 May 2019 - 13:02
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,509
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (01greg01 @ Thu, 23 May 2019 - 10:48) *
Thanks Pastmybest,

Should I take this same text and put my name instead of 'Mr Dogan' and 'Threadneedle street' instead of 'Lombard street'?


No that's the finding of an adjudicator, you must draft something usinfg the facts re the regulations


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 23 May 2019 - 17:16
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,106
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Use this draft: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1450331 just change the name of the street.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
01greg01
post Fri, 31 May 2019 - 14:59
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 22 May 2019
Member No.: 103,989



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 23 May 2019 - 18:16) *
Use this draft: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1450331 just change the name of the street.


Hi, thanks a lot for your help!

In total I received 3 PCNs for the exact same infraction.

I sent pretty much the exact same copy than the one suggested by cp8759 and just received the answer for the first PCN that have been cancelled!! So thanks again.

Although it also mentions "
Having given consideration to your case, I have taken the decision to cancel the PCN as a gesture of goodwill and a warning of the restrictions in place. I would add that this should not be viewed as a precedent for any future cases as we look at each and every case individually upon its merits. Furthermore, the City expects all drivers to comply with any restrictions that are in place and should you receive a PCN in similar circumstances it may be enforced. I can confirm that the case is now closed and you have no further outstanding liability for this particular PCN."

I already challenged the 2nd PCN with the same copy so I'll see how it goes...
But seems like they'll refuse. So not sure what'ill do for the last one.
Any advice?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 31 May 2019 - 22:18
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,106
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



That draft has been used by a number of people on here and the CoL has never rejected it. If they reject, post up the rejection letter and we'll take it from there.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
01greg01
post Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 13:57
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 22 May 2019
Member No.: 103,989



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 31 May 2019 - 23:18) *
That draft has been used by a number of people on here and the CoL has never rejected it. If they reject, post up the rejection letter and we'll take it from there.


Another big thank you to you and all the forum.
I just received the answer for the 2 last PCNs and they've been cancelled both at the same time.

Below the last part of the letter received. For them the signs are legal proof but since they still cancel PCN means they also think that it is misleading and not clear. Anyway I learn my lessons, saved £200 and will never go through bank junction anymore and also be more attentive to road signs.

"The traffic order for Bank on Safety is both a restricted route and vehicle prohibition order. We have chosen to use code 52M as it best matches the order though we accept code 33C could also be used due to the signs. An independent sign expert reviewed the signage and found it legal and adequate. The Department for Transport has confirmed that there is no need for carriageway markings (bus gate) to support diagram 953, the material sign in this instance. Having given consideration to your case, I have taken the decision to cancel both the above PCNs as a gesture of goodwill and a warning of the restrictions in place. I would add that this should not be viewed as a precedent for any future cases as we look at each and every case individually upon its merits. Furthermore, the City expects all drivers to comply with any restrictions that are in place and should you receive a PCN in similar circumstances it may be enforced."

This post has been edited by 01greg01: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 13:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 17:14
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,106
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I think we can confidently say CoL are just trying to save face. They've not pushed a single case to adjudication based on that template representation, so they're obviously not that confident the signage is compliant.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 19:02
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,509
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 18:14) *
I think we can confidently say CoL are just trying to save face. They've not pushed a single case to adjudication based on that template representation, so they're obviously not that confident the signage is compliant.


DfT can say its compliant but without a change to TSRGD 2016 it cant be. (The judge said) rolleyes.gif


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 6 Jun 2019 - 16:09
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,106
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 20:02) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 18:14) *
I think we can confidently say CoL are just trying to save face. They've not pushed a single case to adjudication based on that template representation, so they're obviously not that confident the signage is compliant.


DfT can say its compliant but without a change to TSRGD 2016 it cant be. (The judge said) rolleyes.gif

I suspect there's quite a gap between what the DfT has actually said, and what CoL says the DfT has said.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 20th June 2019 - 04:13
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.