Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ The Flame Pit _ TRO and Bus Lanes legalities

Posted by: plonka Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 16:00
Post #1397563

I would appreciate advice or knowledge of legalities.

I have a 10 seater vehicle, which can go into any bus lane (so long as it doesn't say local). I have been having a fight with my local council about this and they have eventually accepted that the legislation http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/made clearly defines a bus as follows:-
“a motor vehicle which is constructed or adapted to carry more than eight seated passengers in addition to the driver.”

Also
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/23/made
which clearly states:-
“Bus lane” in the signs referred to in paragraph
(1) means a traffic lane reserved for—
(a)motor vehicles constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers (exclusive of the driver);

In other words, the sign of a "BUS" on a bus lane automatically allows (so long as it doesn't say "local") any vehicle above 8+ passenger seats, or 9 passenger+1 driver, which is a minimum of 10 seats.


My question is as follows. The current TRO of the BUS LANE is one that is based on one created in 1997, prior to the legislation clarifying about the signage which can be found https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Bury/BC05B.pdf , therefore in the TRO where it states who can use the Bus Lane, "a school bus. a stage carriage. a contract carriage or a works bus, any other vehicle constructed or adapted to carry 12 or more passengers", which would mean that a sign of a normal BUS which allows 8 or more passengers would mean that the signage is inadequate, as it is not in-line with their own TRO.

Would that invalidate the Bus Lane altogether?

Posted by: Wretched Rectum Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 17:07
Post #1397610

From what I gather, as Bury is outside London the relevant parent legislation is http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/section/144/2001-02-01?timeline=true

section 144(5) may be relevant to your question.

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 17:12
Post #1397612

TSRGD 2016 is the ruling interpretation re bus lane signs/definition
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/1/made
But does say 8 passengers

So I would say that if your vehicle fits that, safe to use bus lanes.
Council cannot rely on a TRO that says 12 or more without signage to suit else they are failing in their duty to clearly sign restrictions.
And definitions relating to signs can only come from TSRGD.
Which would IMO mean you would win at adjudication should a council push the 12 or more without signage to suit.


It would not invalidate the bus lane except for vehicles that fall into the relevant area, common understanding of the sign would apply, ie, a two seater convertible is not a bus and never will be, nor will the average family saloon with 5 seats.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 17:16
Post #1397616

QUOTE (Wretched Rectum @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 18:07) *
From what I gather, as Bury is outside London the relevant parent legislation is http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/section/144/2001-02-01?timeline=true

section 144(5) may be relevant to your question.


Also TSRGD 2016

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/1/made

I suspect that the ability to limit the use is lawful, but what about the signs. If the vehicle meets the requirement of TSRGD as a bus, and also the C & U regs then the restriction needs be signed so that a driver is aware

Posted by: plonka Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 18:39
Post #1397661

Thanks for the responses.

QUOTE (Wretched Rectum @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 18:07) *
From what I gather, as Bury is outside London the relevant parent legislation is http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/section/144/2001-02-01?timeline=true

section 144(5) may be relevant to your question.

That sounds right, however the way this TRO has been set up, seems as though it is not a "bus Lane" as the, as the order they are using is the old TRO order from 1984, and are not using the powers a council have as you have quoted.

Does that mean its not enforceable, as its not a "BUS LANE", its a standard regulation order of specific vehicles, which have its own appropriate signage?

Even if their TRO is legal, there doesnt seem to be any type of signpost which would limit to "12 passengers+", so I don't think it's even possible to enforce

My question is, do the council now have to refund all vehicles that they have incorrectly charged, or since the TRO is valid, they have rights to charge, but a user has rights to appeal? Also the reason why I query if the bus lane is legal altogether is because it doesnt comply with the required signage provision http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18/made

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 19:31
Post #1397697

Post up a GSV of the bus lane in question

Posted by: plonka Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 20:37
Post #1397735

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.5225076,-2.2630082,3a,75y,326.9h,88.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJZHQ1SX1WwaKHm1h02Cq3Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 21:28
Post #1397755

So a standard 654 style bus lane sign. (then) Now a 959
No problem until you go back to the TRO which specifies Road Traffic Sign Regulations 1981 to which the TRO refers.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1981/859/pdfs/uksi_19810859_en.pdf
Page 73 shows the sign and uses the same words as the TRO, School Buses, express services, works buses etc and defines those as more then 12 passengers (amongst other things)
So this is where the wording and signage came from.
The 1981 sign regulations were updated and consolidated in 1994 regulations.
That amended the definitions in regulation 22 so that from dec 1996 seat requirements was dropped from 12 to 8.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/1519/regulation/22/made
1994 regs were revoked by TSRGD 2002 which in turn revoked by TSRGD 2016.


Which to me means that the meaning of the sign was correct when the TRO was created but has been altered over time and subsequent regulations.
The original regulations and meanings cannot apply as those were specifically changed.
TRO does not use the word bus specifically so the 8 seat requirement is not automatically applied by the changes, only that the common interpretation (and specification) of the sign meaning since 1996 has been 8 passenger seats.


So I stick with my original position, TRO valid but cannot be applied to vehicles with over 8 passenger seats as that is what the sign shows.
If the council wish to enforce on 12 seats or more, they must use non standard signs which would need approval.

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 21:32
Post #1397756

QUOTE (plonka @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 19:39) *
Does that mean its not enforceable, as its not a "BUS LANE", its a standard regulation order of specific vehicles, which have its own appropriate signage?

Even if their TRO is legal, there doesnt seem to be any type of signpost which would limit to "12 passengers+", so I don't think it's even possible to enforce

In my opinion, no, it’s both unreasonable and non sensical to ask councils and the highways agency to change every affected TRO when legislation changes, the council are required to convey the limit, they have done so using normal BUS LANE signs, as such they can only apply the normal restriction conveyed by them. They could get special authorisation for a ‘12 seater’ limit but that’s pretty pointless and likely to cause more issues.

So in my opinion, no matter how many times you ask, the BUS LANE TRO is enforceable save for the 10-12 seater where the signage does not match the TRO.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 09:46
Post #1397871

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 22:28) *
So a standard 654 style bus lane sign. (then) Now a 959
No problem until you go back to the TRO which specifies Road Traffic Sign Regulations 1981 to which the TRO refers.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1981/859/pdfs/uksi_19810859_en.pdf
Page 73 shows the sign and uses the same words as the TRO, School Buses, express services, works buses etc and defines those as more then 12 passengers (amongst other things)
So this is where the wording and signage came from.
The 1981 sign regulations were updated and consolidated in 1994 regulations.
That amended the definitions in regulation 22 so that from dec 1996 seat requirements was dropped from 12 to 8.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/1519/regulation/22/made
1994 regs were revoked by TSRGD 2002 which in turn revoked by TSRGD 2016.


Which to me means that the meaning of the sign was correct when the TRO was created but has been altered over time and subsequent regulations.
The original regulations and meanings cannot apply as those were specifically changed.
TRO does not use the word bus specifically so the 8 seat requirement is not automatically applied by the changes, only that the common interpretation (and specification) of the sign meaning since 1996 has been 8 passenger seats.


So I stick with my original position, TRO valid but cannot be applied to vehicles with over 8 passenger seats as that is what the sign shows.
If the council wish to enforce on 12 seats or more, they must use non standard signs which would need approval.


Yep

Posted by: plonka Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 12:57
Post #1397943

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 10:46) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 22:28) *
So a standard 654 style bus lane sign. (then) Now a 959
No problem until you go back to the TRO which specifies Road Traffic Sign Regulations 1981 to which the TRO refers.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1981/859/pdfs/uksi_19810859_en.pdf
Page 73 shows the sign and uses the same words as the TRO, School Buses, express services, works buses etc and defines those as more then 12 passengers (amongst other things)
So this is where the wording and signage came from.
The 1981 sign regulations were updated and consolidated in 1994 regulations.
That amended the definitions in regulation 22 so that from dec 1996 seat requirements was dropped from 12 to 8.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/1519/regulation/22/made
1994 regs were revoked by TSRGD 2002 which in turn revoked by TSRGD 2016.


Which to me means that the meaning of the sign was correct when the TRO was created but has been altered over time and subsequent regulations.
The original regulations and meanings cannot apply as those were specifically changed.
TRO does not use the word bus specifically so the 8 seat requirement is not automatically applied by the changes, only that the common interpretation (and specification) of the sign meaning since 1996 has been 8 passenger seats.


So I stick with my original position, TRO valid but cannot be applied to vehicles with over 8 passenger seats as that is what the sign shows.
If the council wish to enforce on 12 seats or more, they must use non standard signs which would need approval.


Yep


Thats my understanding too.

So would I be right to say this would be a normal TRO, not a Bus Lane contravention, which would mean if the council send out a PCN as a "Bus Lane" contravention, that would be the incorrect contravention (and would be a £50 penalty instead of £60)?

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 13:07
Post #1397946

QUOTE (plonka @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 13:57) *
So would I be right to say this would be a normal TRO, not a Bus Lane contravention, which would mean if the council send out a PCN as a "Bus Lane" contravention, that would be the incorrect contravention (and would be a £50 penalty instead of £60)?

Eh? the Traffic Regulation Order is just that, a contravention is contravening and order and as this is a bus lane TRO it would be a bus lane contravention. You can't get a 'normal TRO'!

In my opinion it is still a bus lane contravention, the only effect of the discrepancy is that they can't enforce against smaller busses as they haven't adequately conveyed the restriction, everything else is as it was.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 13:11
Post #1397949

Post up the PCN

Posted by: plonka Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 13:13
Post #1397950

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:07) *
QUOTE (plonka @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 13:57) *
So would I be right to say this would be a normal TRO, not a Bus Lane contravention, which would mean if the council send out a PCN as a "Bus Lane" contravention, that would be the incorrect contravention (and would be a £50 penalty instead of £60)?

Eh? the Traffic Regulation Order is just that, a contravention is contravening and order and as this is a bus lane TRO it would be a bus lane contravention. You can't get a 'normal TRO'!

In my opinion it is still a bus lane contravention, the only effect of the discrepancy is that they can't enforce against smaller busses as they haven't adequately conveyed the restriction, everything else is as it was.

I think that's incorrect (I am not a pro at this, but done a little investigation). There is a specific PCN for bus lanes and a specific one for not following a traffic signs. In this case, its not a bus lane, as this is a regular TRO which has been created to avoid specific vehicles from driving in that particular lane which is not in line with a standard Bus Lane.

Posted by: plonka Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 13:40
Post #1397956

See attachment.

I have appealed it and won, however I think all their PCN's may have been illegal

 pcn.pdf ( 1.31MB ) : 13
 

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 13:54
Post #1397965

I think you are wrong to be honest.
This order by Leicester carries similar wording, it excludes all bar busses from the bus lane.

https://www.leicester.gov.uk/media/181011/tro-bus-lane.pdf

Posted by: plonka Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 13:59
Post #1397966

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:54) *
I think you are wrong to be honest.
This order by Leicester carries similar wording, it excludes all bar busses from the bus lane.

https://www.leicester.gov.uk/media/181011/tro-bus-lane.pdf

Sorry, that is completely different! They have done it correctly! That is completely as per legislation, it doesnt go above and include only work busses and exclude below 12 passenger seats. The bus it refers to, would be anything which is refereed to in the legislation. It also refers to the correct legislation which has been created for bus lanes!

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:03
Post #1397967

I don't think it is, the fact the Bury has a broader description doesn't change the fact it can be summarised as 'busses'. By all means take it to a tribunal next time......

Posted by: plonka Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:07
Post #1397968

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 15:03) *
I don't think it is, the fact the Bury has a broader description doesn't change the fact it can be summarised as 'busses'. By all means take it to a tribunal next time......

I may do. They don't use the term "Bus", they use every other term to individually include particular vehicles and exclude anything below 12 passenger seats, which would mean its not a Bus lane, its a new type of TRO.

Any idea how to force a council to review and have to refund all PCN's?

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:15
Post #1397972

QUOTE (plonka @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:13) *
......….I think that's incorrect (I am not a pro at this, but done a little investigation). There is a specific PCN for bus lanes and a specific one for not following a traffic signs. In this case, its not a bus lane, as this is a regular TRO which has been created to avoid specific vehicles from driving in that particular lane which is not in line with a standard Bus Lane.


I think you are clutching at historical format v more modern ones.
At the time, bus lane TROs didn't have the specific definition of bus to use so had to use the more archaic wording from TSR1981. And the sign at the time reflected it.
That makes the TRO valid in the sense that when it was created it used the legal framework available.
It hasn't moved with the times but they don't need to.
If later legislation alters a part, that doesn't invalidate it, only makes that part unenforceable.
It is very difficult to invalidate a TRO unless there is any inherent fault with the legality behind the creation.
Even then is difficult.

Some examples come to mind.
First is where a yellow line is painted beyond where the TRO allows.
This does not invalidate the TRO or indeed the effect of the yellow line up to the point designated within the TRO.
But does mean that if someone is parked on the extra bit of yellow line and can show that, they win.

Councils may change their name, Isle of Sheppey in Kent has recently done this.
Doesn't mean that the new council cannot enforce Isle of Sheppey TROs

Some older TROs still include that it is a criminal offence to break any of the rules.
If council have signed up to decriminalised enforcement that part cannot apply.
But it only changes how the TRO is enforced, not that it cannot be.

In your case, the council have a lawfully created TRO that sought to restrict use to the class of vehicles that we now know as buses.
That this is a newer definition and indeed less onerous then the one at the time only means that they have to use the present day understanding of the signs or create new ones to reflect.
The latter IMO will not happen, even if they did, they would have to have a very good reason to stick with the 12 or more for the Sec of State (dept of Transport) to approve signs when perfectly good bus lane signs (for 8 or more) exist and work across most of the country.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:33
Post #1397981

there is a specific PCN for bus lanes. The one you show is an example of it. No PCN's for moving traffic other than bus lanes outside London but a different one for parking.

The regulations used to enforce by being different.

What was the reason given for allowing the appeal?

Posted by: plonka Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:53
Post #1397988

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 15:15) *
QUOTE (plonka @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:13) *
......….I think that's incorrect (I am not a pro at this, but done a little investigation). There is a specific PCN for bus lanes and a specific one for not following a traffic signs. In this case, its not a bus lane, as this is a regular TRO which has been created to avoid specific vehicles from driving in that particular lane which is not in line with a standard Bus Lane.


I think you are clutching at historical format v more modern ones.
At the time, bus lane TROs didn't have the specific definition of bus to use so had to use the more archaic wording from TSR1981. And the sign at the time reflected it.
That makes the TRO valid in the sense that when it was created it used the legal framework available.
It hasn't moved with the times but they don't need to.
If later legislation alters a part, that doesn't invalidate it, only makes that part unenforceable.
It is very difficult to invalidate a TRO unless there is any inherent fault with the legality behind the creation.
Even then is difficult.

Some examples come to mind.
First is where a yellow line is painted beyond where the TRO allows.
This does not invalidate the TRO or indeed the effect of the yellow line up to the point designated within the TRO.
But does mean that if someone is parked on the extra bit of yellow line and can show that, they win.

Councils may change their name, Isle of Sheppey in Kent has recently done this.
Doesn't mean that the new council cannot enforce Isle of Sheppey TROs

Some older TROs still include that it is a criminal offence to break any of the rules.
If council have signed up to decriminalised enforcement that part cannot apply.
But it only changes how the TRO is enforced, not that it cannot be.

In your case, the council have a lawfully created TRO that sought to restrict use to the class of vehicles that we now know as buses.
That this is a newer definition and indeed less onerous then the one at the time only means that they have to use the present day understanding of the signs or create new ones to reflect.
The latter IMO will not happen, even if they did, they would have to have a very good reason to stick with the 12 or more for the Sec of State (dept of Transport) to approve signs when perfectly good bus lane signs (for 8 or more) exist and work across most of the country.

Very interesting read and good points mentioned.

I may be poking a little too much here, but would the yellow lines situation be a little different, as in this case here there is actually no term of "Bus" within the TRO which would even be able to refer back to the legislation as a definition, however the yellow lines case scenario, there clearly is a defined area where the TRO would apply to, there is just extras which is disregarded.

So if the TRO would have said (I have added the word BUS)
"Save as provided in Articles ~ and 5 of this Order no person shall. except upon the direction or with the permission of a constable in uniform or of a traffic warden. cause or permit any vehicle other than a scheduled express carriage. a school bus. a stage carriage. a contract carriage or a BUS, works bus. any other vehicle constructed or adapted to carry 12 or more passengers. any other vehicle which is constructed or adapted for the carriage of disabled persons and those accompanying them and which is being used for the carriage of such persons"
That would have been a different story, however it says above all
"school bus ... "scheduled express carriage .. and ·'works bus .. has the same meaning as in the 1981 regulations"
which once again does not refer to the vehicle as "bus" which would then include "bus" as per legislation and just exclude the rest.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 15:33) *
there is a specific PCN for bus lanes. The one you show is an example of it. No PCN's for moving traffic other than bus lanes outside London but a different one for parking.

The regulations used to enforce by being different.

What was the reason given for allowing the appeal?

Absolutely, however I believe that it's the wrong PCN.

I have a 10 seater and it took alot of head banging till they realised that they dont have a leg to stand on due to their signage.

I have also threatened to sue for harassment if they continue sending the PCN's, as i have received thus far 4 PCN's and I have to appeal each time. They have advised me to avoid driving on the bus lane in order to avoid getting the PCN's!

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 15:16
Post #1397989

QUOTE (plonka @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 15:53) *
………. as in this case here there is actually no term of "Bus" within the TRO which would even be able to refer back to the legislation as a definition, however the yellow lines case scenario, there clearly is a defined area where the TRO would apply to, there is just extras which is disregarded.

So if the TRO would have said (I have added the word BUS)…………...


It could have.
Would have had to define BUS in a meaningful manner as at the time, there was no definition within TRS1981, may not have been within Construction and Use or any other relevant legislation but don't know without trawling through original enactments.
However, even if it had said bus, that definition would have changed with the times, same as the sign has.
They used the wording available at the time and made no effort to be more demanding then the legislation at the time.
Bus Lanes were not prevalent back then though had existed from late 60s and modern bus lane legislation (outside London) has only existed in a since the 2005 regs came out.


QUOTE (plonka @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 15:53) *
.........I have also threatened to sue for harassment if they continue sending the PCN's, as i have received thus far 4 PCN's and I have to appeal each time. They have advised me to avoid driving on the bus lane in order to avoid getting the PCN's!



Complaint to council demanding they cease and desist unlawful PCNs plus demand for your costs in fighting said PCNs plus compensatory gesture
Don't threaten...do, use the complaints procedure.

Posted by: plonka Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 15:44
Post #1397999

Fair points there. If it would have said Bus, then it would have referred to whatever the legislation refers to, so would be a variable item within the TRO which would change when the legislation changes.

The system of TRO's were different then, and they have updated the times of the TRO since, however surely they should bring them up to date somewhat. The original TRO was simply a "TRO", when councils can do as they wish, then it would have to change.

I cant find any other bus lane besides for this one prior to 2002 (outside of London)!

I will try writing to the council as an official complaints, but I imagine as its a self regulatory business, they can just ignore this

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 17:19
Post #1398023

QUOTE (plonka @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 16:44) *
I imagine as its a self regulatory business, they can just ignore this

It’s not a business. Local Government Ombudsman.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 20:43
Post #1398049

Local govt ombudsman tend to be interested in resolving your complaint. If they've cancelled your ticket I can't see them really going for speculatively reviewing all tickets. No cost in trying if that is what you want.

The best way would be to find someone with an active ticket for driving a car and see if you can get that cancelled. If you can do that then the local rag will happily pick up the "council can't even get a bus lane right, thousands of motorists overcharged" angle.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 20:59
Post #1398055

QUOTE (plonka @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 17:00) *
I would appreciate advice or knowledge of legalities.

I have a 10 seater vehicle, which can go into any bus lane (so long as it doesn't say local). I have been having a fight with my local council about this and they have eventually accepted that the legislation http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/made clearly defines a bus as follows:-
“a motor vehicle which is constructed or adapted to carry more than eight seated passengers in addition to the driver.”

Also
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/23/made
which clearly states:-
“Bus lane” in the signs referred to in paragraph
(1) means a traffic lane reserved for—
(a)motor vehicles constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers (exclusive of the driver);

In other words, the sign of a "BUS" on a bus lane automatically allows (so long as it doesn't say "local") any vehicle above 8+ passenger seats, or 9 passenger+1 driver, which is a minimum of 10 seats.


My question is as follows. The current TRO of the BUS LANE is one that is based on one created in 1997, prior to the legislation clarifying about the signage which can be found https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Bury/BC05B.pdf , therefore in the TRO where it states who can use the Bus Lane, "a school bus. a stage carriage. a contract carriage or a works bus, any other vehicle constructed or adapted to carry 12 or more passengers", which would mean that a sign of a normal BUS which allows 8 or more passengers would mean that the signage is inadequate, as it is not in-line with their own TRO.

Would that invalidate the Bus Lane altogether?



QUOTE
Would that invalidate the Bus Lane altogether?


Not for a car or van IMO but if the signage says bus, and you are driving a vehicle that fits the definition of bus in TSRGD 2016 and TA 2000 then yes, as you have been mislead

I ask again what was the reason for the adjudicator allowing your appeal. This will make a difference to any action you take

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 21:14
Post #1398058

QUOTE (plonka @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 16:44) *
...........I will try writing to the council as an official complaints, but I imagine as its a self regulatory business, they can just ignore this


No no no no no !
And NO
Councils cannot ignore official complaints.
There is a set procedure that progresses from okay for some oik in relevant department can answer to must be higher management to Local Gov Ombudsman.
If it goes through stages (or ignored) with their resolution offered to "stop driving in bus lanes" LGO will uphold your complaint and if nothing else, that leaves the council really behind the 8 ball should they issue another PCN.

First bus lane in UK was Reading (1968) according to Wikipedia... take that for what it is worth.
Like CPZs, they didn't exist when I started driving but now blight the landscape.

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 21:35
Post #1398066

QUOTE (plonka @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:13) *
I think that's incorrect (I am not a pro at this, but done a little investigation). There is a specific PCN for bus lanes and a specific one for not following a traffic signs. In this case, its not a bus lane, as this is a regular TRO which has been created to avoid specific vehicles from driving in that particular lane which is not in line with a standard Bus Lane.

Is there a specific authority for a council to create a “bus lane TRO” or is it the same as a “regular TRO” (using your terminology there)?

Posted by: plonka Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 23:33
Post #1398086

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 18:19) *
QUOTE (plonka @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 16:44) *
I imagine as its a self regulatory business, they can just ignore this

It’s not a business. Local Government Ombudsman.

Thanks for that, seems to be the last option

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 21:59) *
I ask again what was the reason for the adjudicator allowing your appeal. This will make a difference to any action you take

It didn't get to adjudication, however the council accepted my appeal eventually after convincing them that they hadn't read up the legislation what the signposts mean

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 22:14) *
No no no no no !
And NO
Councils cannot ignore official complaints.
There is a set procedure that progresses from okay for some oik in relevant department can answer to must be higher management to Local Gov Ombudsman.
If it goes through stages (or ignored) with their resolution offered to "stop driving in bus lanes" LGO will uphold your complaint and if nothing else, that leaves the council really behind the 8 ball should they issue another PCN.

First bus lane in UK was Reading (1968) according to Wikipedia... take that for what it is worth.
Like CPZs, they didn't exist when I started driving but now blight the landscape.

Re first bus lane, will have to look into that, but an interesting fact.

I agree with your point in regards to advising me to avoid bus lanes or get the PCN's, but that is what the have replied! unbelievable really! I tried to explain to them the onus is on them to make sure they dont harass, however they didn't seem to buy that! If it was a company, they would get sued for all sorts of things, but they seem to think they are above the law. I also pointed out to them about the highway code 160!

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 22:35) *
Is there a specific authority for a council to create a “bus lane TRO” or is it the same as a “regular TRO” (using your terminology there)?

Yes and No. They are both a TRO, but the there is a specific Bus Lane contravention, so that would need to be mentioned as their power to create the TRO, and the other thing would need to be mentioned is that the TRO allows for a "bus" only, and that term would refer back to the legislation.

A council can ban anything, (including pedestrians I believe) in a TRO, so they could be specific who they are banning, however that would be down do that particular TRO, but they probably would find it impossible to actually action, as they would need to somehow get some signage to go along with their TRO which don't exist.

Posted by: peterguk Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 23:49
Post #1398091

QUOTE (plonka @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 00:33) *
I also pointed out to them about the highway code 160!


Huh?

Highway Code Rule 160

Once moving you should



Posted by: plonka Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 23:54
Post #1398093

QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 00:49) *
QUOTE (plonka @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 00:33) *
I also pointed out to them about the highway code 160!

Huh?
.....
keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road
.............

keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road
My point I was making was, besides for being ridiculous and advising me to avoid the bus lane, if I am entitled to do so I should keep in the left lane, ie use the bus lane

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 09:08
Post #1398139

QUOTE (plonka @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 00:33) *
............Yes and No. They are both a TRO, but the there is a specific Bus Lane contravention, so that would need to be mentioned as their power to create the TRO, and the other thing would need to be mentioned is that the TRO allows for a "bus" only, and that term would refer back to the legislation.
………...


Without a time machine, they cannot include legislation in the TRO that did not exist at the time.
And legislation, Transport Act 2000 then TMA 2004 and Bus Lane Regs 2005 allow then to apply a penalty to a bus lane contravention where:-
QUOTE
6
(1)A bus lane contravention is a contravention of any provision of a traffic order relating to the use of an area of road that is or forms part of a bus lane.
(2)An area of road is or forms part of a bus lane if the order provides that it may be used—
(a)only by buses (or a particular description of bus), or
(b)only by buses (or a particular description of bus) and some other class or classes of vehicular traffic.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/7
Which seems to include the area of road defined by the TRO

Posted by: plonka Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 09:47
Post #1398159

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:08) *
QUOTE (plonka @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 00:33) *
............Yes and No. They are both a TRO, but the there is a specific Bus Lane contravention, so that would need to be mentioned as their power to create the TRO, and the other thing would need to be mentioned is that the TRO allows for a "bus" only, and that term would refer back to the legislation.
………...


Without a time machine, they cannot include legislation in the TRO that did not exist at the time.
And legislation, Transport Act 2000 then TMA 2004 and Bus Lane Regs 2005 allow then to apply a penalty to a bus lane contravention where:-
QUOTE
6
(1)A bus lane contravention is a contravention of any provision of a traffic order relating to the use of an area of road that is or forms part of a bus lane.
(2)An area of road is or forms part of a bus lane if the order provides that it may be used—
(a)only by buses (or a particular description of bus), or
(b)only by buses (or a particular description of bus) and some other class or classes of vehicular traffic.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/7
Which seems to include the area of road defined by the TRO

Thanks for that. Of course they cant have a time machine, however they can only send a PCN for a standard contravention not one made by a later date, as it isnt really a bus lane. They have a TRO for specific vehicles, which they at the time called it what they wanted to which I imagine would have had the effect of a contravention of "not following signposts" and that should have stayed. The fact they are sending out PCN's and claiming its the a bus lane that the council has power to create is false and deceiving.

The second point that you mentioned, once again, in their TRO, the current TRO does not include "only buses", they include a "for work vehicle" only and then include other vehicles, which are not there by class, such as the 12+ passenger vehicle, so I doubt they would have anything to stand on

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 11:37
Post #1398212

It is a lane created for school buses, works buses and other vehicles over 12 seats
Vehicles over 12 seats fall in line with modern definition of buses even if numbers are different.
I have little doubt that school and work buses fall into particular description of bus or that an adjudicator (or judge) could be persuaded that a 12 seater (or more) did not fall into the description of bus.
"only by buses (or a particular description of bus)"
What the TRO provides for falls into the modern descriptions of bus lane and bus lane legislation.
Sorry mate, I know this is important to you but you are clutching at straws and trying to make something out of nothing with the TRO.
Signage is a different matter but as already said, that only provides relief for the difference between 8 seats (or more) and 12 seats (or more)
I have little doubt that you would win any PCN issued due to that alone.

Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 12:18
Post #1398240

QUOTE (plonka @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 00:33) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 22:35) *
Is there a specific authority for a council to create a “bus lane TRO” or is it the same as a “regular TRO” (using your terminology there)?

Yes and No. They are both a TRO, but the there is a specific Bus Lane contravention, so that would need to be mentioned as their power to create the TRO, and the other thing would need to be mentioned is that the TRO allows for a "bus" only, and that term would refer back to the legislation.

A council can ban anything, (including pedestrians I believe) in a TRO, so they could be specific who they are banning, however that would be down do that particular TRO, but they probably would find it impossible to actually action, as they would need to somehow get some signage to go along with their TRO which don't exist.

So, there isn’t such a thing as a “bus lane TRO” then, other than as a descriptor of a particular TRO and its effect. I seem to recall they are all made under the same enabling legislation, primarily the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 12:25
Post #1398245

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 13:18) *
........So, there isn’t such a thing as a “bus lane TRO” then, other than as a descriptor of a particular TRO and its effect. I seem to recall they are all made under the same enabling legislation, primarily the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.


Yup
compare enabling legislation between Bury TRO and more modern bus lane TRO.
https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Birmingham/BM109B.pdf

Posted by: plonka Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 13:10
Post #1398277

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 12:37) *
.....
What the TRO provides for falls into the modern descriptions of bus lane and bus lane legislation.
...

Lets get to the basics of a Bus lane, which I think is quite important

Please see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2335/article/3/made , which is a legislattion made prior to the Bury one which is being discussed presently

QUOTE
(3) In this article—

(a)“bus” means:—before 1 January 1997
(i)a public service vehicle used for the provision of a local service or a scheduled express service,
(ii)a school bus, and
(iii)a work bus;
after 31 December 1996
(i)a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers (exclusive of the driver), and
(ii)a local bus not so constructed or adapted; and

The definition of a Bus was changed on 1st January 1997, which is prior to this TRO. That clearly shows that this is indeed NOT a bus lane, as they did not define it within the terms of the legislation

If you look through that legislation it clearly shows the correct way of writing it, which would be as follows
QUOTE
(2) The controls specified in paragraph (1) of this article do not apply in respect of:—

(a)a bus;
(b)a taxi as defined in regulation 4 of theTraffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994(1); or
©a pedal cycle.


Remember, that was 1996!

The basics is, there was no Bus Lane at the time, and the TRO was just a TRO, not an enforceable Bus Lane, therefore how can they charge anyone for driving is the current Bus lane Act, when there was none at the time of being made, and the terminology is incorrect anyway!

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 13:23
Post #1398284

QUOTE (plonka @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 14:10) *
……….
The basics is, there was no Bus Lane at the time, and the TRO was just a TRO, not an enforceable Bus Lane, therefore how can they charge anyone for driving is the current Bus lane Act, when there was none at the time of being made, and the terminology is incorrect anyway!



There is an old saying, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
The order title includes "Reserved Bus Lane"
The order descriptions include various types of buses that except in a minor matter of numbers of seats, accords with modern legislation.
That the draughtsman screwed up and missed a relatively recent part of legislation and referenced what had been the relevant legislation does not invalidate it.
It's still a duck.

Posted by: plonka Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 14:06
Post #1398306

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 14:23) *
There is an old saying, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
The order title includes "Reserved Bus Lane"
The order descriptions include various types of buses that except in a minor matter of numbers of seats, accords with modern legislation.
That the draughtsman screwed up and missed a relatively recent part of legislation and referenced what had been the relevant legislation does not invalidate it.
It's still a duck.

I find it strange to say that the council can create a TRO and then afterwards just fit it into the legislation and send a PCN as though it is a Bus Lane! This must be against any legal logic, besides for messing up and not using the correct terminology.

The other issue is, the question here is, is it a Bus Lane or just a TRO without the Bus Lane. The text, because it was messed up and doesnt include the right powers means that it is a legally enforceable document with the correct procedure . The PCN's need to be in line with the standard TRO contravention as empowered to the local councils. This one looks and acts like a duck, but the TRO one, not the bus lane one!

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 15:19
Post #1398336

QUOTE (plonka @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 15:06) *
...…..I find it strange to say that the council can create a TRO and then afterwards just fit it into the legislation and send a PCN as though it is a Bus Lane! This must be against any legal logic, besides for messing up and not using the correct terminology.
Not quite. Council created a TRO that fitted legislation at the time. More modern legislation provides the hooks that allow the TRO to still be valid.
QUOTE (plonka @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 15:06) *
The other issue is, the question here is, is it a Bus Lane or just a TRO without the Bus Lane. The text, because it was messed up and doesnt include the right powers means that it is a legally enforceable document with the correct procedure . The PCN's need to be in line with the standard TRO contravention as empowered to the local councils. This one looks and acts like a duck, but the TRO one, not the bus lane one!

Not sure I understand the question.
The only thing I see wrong with the PCN is that it refers to Transport Act 2000 S144 which was repealed by TMA2004. But again will not invalidate the PCN as it is of minor consequence.
If you are saying that they cannot use a modern legislation PCN against an older TRO, just wrong, they can.



Posted by: plonka Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 15:51
Post #1398360

I wasn't saying that!

What I was trying to bring across was that the current TRO is valid, but not as a Bus Lane TRO. Why would it be changed to a bus lane TRO when its perfect the way it is? It can be properly implemented as a TRO, not a current Bus Lane

If there was bus lanes available to the Council at time of making the TRO, I can understand the logic to say that the Bus Lane legislation would "still" apply, however to embed something into something that wasnt there, and the TRO is still status quo, wouldn't make sense to me.

The use of "oh well just a mistake" would go into effect I imagine if the purpose of the TRO when created wouldn't have done the job it intended to.

I am saying since its a TRO not a Bus Lane TRO, its the wrong contravention on the PCN and wrong signage.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 16:04
Post #1398366

This amendment might make things clearer

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Bury/BC03B.pdf

Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 16:27
Post #1398374

QUOTE (plonka @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 16:51) *
TRO is valid, but not as a Bus Lane TRO.

I am saying since its a TRO not a Bus Lane TRO

Still don’t understand what you mean by this. A TRO is a TRO.

Posted by: plonka Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 16:32
Post #1398377

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 17:27) *
Still don’t understand what you mean by this. A TRO is a TRO.

There are different penalties. One for a standard contravention and one particular for Bus lane contravention, both created by a TRO.

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 17:01
Post #1398394

QUOTE (plonka @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 17:32) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 17:27) *
Still don’t understand what you mean by this. A TRO is a TRO.

There are different penalties. One for a standard contravention and one particular for Bus lane contravention, both created by a TRO.


But penalties do not come from the TRO, they are set by the relevant legislation and sec of state (outside London)

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 17:04) *
This amendment might make things clearer

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Bury/BC03B.pdf


May as well say it before Plonka….. but it doesn't include the word bus or amend the definitions within the original rolleyes.gif


Does liberally sprinkle reserved bus lane throughout.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)