PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

The infamous bank junction, PCN for driving through the junction
S_191
post Sun, 4 Oct 2020 - 09:58
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 2 Oct 2020
Member No.: 109,982



Quick bit of back story. I haven't driven in London for at least 5 years by choice. I use the train because driving in London was always miserable and infuriating. Due to covid everyone at work was advised to drive and avoid the trains.

I didn't know the rules about the junction restriction and coming up to it I saw the sign and thought it was a bus lane restriction. I didn't receive the FIRST PCN until 6 weeks later and I'm not sure how many times I followed the sat nav and went through it. At the same time many other cars and vans going through never made it appear that it was a restriction. But anyway...


After a bit of research and taking some pictures, I sent off the first appeal with the following:

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

1-The contravention did not occur because of missing road markings.

Schedule 9 Part 5 Paragraph 1 of TSRGD 2016 states: “The information, requirement, restriction or prohibition of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in Part 6 must be conveyed by a road marking that is of the size, colour and type shown in the diagram in column 3.”
Item 15: “Diagram 1048.5 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 (Alternative types)”
Item 15 Column 3 shows “Bus Gate” signage.

No apparent road markings on the route taken to comply with the above description.


2-I would like to point out that the contraventions date is over a month old before receiving this PCN. I have been driving into London due to Covid-19 and have used that junction multiple times since. If I had received the PCN in a reasonable time I would not have continued to use the junction.


3-The signage does not suggest that the place a contravention will occur is the upcoming junction but actually appears to relate to the bus lane. If I hadn’t looked at the TSRGD 2016 document I would not have realised these are two similar but different signs.

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

Obviously points 2 and 3 are nothing they care about but thought it was worth mentioning hoping that a human with feelings might read it and maybe get the following PCNs reduced or cancelled.

But the response came through and I have a question about the statements made.

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

Thank you for your communication in relation to the above PCN.
The vehicle was observed at 16:24 on 13/08/2020 by CCTV contravening the regulations in
MANSION HOUSE STREET.
The PCN was issued, in accordance with the London Local Authorities and Transport for London
Act 2003, as your vehicle was observed by CCTV camera and The City of London Corporation had
reasonable cause to believe that it was committing the contravention of failing to comply with a
sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.
The PCN was issued to the above vehicle for failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types
of vehicle (motor vehicles) - only buses and pedal cycles allowed Monday to Friday between 7am
and 7pm. This is because the above vehicle has been seen to have passed through a sign prohibiting
certain class of vehicle from accessing Bank Junction during the restricted time(s).
Youf comments have been noted, whereby you state, “-The contravention did not occur because of
missing road markings. Schedule 9 Part 5 Paragraph 1 of TSRGD 2016 states: “The information,
requirement, restriction or prohibition of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in
Part 6 must be conveyed by a road marking that is of the size, colour and type shown in the
diagram in column 3.”Item 15: “Diagram 1048.5 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 (Alternative types)”Item 15 Column 3 shows “Bus
Gate” signage. No apparent road markings on the route taken to comply with the above
description”
However, I must inform you that the restriction is not a Bus Gate, which is a contravention code
33C and therefore a carriageway legend is not required. I would add that the signage in place is in
accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016.

Furthermore, the Department for Transport has confirmed that there is no need for carriageway
markings to support diagram 953, the material sign in this instance.
The location where the vehicle was seen after it travelled beyond the sign (therefore in
contravention), was in Mansion House Street, City of London. The signs contravened are placed
near the junction of Queen Victoria Street with Bucklesbury; showing the direction of travel of the
vehicle, which was eastbound.
A vehicle would access Mansion House from either Poultry or Queen Victoria Street. Vehicles
travelling eastbound from these streets are captured by CCTV in Mansion House Street.
There are two sets of traffic signs in Poultry which indicate that the way forward is for buses and
bicycles only “MON-FRI 7AM-7PM”, there are also warning signs prior to reaching this point. A
driver should either complete a U-turn before the signs or alternatively turn left into Old Jewry and
proceed right into Gresham Street to bypass the junction.
Alternatively, if the vehicle approached the junction from Queen Victoria Street; there are two
traffic signs on either side of the road stating the same restriction. To avoid the junction a driver
should complete a U-turn where permitted or alternatively turn left into Bucklesbury and then right
at the junction of Walbrook and exit south bound into Queen Victoria Street.

'picture of diagram 953 here in the pdf'

Since Monday 22 May 2017, the ‘Bank on Safety’ experimental traffic scheme, aimed at reducing
collisions and improving road safety, became operational meaning that only buses and pedal
cycles are able to cross Bank Junction, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 7am to 7pm.
Other vehicles will be rerouted via advanced warning signs on the approaches to the area and the
junction.
The Court of Common Council approved a report on 13th September 2018 that recommended
making the experimental scheme permanent and as of 25th September 2018 the scheme came
permanently into operation.
The Bank Junction comprises the approaches of Princes Street, Threadneedle Street, Cornhill,
Poultry, Lombard Street, King William Street and Queen Victoria Street.

'map of the junction in the pdf'

Blue bus and cycle only signs are displayed at the entry points of the restriction. Advance
directional signs are also in place to give advance warning to the restriction to further assist with
alternative routes.
Vehicles are being rerouted via advance warnings and signage on the approach streets leading to the
junction. This is mainly a safety scheme which is needed to modify the area called ‘Bank Junction’
in order to make the wider area more successful by focusing on restricting the number of vehicles
that cross Bank Junction during the working day to significantly reduce overcrowding, the number
of collisions and improve road user travel experience.
The re-design is also being undertaken with passenger well-being and environmental improvement
in mind.
The signs are not captured in the photograph/footage as they are situated before the Automatic
Number Plate Recognition camera. The signs are however regularly checked for visibility and
placement.
The restriction on Bank Junction was advertised in both local and national press as well as social
media. During the initial phase City of London Police and City representatives were stationed at
the junction to advised motorists. Warning notices were also issued during the first two weeks of
the restriction going live. The City has made every attempt to highlight the area; ultimately it is up
to the motorist to ensure that they take note of the signs on street as they approach the
junction.
None of the road diversions in place in the City directed traffic to any of the approaches to the Bank
Junction.
Therefore, having carefully considered the reasons for your challenge and the evidence before me, I
am not prepared to cancel the PCN on this occasion.

blah blah, stuff about challenging the PCN

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


If it was a one off I would pay it and that be it, but, the main issue I have with this is the statement that Cornhill isn't a 'Bus Gate'.

TSRGD 2016 states: “The information,
requirement, restriction or prohibition of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in
Part 6 must be conveyed by a road marking that is of the size, colour and type shown in the
diagram in column 3.

The word 'must' is important. If you follow the table to the road marking related to the use of diagram 953, it is only 'Bus Gate'. Therefore, would you assume that the sign should only be used on a road that is in fact a Bus Gate. Is this a contradiction or is the sign 953 actually not fit for purpose on this junction?

They state that 'the Department for Transport has confirmed that there is no need for carriageway markings to support diagram 953, the material sign in this instance'. Shouldn't they prove that or at least have a stipulation in TSRGD 2016 that explicitly details that the Bus Gate signage is not always a requirement or something along those lines? Maybe it should be an amendment?



So I'm after a bit of advice on the next step or whether I should just pay it.

Thanks

This post has been edited by S_191: Sun, 4 Oct 2020 - 09:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 27)
Advertisement
post Sun, 4 Oct 2020 - 09:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
S_191
post Thu, 26 Nov 2020 - 09:25
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 2 Oct 2020
Member No.: 109,982



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 25 Nov 2020 - 22:52) *
QUOTE (S_191 @ Wed, 25 Nov 2020 - 09:20) *
I received the first PCN, followed the instructions to the site, sent a representation and then received a rejection. I followed those instructions to the site again to appeal a second time.

So did you get confirmation from London Tribunals that the appeals were registered?



Ive not heard anything until the company sent these over the other day.

Actually, I did get an email automated response after the second appeal was sent online for all three but then nothing until the letters mentioned above.

This post has been edited by S_191: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 - 12:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 27 Nov 2020 - 11:53
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Show us the automated email.

Also, you should be able to log into the appeal postal at https://londontribunals.org.uk/ under "Track or update my appeal" and it will list all the PCNs listed under that appeal reference. As long as the appeal is registered, the charge certificates will be cancelled. If the charge certificates were issued after the council was notified of the appeal, that alone might get all the PCNs cancelled.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
S_191
post Fri, 27 Nov 2020 - 15:27
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 2 Oct 2020
Member No.: 109,982



files in here. Ive just taken a copy of one rather than all three which are all the same.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ggz0nkhmieritpb/...HKWztL9qta?dl=0

I went to the tribunals website but Im unable to check on the progress of my case because I dont believe there is one. I dont have the details to see the case.

During this process, I have had some responses sent to me and others sent to the company address which they forward to me, so I cant say for 100% sure that they havent missed a message but I think they'd be pretty good and being on top of it if fines are involved.

This post has been edited by S_191: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 - 15:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
S_191
post Mon, 30 Nov 2020 - 09:33
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 2 Oct 2020
Member No.: 109,982



I think I see what ive done. I followed the appeals procedure of the first PCN notice. Thats annoying.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
S_191
post Mon, 30 Nov 2020 - 10:21
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 2 Oct 2020
Member No.: 109,982



So according to the text I can still send off an appeal providing I outline why there was a delay. Im going to state that the main body of the rejection contains the web link to the payment/appeal site in bold text which I used initially and didnt realise this wasnt the correct procedure the second time around.

In the rejection they state that :
I take note of your comments, however the blue signs would appear to require the presence of the
carriageway legend “BUS GATE”. I must inform you that the restriction is not a Bus Gate, which
is a contravention code 33C and therefore a carriageway legend is not required. I would add that the
signage in place is in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
(TSRGD) 2016.
For your information the sign used is compliant with the regulations. Furthermore, the Department
for Transport has confirmed that there is no need for carriageway markings to support diagram 953,
the material sign in this instance.

(worth noting, this is only in one of the three rejections, this others are a bit more generic)

I looked up the definition of 'bus gate'. I cant see it defined in tsrgd2016 but I did find the follow general definition around the internet.
A bus gate is a signposted stretch of road, along which use is restricted to public transport and (where specified) taxis and other authorised vehicles.

So if thats accurate, the use of the bus gate signage should be appropriate as the road is restriction for those vehicles within the times specified on the sign.

But anyway, TSRGD 2016 still states the requirement of the bus gate road marking with the sign 953 with no reference to an exemption or any other reasons not to have used it.

So based it that, everything else is irrelevant isnt it? It doesnt agree with the regulations so an 'exemption' is no better than me saying I'm exempt from fines.



Another thing I noticed, down the road at Monument junction, is a road that is also restriction by the same rules with the bus gate road marking. I dont see the difference there.

This post has been edited by S_191: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 - 10:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
S_191
post Tue, 1 Dec 2020 - 09:05
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 2 Oct 2020
Member No.: 109,982



Im planning to send the following to the second appeal stage. Can anyone advise my otherwise, and any reasons why?





Dear Sir/Madam,

Firstly I would like to apologise for the delay in this appeal. After receiving multiple PCNs and not being familiar with the appeal process, I mistakenly clicked on the highlighted web address in the main body of the rejection notice which took me to the appeals page, but I have not realised the second appeal should be a different process. I hadn’t known this until receiving the follow up PCN with an increased price. I would like to progress with the next appeal stage.

Regards to PCN xxxxxxxx all of the same PCN type and location.

I appealed on the following grounds,

Schedule 9 Part 5 Paragraph 1 of TSRGD 2016 states: “The information, requirement, restriction or prohibition of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in Part 6 must be conveyed by a road marking that is of the size, colour and type shown in the diagram in column 3.”
Item 15: “Diagram 1048.5 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 (Alternative types)”
Item 15 Column 3 shows “Bus Gate” signage.

No apparent road markings on the route taken to comply with the above description.


I received the rejections with the following statement,

I take note of your comments, however the blue signs would appear to require the presence of the
carriageway legend “BUS GATE”. I must inform you that the restriction is not a Bus Gate, which
is a contravention code 33C and therefore a carriageway legend is not required. I would add that the
signage in place is in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
(TSRGD) 2016.
For your information the sign used is compliant with the regulations. Furthermore, the Department
for Transport has confirmed that there is no need for carriageway markings to support diagram 953,
the material sign in this instance.
Therefore, having carefully considered the reasons for your challenge and the evidence before me, I
am not prepared to cancel the PCN on this occasion.


This is a contradiction to the TSRGD and any amendments for the following reasons:
1 – the TSRGD clearly states that the use of sign 953 should be accompanied by the road marking ‘BUS GATE’ therefore it is implied that the carriageway is in fact a bus gate. No exemption is applied to this description for Bank junction. The rejection statement identifies that the carriageway is not a bus gate, therefore sign 953 should not be used as TSRGD details that the use of this sign ‘MUST be conveyed by a road marking…’ ie the ‘BUS GATE’ road marking.

2 – the rejection statement does in fact identify that sign 953 is used, therefore the use of the carriageway marking ‘BUS GATE’ is required according to TSRGD.

3 – the contravention ‘52M – failure to comply with a prohibition of certain types of vehicle’ did not occur because,
a) I did not enter a bus gate, as is the restriction when sign 953 is used
b) The restriction applies to a bus gate as per TSRGD, but the carriageway in question is not a bus gate as identified by the City Of London PCN rejection
c) Incorrect use of sign 953 not in conjunction with a ‘BUS GATE’ road marking or a road that is identified as a bus gate, a restriction is being applied to a road that doesn’t exist according to City Of London’s rejection statement.








Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 2 Dec 2020 - 13:26
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (S_191 @ Fri, 27 Nov 2020 - 15:27) *
I went to the tribunals website but Im unable to check on the progress of my case because I dont believe there is one. I dont have the details to see the case.

Did you read the Notice of Rejection? you've deleted the documents from your dropbox but the "blah blah, stuff about challenging the PCN" would explain that you have 28 days to appeal to London Tribunals, and it tells you how to register the appeal. If your case doesn't exist it's because you've not registered the appeal. If you've missed the 28 day deadline, you've lost your right of appeal and you cannot appeal the PCN further, so you should pay the charge certificate before the penalty goes up even more.

QUOTE (S_191 @ Tue, 1 Dec 2020 - 09:05) *
Im planning to send the following to the second appeal stage. Can anyone advise my otherwise, and any reasons why?

See above, if you've missed the deadline to register your appeal, it's too late now.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
S_191
post Wed, 2 Dec 2020 - 17:13
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 2 Oct 2020
Member No.: 109,982



yeah this is annoying because I think the evidence is enough to throw them out, but I think with 3 of them and other things going on Ive got confused about where to go for the appeal so Ive gone to the first appeal address, not the tribunals address. And now theyve gone up as if no appeal was made.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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, 28th March 2024 - 10:47
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here