Pulteney bridge Bath Bus lane PCN, New PCN received for being on Pulteney bridge Options

[liverpoolgreen]

Hi

first time on here

I just received a PCN for being on the bus lane on Pulteney bridge.
I was a tourist visiting and didnt notice signs. I used to live there years ago and didnt realise there was a bus lane restriction there now. There is no normal bus lane marking on the road on the bridge.
I entered from Bridge st side.
From what I see from the photo and video there are no markings or signs - but when I look on Google streetview there are signs and some marking on the road before you get to the bridge, or the 'bus gate' entrance.

My PCN also has the 0845 number on the first page. If there was a loophole for this Im surprised the Council continue to print this number on the PCNs.

Im inclined to pay - but would welcome suggestions for any challenge.


Google street view of entrance to bridge https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3828032,-...3312!8i6656



thanks

copy of the PCN

photo on PCN

This post has been edited by liverpoolgreen: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 14:30

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Advertisement]

[liverpoolgreen]

In the absence of any suggestions then unfortunately I guess I will pay up.....

[cabbyman]

35 minutes???????

Be patient!

[Iconoclast]

OP Do not pay. See Hodgeheg's original post of 29/12/18 and in particular my post #21. If this is your situation then it's a certain
winner. You've also got the 0845 no. as backup.

[zwekk]

OP Do not pay. See Hodgeheg's original post of 29/12/18 and in particular my post #21. If this is your situation then it's a certain
winner. You've also got the 0845 no. as backup.

FYI topic here.

Please see this post too for BaNES

This post has been edited by zwekk: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 09:36

[cp8759]

In the absence of any suggestions then unfortunately I guess I will pay up.....

Even if we were paid for giving advice, I doubt you'd get a meaningful answer that quickly. There is nothing to be gained in paying sooner than you need to.

Post the PCN in full and also upload the video, however ultimately we know the tribunal allowed Iconoclast's case so your chances are good.

[liverpoolgreen]

Thanks...
Im not complaining...but there was a full day between my first and second posts... not 35 mins...
Im travelling away this week, but I will add the info requested as soon as I can...

The case referred to in #5 above - the car in that case was on Argyle st. I was photod bang in the middle of Pulteney Bridge, so my case is different.

[zwekk]

The case referred to in #5 above - the car in that case was on Argyle st. I was photod bang in the middle of Pulteney Bridge, so my case is different.

Both ways on to Pulteney Bridge are indeed restricted so it seems to be that a contravention is proved. But the contravention is surely "Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicles" as there is no bus lane. In fact it's only "local buses" which can use it, and probably because many would be too heavy and damage the bridge.

[cp8759]

The case referred to in #5 above - the car in that case was on Argyle st. I was photod bang in the middle of Pulteney Bridge, so my case is different.

Both ways on to Pulteney Bridge are indeed restricted so it seems to be that a contravention is proved. But the contravention is surely "Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicles" as there is no bus lane. In fact it's only "local buses" which can use it, and probably because many would be too heavy and damage the bridge.

The contravention is correct, see Oxfordshire County Council, R (on the application of) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin) and in particular the part about section 144 of the Transport Act 2000.

[zwekk]

The case referred to in #5 above - the car in that case was on Argyle st. I was photod bang in the middle of Pulteney Bridge, so my case is different.

Both ways on to Pulteney Bridge are indeed restricted so it seems to be that a contravention is proved. But the contravention is surely "Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicles" as there is no bus lane. In fact it's only "local buses" which can use it, and probably because many would be too heavy and damage the bridge.

The contravention is correct, see Oxfordshire County Council, R (on the application of) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin) and in particular the part about section 144 of the Transport Act 2000.

Ah I see cheers.

So in summary
1. It's a bus lane because a TRO exists. The TRO is not invalid because bus "lanes" can occupy the whole road.
2. A bus lane can be signed by the "flying motorcycle" sign.

So it'd be the 0845 argument and the "within 28 days" vs "representations made outside the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice is served (“the payment period”) may be disregarded”.

And anything the video shows

This post has been edited by zwekk: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 00:31

[Iconoclast]

There is no street named Pulteney Bridge. Your PCN picture shows your car in Argyle Street which runs across Pulteney Bridge. Have
another read of the Adjudicator's reasoning in my previous post. The council's PCN picture shows your car in the same position as mine was, which isn't surprising since the camera appears to be in the same location as it was when I was "caught". I still think you would win at TPT.

[zwekk]

There is no street named Pulteney Bridge.

I am unable to accept that. There are properties whose address is Pulteney Bridge e.g.:
1-2 Pulteney Bridge
BATH
BA2 4AX

Compared to
1 Argyle Street
BATH
BA2 4BA

And

1-4 Bridge Street
BATH
BA2 4AP

[cp8759]

There is no street named Pulteney Bridge.

I am unable to accept that. There are properties whose address is Pulteney Bridge e.g.:
1-2 Pulteney Bridge
BATH
BA2 4AX

Compared to
1 Argyle Street
BATH
BA2 4BA

And

1-4 Bridge Street
BATH
BA2 4AP

This is debatable, see https://imgur.com/wPB3oCR for the Ordnance Survey map. Only thing that would trump this is the council terrier.

This is also interesting: https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Bath/BN475.pdf, the authorisation specifies the signs are authorised to inform users of the restrictions on Argyle Street, so if it's actually Pulteney Bridge, the signs are not authorised.

[zwekk]

This is debatable, see https://imgur.com/wPB3oCR for the Ordnance Survey map. Only thing that would trump this is the council terrier.

This is also interesting: https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Bath/BN475.pdf, the authorisation specifies the signs are authorised to inform users of the restrictions on Argyle Street, so if it's actually Pulteney Bridge, the signs are not authorised.

But the bus lane TRO here
https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...Bath/BN435B.pdf
clearly acknowledges the existence of Pulteney Bridge, and that it is a bus lane. See Schedule 5.

So I am with you that the signs are not authorised and contradict with the bus lane TRO.

FWIW, it appears in the 1880s OS map and then in the 1950s OS map it appears in a small font not on the carriageway but south over the river. Someone made a mistake at some point!

This post has been edited by zwekk: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 22:07

[cp8759]

The whole thing seems very confused, it is quite possible that Pulteney Bridge is just the name of the bridge and Argyle Street is the highway that passes over the bridge. Or there may be a short section of highway that is actually named Pulteney Bridge. I've asked for the council terrier in any event.

[zwekk]

The whole thing seems very confused, it is quite possible that Pulteney Bridge is just the name of the bridge and Argyle Street is the highway that passes over the bridge. Or there may be a short section of highway that is actually named Pulteney Bridge. I've asked for the council terrier in any event.

Should the OP file an informal challenge today asserting that the road called Pulteney Bridge does not exist? When the council come back and say that it does exist, the formal representation can deal with matters that arise from it?

[PASTMYBEST]

The regulations do not require a location, but it is trite law that it is included within the reason to believe a contravention occurs so Putney bridge if that is the name of the bridge or Argyle st if that is the name of the road, would either suffice. depending on the adjudicators breakfast

[cp8759]

The whole thing seems very confused, it is quite possible that Pulteney Bridge is just the name of the bridge and Argyle Street is the highway that passes over the bridge. Or there may be a short section of highway that is actually named Pulteney Bridge. I've asked for the council terrier in any event.

Should the OP file an informal challenge today asserting that the road called Pulteney Bridge does not exist? When the council come back and say that it does exist, the formal representation can deal with matters that arise from it?

This is a bus lane case so there's only one shot at arguing with the council.

[Iconoclast]

All I know is that I won at appeal. To quote the adjudicator's decision "The video does not though show the vehicle pass through the restricted entry point but rather only shows it driving along a road."


As I said before no evidence = no contravention. IMO it's well worth appealing but it's your money.

[cp8759]

All I know is that I won at appeal. To quote the adjudicator's decision "The video does not though show the vehicle pass through the restricted entry point but rather only shows it driving along a road."

You were lucky. A different adjudicator might have concluded you could only get to that bit of road by going through the restricted section.