PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN Minster and King Street (Reading Council)
jman007
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 09:59
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 16 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,908



Hi,

I received a PCN (attached) from Reading Council, and I've since read on this forum and others how unfair this fine is. I am not a resident of Reading, but I drove down Abbey Square (one way road) that leads on to King Street. At the end of Abbey Square there is "Left arrow, right arrow" triangle sign allowed cars to turn on to King street in either direction. I turned right on to King Street, and the very next road is Minster Street. There was no early warning sign until I got to the following warning sign:

7am - 11am
4pm - 7pm
except buses.
wheelchair
accessible taxis
& permit holders

At this point, the only way forward is through Minster street, or performing a U-turn on a busy road. I pulled over to one side to attempt a U-turn, however a Bus came up right behind me, flashed his lights, and would not allow me to perform a U-turn. At this point I had no room to perform a U-turn was forced down Minster Street. In the actual PCN photo and video footage, one can see the Bus right behind my car. I feel this is very unfair given no prior warning of Minster street, until you are at the actual turn. Furthermore, there is no warning sign at the end of Abbey Square to inform drivers of the "bus lane" if turning right.

I want to appeal as not only was there no early warning, I feel being forced by the bus down the street prevented me from performing a U-turn (I'm not sure if the latter would hold up). PartA of the back page of the PCN states an example as "you were forced to drive into the bus lane for some reason" as a reason for "the alleged contravention did not occur". I have the below prepared first presentation (from another thread on this forum), but not sure if I should include the bus forcing me down the street too?

"I make representation against the above PCN on the basis the contravention did not occur. This comes about because the signage fails to convey clearly the restriction. There are no advance warning signs indicating a bus lane. When you arrive at what I now know to be the start of the restriction you are faced with a blue sign with a white arrow on the traffic lights compelling drivers to turn left. On the right hand side is the no motor vehicles sign, this is positioned in such a way as to convey that motor vehicles are excluded from the area straight ahead, this area clearly has the appearance of a pedestrian area, thus the restriction would make sense in that you cannot proceed but must turn left. I note from Google Street View that there is a second no motor vehicle sign on the left, but this is hidden from the view of a driver by the traffic lights and must turn to the left sign. As the signage is inadequate to convey the restriction the PCN is invalid and must be cancelled. "

Any help forming an appeal would be greatly appreciated. I have read http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=118664 (A winning appeal), and I was thinking of using this as a template, if the above presentation fails.

I have attached a copy of googlemaps for context (Abbey Square, King Street and Minster Street).

This post has been edited by jman007: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 12:17
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 10)
Advertisement
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 09:59
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 11:19
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Lets see the video

Put in the bit about the bus preventing a U turn so there was no other option.

The Bus Lanes (Approved Devices) (England) Order 2005

requires that the camera is able to get a shot of things that might cause you to have to enter the bus lane l


--------------------
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
jman007
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 12:25
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 16 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,908



the two photographic evidence (see bus behind)

https://parking.reading.gov.uk/viewimage.as...4OsfodKeMG9KA==

https://parking.reading.gov.uk/viewimage.as...YzfkhJAHvugNg==

Video evidence:

https://parking.reading.gov.uk/viewVideo.as...EDy6gaCsgK+7wQx

updated response:

I make representation against the above PCN on the basis the contravention did not occur. This comes about because the signage fails to convey clearly the restriction. There are no advance warning signs indicating a bus lane, when turning right on to King Street from Abbey Square. When you arrive at what I now know to be the start of the restriction you are faced with a blue sign with a white arrow on the traffic lights compelling drivers to turn left. On the right hand side is the no motor vehicles sign, this is positioned in such a way as to convey that motor vehicles are excluded from the area straight ahead, this area clearly has the appearance of a pedestrian area, thus the restriction would make sense in that you cannot proceed but must turn left. I note from Google Street View that there is a second no motor vehicle sign on the left, but this is hidden from the view of a driver by the traffic lights and must turn to the left sign. In addition, once aware of the sign, the only alternative is complete a U-turn on a busy King Street, however a bus was promptly behind the car, and would not allow enough space for the driver to perform a U-turn, and so the driver was force to enter the bus lane with no alternative. As the signage is inadequate to convey the restriction, and the driver was forced to enter the bus lane the PCN is invalid and must be cancelled.

This post has been edited by jman007: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 12:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 12:36
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Your reps look Ok but cannot open the links you need to copy them to an external site such as fliker


--------------------
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
jman007
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 12:56
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 16 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,908



https://imgur.com/a/fjMBvhR

all uploaded (photographic evidence and video).

Below is the birds-eye view of Minster Street, King Street and Abbey Square.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir//51.45512...#33;4m1!3e0

photo of the end of Abbey Square, joining on to King Street (2 way directional triangle sign, no warning of upcoming bus lane, which is the very next turn).

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4550313,-...3312!8i6656

This post has been edited by jman007: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 13:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 13:16
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (jman007 @ Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 13:56) *
https://imgur.com/a/fjMBvhR

all uploaded (photographic evidence and video).

Below is the birds-eye view of Minster Street, King Street and Abbey Square.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir//51.45512...#33;4m1!3e0

photo of the end of Abbey Square, joining on to King Street (2 way directional triangle sign, no warning of upcoming bus lane, which is the very next turn).

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4550313,-...3312!8i6656


good, ask them for the traffic regulation order should they reject your representations


--------------------
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
jman007
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 13:45
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 16 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,908



I make representation against the above PCN on the basis the contravention did not occur. This comes about because the signage fails to convey clearly the restriction. There are no advance warning signs indicating a bus lane, when turning right on to King Street from Abbey Square. When you arrive at what I now know to be the start of the restriction you are faced with a blue sign with a white arrow on the traffic lights compelling drivers to turn left. On the right hand side is the no motor vehicles sign, this is positioned in such a way as to convey that motor vehicles are excluded from the area straight ahead, this area clearly has the appearance of a pedestrian area, thus the restriction would make sense in that you cannot proceed but must turn left. I note from Google Street View that there is a second no motor vehicle sign on the left, but this is hidden from the view of a driver by the traffic lights and must turn to the left sign. In addition, once aware of the sign, the only alternative is complete a U-turn on a busy King Street, however a bus was promptly behind the car, and would not allow enough space for the driver to perform a U-turn, and so the driver was force to enter the bus lane with no alternative. As the signage is inadequate to convey the restriction, and the driver was forced to enter the bus lane the PCN is invalid and must be cancelled. Should you reject my representation please send the traffic regulation order.

that good to go? thank you for the help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jo Carn
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 15:38
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 659
Joined: 22 Mar 2016
Member No.: 83,162



I have appealed twice at Tribunal and won both times but that means risking paying the full amount - up to you.
The last time was a few months ago but here is what I submitted and the Tribunal's reply. Reading won't back down because it is a cash cow.

STATEMENT FOR TRIBUNAL

We do not dispute that our driver entered the bus lane. Our driver had a delivery at the junction of Kings Street/Minster Street, the first time he was delivering to this location. He was not given adequate warning of the bus lane or any means for a vehicle to turn safely in Kings Street. After making the delivery the driver had two options:
1. perform a three-point turn in a 7.5 tonne vehicle near a heavily pedestrianised zone. He believed that this option would only put pedestrians, cyclists and other road users at unacceptable risk.
2. follow Minister Street and enter the bus lane.

In effect, he was given no safe option and was forced into make a decision that was absolutely necessary - to enter the bus lane. We believe this is in accordance with section 9 and 10 (a) of “Borough of Reading … Order 2012”, an attachment in Reading Council’s letter of 7 October.

The only other warning of the bus lane is one sign posted in Kings Street before the junction with Duke Street. It is six lines of text sited just prior to a traffic island. It would not be reasonable or safe for a driver of a moving vehicle to be reading this lengthy sign. This single sign is insufficient to warn a driver of the oncoming, unavoidable bus lane further ahead. In their letter of 7 October, Reading Council stated that this sign “has special authorisation from the Department of Transport” but, despite our request, no evidence of this authorisation has been provided.

Our driver stated that he did see the road marking and was confused, as there was no obvious sign to accompany it. Unsure of how to proceed he waited until he reached the junction of Kings Street and Duke Street where he noticed that there were no signs on the other side of the junction preventing him from continuing his journey along Kings Street.

It is the responsibility of Reading Council to give reasonable notice to drivers of any approaching restrictions (Regulation 18(1) of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England & Wales) Regulation 1996). One sign cannot be construed as reasonable warning.

Reading Council could have erected other warning signs to draw a driver’s attention to the prohibition ahead - on both sides of the road, repeated at the traffic island, just before the junction or after the junction with Duke Street. Instead no ADE warning of the bus lane has been provided.

Kings Street (between Duke Street and Minister Street) is not a bus lane and Reading Council has not suggested that a vehicle may not enter. However, with a bus lane and a pedestrian zone at the end of road, this section of Kings Street has, in effect, become a one-way road with no exit. There is no warning for those entering Kings Street, that there is no legal, safe exit. In effect, the council has trapped the motorist.

THIS WAS THE TRIBUNAL'S DECISION
That challenge was rejected by a Notice of Rejection dated 7 October 2016. It then lodged this appeal.
2. The company requested a face to face hearing in London. This took place on 23 November. It was represented by Ms Jo Giacon. Reading Borough Council had notice of the hearing but did not attend and so I took their written representations into account.
3. Ms Giacon told me that the vehicle involved was a 7.5 ton lorry, engaged in delivering goods – multiple crates and packages of food and drink – to business premises situated in King Street at the junction with Minster Street.
4. King Street is not subject to bus lane restrictions. However having completed his delivery the driver had the choice either to leave King Street by Minster Street, through the bus lane, or to try to undertake a multiple point turn. She could not say whether the vehicle could have been turned without trespassing on the Pedestrian Zone in Broad Street, which turns away from King Street at the same point as the junction with Minster Street. If this had been possible it would not have been a safe manoeuvre in a vehicle of this nature. The driver took the safer option.
5. It was the case for the company that the signage placed on King’s Road, before the junction with King Street, High Street and Duke Street, was unsatisfactory.
6. First, it was argued that there was only one sign, to the nearside of the road and nothing on the central traffic island. There was no signage beyond the junction before the regulatory signage at the top of Minster Street. This was inconsistent with the better quality signage at the junction, for example in relation to traffic intending to turn right.
7. Second, Ms Giacon criticised the length of the narrative on the sign – 6 lines of text, in a site close to a pedestrian island where a driver would be alert for pedestrians crossing. Ms Giacon commented that she had received letters shorter than this sign and suggested that a diagram would have been easier to absorb.
8. Thirdly Ms Giacon said that the sign was inaccurate and incomplete. It directed traffic to turn left, but there was in fact no prohibition on traffic entering King Street: the prohibition was on traffic then exiting King Street into Minster Street (or Broad Street).
9. The difficulty was that there was no other egress from King Street. Once a lorry was in King Street it could not get out. The company relied upon an exemption in the Traffic Regulation Order for vehicles delivering to premises.
10. Reading Borough Council resisted the appeal. They said that the vehicle was driven in a bus lane during its hours of operation. The sign at the commencement of the restricted area had specific authorisation from the Department for Transport. There was also advance signage. Road markings to reinforce the requirement for traffic to turn left before entering King Street were renewed in August 2016.
11. At the conclusion of the hearing I reserved my decision, indicating that I would undertake a site inspection when I was in any event to be in Reading on 6 December.
12. Mrs Robertson from the Council accompanied me on the site inspection. There was no representative from the company.
13. The signage was generally as shown in the photographs that were lodged by the Council. I noted that in their Notice of Rejection dated 7 October 2016 the Council stated that the road surface markings had been renewed in August 2016. The condition of those markings, just before the junction of King’s Road and Duke Street, was not consistent with such recent renewal.
14. At the Western end of King Street there is a junction. Traffic cannot turn right into a pedestrianised road that I think is called Butter Market, because there are No Entry signs and this has the appearance of being a limited access or pedestrianised zone. Similarly it cannot go ahead into Broad Street because to do so would be to pass No Entry signs in a narrow opening providing egress only from Broad Street into King Street. The only options are to turn left into Minster Street, to turn the vehicle and return back down King Street or I suppose to reverse to the junction with Duke Street.
15. To reverse the length of King Street and then to turn the vehicle at the widening caused by the traffic light controlled junction would be extremely dangerous. I discount this as an option as I consider it would leave the driver open to police investigation and prosecution for careless driving.
16. Some vehicles may be able to undertake a multiple point turn. I paced the width of King Street and it appeared to me to be about 7.5 metres near the junction with Minster Street. A little further to the east there were parking bays which (if unoccupied) would have caused the available width to be greater. On the south side the bays included a loading bay and a vehicle parked in that bay would have had the benefit of the additional width to undertake a turn. On the north side there were disabled bays. At the time of my inspection the bays were mostly in use and I anticipate that in this busy city centre they would seldom be vacant for long.
17. The vehicle in respect of which this PCN was issued was a 7.5 ton truck. A standard motor car is about 4 – 5 metres in length and I would anticipate that a 7.5 ton truck would be significantly longer, probably about the same length as the width of this road. I have concluded that a multiple point turn would not have been possible for this vehicle without contravening one or both of the No Entry restrictions, the bus lane restriction or climbing the kerb, unless one or more of the parking bays had happened to be vacant to provide additional road width.
18. Once he had completed unloading the vehicle therefore the driver had no real option other than to continue down Minster Street as he did. He could not remain stationary until the bus lane restrictions were no longer in force once he had completed unloading, as to do so would be to invite the issue of a PCN for breach of the waiting restrictions (and CEOs were seen by me to patrol this area).
19. Given that vehicles (especially large vehicles) which lawfully entered King Street would therefore be in something of a trap from which there was no safe exit without contravening one or other of the restrictions, the advance signage before the junction of King’s Road and Duke Street was of particular importance.
20. The sign used consisted of narrative (i.e. text, not diagrams). The upper portion of the sign had an arrow facing forward and the legend ‘No motor vehicles except buses, wheelchair accessible taxis & permit holders 7 – 11am & 4 – 7 pm’. As Ms Giacon observed, this was arranged on 6 lines. Below this was an arrow facing left with the words ‘All other traffic’ (on one line). There are also consistent road surface markings.
21. I agree with Ms Giacon that this sign (and the associated surface marking) was misleading. It would indicate to a driver that during the restricted hours, only buses etc. could enter King Street. That is not correct. There was no restriction to entering King Street. The restriction was upon leaving it through Minster Street.
22. Guidance as to advance signage for bus lanes is provided in figure 15-14 in Chapter 3 of the Department for Transport Traffic Signs Manual (TSM). The recommended sign consists of a diagrammatic representation of the road layout ahead. Narrative is kept to a minimum. The bus lane is represented by an embedded bus lane roundel. This type of signage is consistent with other signage recommended in respect of prohibitions of traffic, see figure 5-1 in the TSM.
23. It seems to me that the diagrammatic style of sign recommended in the TSM would be far more readily capable of assimilation by a driver trying to find his or her way in a busy city centre than the lengthy narrative sign used by the Council in this case. It would also have the advantage that it could indicate the location at which the restriction commenced.
24. I gather that the Council take the view that deliveries should be undertaken outside the restricted hours, so that vehicles could then readily exit through Minster Street. If that were their intention then I fail to understand why the bus lane restriction did not apply to King Street (Westbound) as well as Minster Street.
25. If that had been the case then it would have been lawful for the delivery to take place as there is an exemption within the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) enabling deliveries to be made to premises adjacent to the bus lane – see article 10(a)(ii) of the TRO. It would seem bizarre for it to be lawful during the restricted hours for a vehicle to enter Minster Street to load or unload, but not to exit through Minster Street when this was the only practicable route following unloading in King Street.
26. I accept that the regulatory signage situated at the junction of King Street and Minster Street met the required standard of adequacy and was properly maintained. The problem is that by the time a vehicle reached that point, especially a vehicle such as a 7.5 ton lorry, it was too late safely or legally to leave King Street by any other route.
27. I have decided that this appeal should be allowed for the following reasons. The advance signage at the junction of Kings Road and Duke Street did not provide adequate information to road users as to the restriction ahead. It was positively misleading (see paragraph 21 above). A driver (especially a delivery driver) aware that entering King Street was legal at any time would not be informed that having done so the vehicle was trapped in a place from which there was no lawful and safe exit. The sign was too long to be assimilated by a driver in all the circumstances. No good reason has been suggested for using a narrative and not a diagrammatic sign as sensibly recommended by the TSM.
28. Secondly, in circumstances where a multiple point turn is not possible without infringing another restriction, and waiting until the bus lane restrictions were no longer in force would infringe another restriction, and reversing would be patently dangerous and probably a criminal offence, there should be a defence of necessity.
29. A diagrammatic advance sign would undoubtedly be an improvement. I cannot say whether it would meet the required standard of providing adequate information to road users. It may be that the real problem here is the layout and the combination of restrictions leaving drivers no safe and legal option.
30. Although I have heard no argument I would mention that I am also doubtful as to the legality of the road surface marking, an arrow pointing left into Duke Street and the legend ‘All traffic’. This appears to be a non-permitted variant of diagram 1036.1 from the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, which in any event is only permitted where turning left is compulsory (which it is not at this junction).
31. I am conscious that this restriction, and probably the advance sign, has been in place for a number of years and in many cases adjudicators, including me, have dismissed appeals upon review of the photographic evidence. It is right also to say that this bus lane is the source of a continuing stream of appeals. This particular case raised in relief the issue of the advance signage rather than the regulatory signage and having conducted the inspection I have reached the conclusions set out in this decision.
32. For all these reasons this appeal is allowed. The Council must cancel the PCN.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jman007
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 16:13
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 16 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,908



Thanks @Jo Carn. Yes I am concerned at the risk. Do you think I have a strong case for appeal, if so I am willing to take that risk.

Here is the latest Reading roadmap, and signage. There is no real clear sign until Minster Street. The only sign turning right from Abbey Square, is a yellow 5-line sign, which is not easy to read when driving on a busy street. Had they put the sign at Minster Street at an earlier spot, it would be much more obvious to the driver.

http://www.reading.gov.uk/media/7563/Minst...11-08-20171.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jo Carn
post Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 10:15
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 659
Joined: 22 Mar 2016
Member No.: 83,162



Personally I think you do have a case. There is a sign which starts "no motor vehicles". This is way too long and is not true - You can cross the next junction. The issue with the junction with Kings Road/Duke street is that there is no warning sign at that junction of what lies ahead. The have put a sign ("Minster Street access restriction") once you have already entered the road. Effectively it is a funnel, unless you are prepared to do a U-turn in a busy road that not only has buses but a number of disabled bays.

Adjudicators at Tribunals consistently state that signage must be "compliant, clear, substantial and adequate". No way the layout meets these standards.
I would mention all the Tribunal cases they have lost. When you write your appeal do so with the Tribunal in mind. Assertive but not aggressive. The more reasonable you look, the more ridiculous they do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 13:26
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Lets see the response to representations


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

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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 12:27
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