PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Lombard Street 52M
Charlesrane
post Tue, 7 Jul 2020 - 14:09
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 27 Jun 2020
Member No.: 108,980



It seems the wonderful money grabbing City of London is still at it.

Having already been allegedly caught twice I wasn't going to make it a third so I was going to by-pass that motorist nightmare and CoL money making scheme Bank Junction. My objective was to go down Canon Street. Anyway after turning left into Gracechurch Street, about 200 yards down I found that I couldn't go down Canon Street as there was a No Entry sign as my side of the road was dug up and only oncoming traffic was allowed to exit it. I couldn't turn left over London Bridge as it was apparently restricted to Local Buses, bikes and taxis. I couldn't turn around as this is a very busy box junction. So I had no choice but to go down King William Street towards the ill fated junction. To add insult to injury there were diversion signs instructing traffic to go straight on over the junction!

Thinking all was well until I got this

CoL PCN

Having received this I was absolutely livid. I have seen there were a few cases on this site and I immediately challenged

quote

Dear Sir or Madam,

The alleged contravention did not occur, on the basis that the signage in Lombard Street does not comply with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, as found by the London Tribunals in Salih Dogan v City of London (case reference 2180198194). While each case is decided on its merits, the signage in issue is the same, and there is no reason to believe the tribunal would reach a different conclusion in this instance. In particular the tribunal ruled that:

"In this appeal the local authority argues that the legend Bus Gate is not mandatory because there is no link from the Route for Bus and Cycle Only sign in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The case summary does not refer to Schedule 9 Part 5 para 1 TSRGD 2016 which provides that the information etc. of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in Part 6 “must” be conveyed by a road marking shown in column 3. The legend bus gate is one of the items in column 3 of part 6 of Schedule 9.

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

The restricted access of that type in the present case is indicated by a (permitted variant of) a sign to Diagram 953 shown in the Schedule 3 Part 2 sign table at item 33.
I find that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 state that the bus gate legend is mandatory.
...
I am satisfied that the bus gate requirement is mandatory therefore I must allow this appeal."

In light of this it would be wholly unreasonable for you to pursue enforcement any further.

Unquote.

That I thought was the end of that. How wrong was I. I then received by email today a notice of rejection. By looking at what they have come back with I don't honestly think that they read everything that I pointed out as they have only cherry picked.

CoL Rejection Notice

Am I right in thinking that I now have no option but to go and appeal it?

This post has been edited by Charlesrane: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 - 14:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 20)
Advertisement
post Tue, 7 Jul 2020 - 14:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 16 Nov 2020 - 23:03
Post #21


Member


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



Well done, you've won:
I adjourned this case, raising a simple factual issue, for the following reason:-

The Appellant is offered the opportunity to explain why it was not possible to turn right into Lombard Street as
an “escape route” as suggested by the Council.

The Appelant has given what I regard as a satisfactory reply to this question and I am on balance satisfied that
the presence of road works and , in particular, diversion signs, operated to undermine the clarity of the existing
signage the extent that in these particular circumstances the prohibition relied on could not be said to be
signed to the standard required. The Appellant refers to other motorists taking a similar course; and whilst
each case falls to be determined on its own merits I am bound to say that I have today arrived at a similar view
in the case of another Appellant who made the identical point.

The Appeal is therefore allowed and I do not find it necessary to come to a view on the merits of the various
technical procedural points put forward very thoroughly by the Appellant’s legal representative.


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

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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 12:35
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