PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bus Lane Penalty Charge Notice Oxford Rd Manchester, But doesn't look like a bus lane!
Umtwebby
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 20:17
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,283



First of two incidents in a week at my house.

Son driving a mini received a bus lane Penalty Charge Notice:

Being in a bus lane (during the hours of operation of the bus lane). Location – Oxford Road (Nelson Street to Hathersage Road. This in Manchester outside the Manchester Royal Infirmary.

Detection date is 22 October 2017 at 12:06pm. Date of Penalty Charge Notice is 16 November 2017 (service is stated as being 18 November 2017).

Google view: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4622658,-...3312!8i6656

Although the signs cannot be seen properly, the signs at the opposite end of this stretch of road are available here and are the same signs exactly: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.459218,-2...3312!8i6656

The relevant cctv photograph is available here but please note the vehicle in the foreground which features in my son’s representation:

My son had turned left onto Oxford Road from Grafton Street approximately 70 yards previously. The GSV has loads of road works which are not there now. He was behind the taller vehicle which I think is a ford possible C-max. As they approached the area the ford indicated and pulled over to the kerb side effectively blocking my son’s view of the entrance to the cycle lane. He remembers seeing the prohibition sign but thought that the sign applied to prevent vehicles driving along the cycle lane although when you see it live, the likelihood is that it is not wide enough for a vehicle at the entrance. It probably could take a vehicle a few yards beyond the entrance. However he could not see the cycle lane entrance. There is a corresponding prohibition sign on the opposite side of the road.

Looking at the penalty notice , it is for a bus lane but there is no demarcation other than the red strip (presumably) that the bus lane starts and, in fact, the signs do not indicate bus lane merely prohibit vehicles between 6am and 9pm daily beyond the sign.

We will submit these representations and, if rejected, will consider a traffic tribunal. Does anyone have any observations on our chances?. I have the penalty notice in a pdf but need to redact it first and convert to JPG if it is needed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 20:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
archiepea
post Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 10:39
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 22 May 2013
Member No.: 62,095



Good luck!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umtwebby
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 08:24
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,283



Having asked for the adjudicator decision referred to in MNStar's success, I have now received a copy of it. The reference is MC00729-1711.

Just want to check that it is a public document and therefore I can post the content without compromise or it affecting my son's TPT tomorrow.

It is very useful!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:00
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,919
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



The register is a public document, open to anybody who wishes to inspect it. London Tribunals has it on-line, but TPT doesn't so you have to go to their offices to see it, or, as in your case, ask for a copy of a particular case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:02
Post #44


Member


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



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:00) *
The register is a public document, open to anybody who wishes to inspect it. London Tribunals has it on-line, but TPT doesn't so you have to go to their offices to see it, or, as in your case, ask for a copy of a particular case.


yes you can post it, but out of courtesy redact names. but why not wait til tomorrow to ease your mind


--------------------
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
Umtwebby
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:21
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,283




I am happy to post today if it is a public document. I suggest that the decision is very relevant to those without an out of time issue and seek to rely upon the signage being deficient:

MC00729-1711

Adjudicator’s Reasons

XXX has taken part in a telephone hearing of this appeal, at which the Council was not represented.

During the hearing it became apparent that because she was at her place of work, did not have access to the online appeal site, although she had printed off some documents.

Because I considered it necessary to find out with some certainty the route she had taken, I adjourned the hearing and the Tribunal administration sent an email to attaching the Councils’ submission in evidence 16’. This includes an overview of the restriction, photographs and plans.

I can see that I was initially mistaken about the direction. XX was travelling along Oxford road. I accept that she had made a left-hand turn from Grafton Street and was driving south before making a right-hand turn into Denmark Road.

The appeal originally concerned five PCN’s, but the Council has decided to cancel MCXXX702 and MCXXX679, so that these penalty charges are not payable.

XX has referred to two other PCN’s, MCXXX9211 and MCXXX8912, about which she has made representations but the Council say they have not issued the Notice of Rejection. It is therefore too early in the process for these PCN’s to be the subject of an appeal, but I expect that the Council will take my decision in this case into account when deciding whether they should continue to enforce these penalty charges.

I am therefore considering two PCN’s relating to alleged contraventions on 20.09.2017 at 08.24 and 14.33, together with a third PCN issued on 21.09.2017 at 11.59.

XX says that on each occasion she was following the same route in the course of her duties as a XXXXXXX.

She bases her appeal largely on the fact that she had not received a warning letter, said to have been issued by the Council on 11.09.2017. She knows now that a number of her work colleagues had received a similar letter, but she did not and so was therefore unaware that this restriction was being enforced. She has told me in detail of her conversations with a Council Officer who told her that because of the volume of appeals received, the warning letter process may have broken down.

XXX says that she was left with the impression that the Council would cancel the penalty charges if, as she was recommended to do, she made an appeal to the Tribunal.

She also makes the point that this particular restriction has caused some controversy and initially was not enforced, with black bin liners placed over the signing. She feels strongly that it is unfair to expect her to pay more than one penalty charge in circumstances where the first PCN in time was not issued until 12.10.2018, so that she had not received it before the remaining contraventions occurred.

However, as I have stated during the hearing, the background and the fact that XX did not get the warning letter could be a matter of mitigation, but it is not a reason for the appeal to be allowed.

That is because mitigation is for the Council to consider, when exercising discretion based on the particular facts of the case, whether the penalty charge should be enforced. Having said that, if the Council accepted that the warning letter was not received, I would have expected some of the penalty charges to have been cancelled.

Further, I would expect the Council to have cancelled one of the two PCNs issued on the same day because whilst there were separate journeys, the imposition of two penalty charges is not proportionate.

Having made the left-hand turn from Grafton Street onto Oxford Road, XX said that she did not see any signs about the bus only street which, according to the plan on page 4 of the Council’s submissions, runs the length of Oxford Road from the junction with Charles Street to Hathersage Road albeit that the extent of the restriction changes at intervals.

The plan on page 10 of the submissions shows that a southbound vehicle would have passed the roadside camera located at or just before the junction with Nelson Street. It is not clear whether there are other cameras along the length of Oxford Road.

The map on page 5 suggests that there is a route along Grafton Street between Upper Brook Street and Oxford Road, but that there is signing informing drivers that the no vehicle restriction begins after 100 yards in a southerly direction and 70 yards in a northerly direction. There is one sign located before the multi-storey car park and another similar sign outside No. 26 Grafton Street.

In between these signs there is a further diagram suggesting that there is a no-through route both to the right and left of the junction ahead but without distances.

Apparently, the Council intend that any vehicle emerging from Grafton Street should turn right and then immediately left into Devas Street, before turning round and making a left-hand turn back along Grafton Street. If a vehicle turned right, the driver would be expected to turn around at the junction with Nelson Street although a driver has no way of knowing this without the plan.

The plan on page 12 suggests that having turned left from Grafton Street, XX passed signs, on a yellow backing board, just after the junction with Nelson Street. These include a motorcycle and car symbol inside a red circle, together with an exception plate and a camera sign.

These are the signs shown on the CCTV film and which can be seen in the photographs of XX vehicle in evidence ‘6’.

In my view, the immediate problem with the signing is that it is difficult for the approaching driver to understand the extent or terms of the restriction.

The sign does not specifically refer to a bus restriction, other than on the exemption plate, and in at least one of the appeals I have considered, the driver believed that the extended bus stop area on the nearside was the restriction to which the sign referred. It also seems to me that a driver may well conclude that because the sign is located on the other side of the cycle lane, the restriction did not apply to the route ahead.

As can be seen from the CCTV photograph, it is entirely possible that at least part of the sign could be obstructed by a bus emerging from Nelson Street.

Because Oxford Road has, at this point, two carriageways in either direction (including the bus stop areas on either side of the road), the sign on the offside is not easy for the approaching driver to see. It is perhaps this type of location where a central reservation for the sign would be needed.

The Council has decided not to use the legend ‘Bus Gate’ on the carriageway, which is a sign now included in the 2016 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, and whilst I accept that the current guidance issued by the Department for Transport does not require this with the “flying motorcycle” sign, the experience of Adjudicators is that it is generally a carriageway marking which is the most obvious to the approaching driver.

I find that the signing, taken as a whole, is not adequate. The roadside signs are located too far from the carriageway and the presence of the extended bus stop area is confusing, particularly in the absence of any carriageway markings.

Because I am not satisfied that the signing which couId have seen was adequate, I find that the contraventions did not occur and the appeals are allowed.

These penalty charges are not payable and I would suggest, because I can do no more, that the Council does not enforce the two outstanding PCN’s which are yet to be appealed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umtwebby
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:41
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,283



Interesting message just appeared in the TPT hearing file. Might not even get to a hearing tomorrow!

The Council are invited to make representations at or before the hearing tomorrow regarding these points:

1. Despite their assertion that they believe the signage to be adequate, what, if anything, have they done to address the criticism of that signage by two previous adjudicators, Mr Knapp and Mr Solomons? Is it in any material way different to the signage in those two previous cases?

2. Why, despite the clearest deprecation of its inclusion by Mr Solomons, is the irrelevant signage decision once again put forward in their evidence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:46
Post #47


Member


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



QUOTE (Umtwebby @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:41) *
Interesting message just appeared in the TPT hearing file. Might not even get to a hearing tomorrow!

The Council are invited to make representations at or before the hearing tomorrow regarding these points:

1. Despite their assertion that they believe the signage to be adequate, what, if anything, have they done to address the criticism of that signage by two previous adjudicators, Mr Knapp and Mr Solomons? Is it in any material way different to the signage in those two previous cases?

2. Why, despite the clearest deprecation of its inclusion by Mr Solomons, is the irrelevant signage decision once again put forward in their evidence?



That is very interesting, keep us posted


--------------------
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
OxfordRoad
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 11:26
Post #48


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 30 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,220



Congratulations Umtwebby - so for those who have PCNs in the same area, should we be quoting rulings by Mr Solomons and Mr Knapp or what should be quoted in any appeal related to signage?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umtwebby
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 11:40
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,283



QUOTE (OxfordRoad @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 11:26) *
Congratulations Umtwebby - so for those who have PCNs in the same area, should we be quoting rulings by Mr Solomons and Mr Knapp or what should be quoted in any appeal related to signage?


The hearing is tomorrow afternoon. I would be inclined to see how things develop. Clearly MCC have been asked to respond. If they do, their response would be pertinent to those with only a signage issue argument.

I am looking to post as soon as I can after the TPT.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:58
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



QUOTE (Umtwebby @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:21) *
I am happy to post today if it is a public document. I suggest that the decision is very relevant to those without an out of time issue and seek to rely upon the signage being deficient:

MC00729-1711

Adjudicator’s Reasons

XXX has taken part in a telephone hearing of this appeal, at which the Council was not represented.

During the hearing it became apparent that because she was at her place of work, did not have access to the online appeal site, although she had printed off some documents.

Because I considered it necessary to find out with some certainty the route she had taken, I adjourned the hearing and the Tribunal administration sent an email to attaching the Councils’ submission in evidence 16’. This includes an overview of the restriction, photographs and plans.

I can see that I was initially mistaken about the direction. XX was travelling along Oxford road. I accept that she had made a left-hand turn from Grafton Street and was driving south before making a right-hand turn into Denmark Road.

The appeal originally concerned five PCN’s, but the Council has decided to cancel MCXXX702 and MCXXX679, so that these penalty charges are not payable.

XX has referred to two other PCN’s, MCXXX9211 and MCXXX8912, about which she has made representations but the Council say they have not issued the Notice of Rejection. It is therefore too early in the process for these PCN’s to be the subject of an appeal, but I expect that the Council will take my decision in this case into account when deciding whether they should continue to enforce these penalty charges.

I am therefore considering two PCN’s relating to alleged contraventions on 20.09.2017 at 08.24 and 14.33, together with a third PCN issued on 21.09.2017 at 11.59.

XX says that on each occasion she was following the same route in the course of her duties as a XXXXXXX.

She bases her appeal largely on the fact that she had not received a warning letter, said to have been issued by the Council on 11.09.2017. She knows now that a number of her work colleagues had received a similar letter, but she did not and so was therefore unaware that this restriction was being enforced. She has told me in detail of her conversations with a Council Officer who told her that because of the volume of appeals received, the warning letter process may have broken down.

XXX says that she was left with the impression that the Council would cancel the penalty charges if, as she was recommended to do, she made an appeal to the Tribunal.

She also makes the point that this particular restriction has caused some controversy and initially was not enforced, with black bin liners placed over the signing. She feels strongly that it is unfair to expect her to pay more than one penalty charge in circumstances where the first PCN in time was not issued until 12.10.2018, so that she had not received it before the remaining contraventions occurred.

However, as I have stated during the hearing, the background and the fact that XX did not get the warning letter could be a matter of mitigation, but it is not a reason for the appeal to be allowed.

That is because mitigation is for the Council to consider, when exercising discretion based on the particular facts of the case, whether the penalty charge should be enforced. Having said that, if the Council accepted that the warning letter was not received, I would have expected some of the penalty charges to have been cancelled.

Further, I would expect the Council to have cancelled one of the two PCNs issued on the same day because whilst there were separate journeys, the imposition of two penalty charges is not proportionate.

Having made the left-hand turn from Grafton Street onto Oxford Road, XX said that she did not see any signs about the bus only street which, according to the plan on page 4 of the Council’s submissions, runs the length of Oxford Road from the junction with Charles Street to Hathersage Road albeit that the extent of the restriction changes at intervals.

The plan on page 10 of the submissions shows that a southbound vehicle would have passed the roadside camera located at or just before the junction with Nelson Street. It is not clear whether there are other cameras along the length of Oxford Road.

The map on page 5 suggests that there is a route along Grafton Street between Upper Brook Street and Oxford Road, but that there is signing informing drivers that the no vehicle restriction begins after 100 yards in a southerly direction and 70 yards in a northerly direction. There is one sign located before the multi-storey car park and another similar sign outside No. 26 Grafton Street.

In between these signs there is a further diagram suggesting that there is a no-through route both to the right and left of the junction ahead but without distances.

Apparently, the Council intend that any vehicle emerging from Grafton Street should turn right and then immediately left into Devas Street, before turning round and making a left-hand turn back along Grafton Street. If a vehicle turned right, the driver would be expected to turn around at the junction with Nelson Street although a driver has no way of knowing this without the plan.

The plan on page 12 suggests that having turned left from Grafton Street, XX passed signs, on a yellow backing board, just after the junction with Nelson Street. These include a motorcycle and car symbol inside a red circle, together with an exception plate and a camera sign.

These are the signs shown on the CCTV film and which can be seen in the photographs of XX vehicle in evidence ‘6’.

In my view, the immediate problem with the signing is that it is difficult for the approaching driver to understand the extent or terms of the restriction.

The sign does not specifically refer to a bus restriction, other than on the exemption plate, and in at least one of the appeals I have considered, the driver believed that the extended bus stop area on the nearside was the restriction to which the sign referred. It also seems to me that a driver may well conclude that because the sign is located on the other side of the cycle lane, the restriction did not apply to the route ahead.

As can be seen from the CCTV photograph, it is entirely possible that at least part of the sign could be obstructed by a bus emerging from Nelson Street.

Because Oxford Road has, at this point, two carriageways in either direction (including the bus stop areas on either side of the road), the sign on the offside is not easy for the approaching driver to see. It is perhaps this type of location where a central reservation for the sign would be needed.

The Council has decided not to use the legend ‘Bus Gate’ on the carriageway, which is a sign now included in the 2016 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, and whilst I accept that the current guidance issued by the Department for Transport does not require this with the “flying motorcycle” sign, the experience of Adjudicators is that it is generally a carriageway marking which is the most obvious to the approaching driver.

I find that the signing, taken as a whole, is not adequate. The roadside signs are located too far from the carriageway and the presence of the extended bus stop area is confusing, particularly in the absence of any carriageway markings.

Because I am not satisfied that the signing which couId have seen was adequate, I find that the contraventions did not occur and the appeals are allowed.

These penalty charges are not payable and I would suggest, because I can do no more, that the Council does not enforce the two outstanding PCN’s which are yet to be appealed.


Hi Umtwebby,
I got the same reply today as the above of the forum user. so i wont upload this on my thread then.

From:Anjali Shah (Administrator)
To:Tribunal Only15/02/2018
09:32
Dear

Please find attached a copy of the adjudicator's decision for case MC00729-1711 as requested.

Decisions of Adjudicators are not a precedent and do not bind any other Adjudicator. Each case is decided on the particular facts.

Regards,
Traffic Penalty Tribunal
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 14:19
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,919
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



The biggest "elephant in the room" is that despite this quite damning judgement, councils are free to totally ignore it, and it is likely they will as there are no penalties at all on them for doing so. "Keep the cash rolling in" in their mantra, and as most people cough-up without a fight, lucrative too
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Anna-2018
post Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 12:27
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 16 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,586



Hi All,

I’ve recently received a PCN for a bus lane contravention for Oxford Rd, Manchester. I had proceeded along Grafton Street and took a left onto Oxford Road and then a right into Denmark Rd. The PCN were received in time so Manchester Council have learnt their lesson in terms of timing. Thank you for posting the adjudicators decision as it will be very relevant for my case. I’m expecting a second PCN as I took the same route a week later. I didn’t want to read and run but judged wanted to thank everyone for putting in all the hard work which will help my representation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 13:29
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,308
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



QUOTE (Anna-2018 @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 12:27) *
Hi All,

I’ve recently received a PCN for a bus lane contravention for Oxford Rd, Manchester. I had proceeded along Grafton Street and took a left onto Oxford Road and then a right into Denmark Rd. The PCN were received in time so Manchester Council have learnt their lesson in terms of timing. Thank you for posting the adjudicators decision as it will be very relevant for my case. I’m expecting a second PCN as I took the same route a week later. I didn’t want to read and run but judged wanted to thank everyone for putting in all the hard work which will help my representation.


Before you put in your reps do start your own thread and run your case and proposed reps by the experts here by posting up all sides of the PCN ana well as you proposed reps. (see below for posting docs.) There are often slight variations in circumstances which may be crucial.

Do have read of the other Oxford Road threads here.

For example, if your case
does turn out to be identical in every way to this thread
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=118188

then I would I would be tempted to write something like
In making my representations against this PCN I find I can do no better than rely on the words of the learned Adjudicator in this recent case (No.xxxx) [and quote from the decision in post#14 of that thread]
-----------------

For posting try this:
Do not attach docs/photos, but use this method:
Some are having problems with Tinypic at he moment.. try Flickr, where the BBcodes are concealed behind the curly arrow (click on it) for sharing.

Photo or scan. see http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36858&st=0
for how to do it. I use Tinypic for stage 2 with no problems. Thera are other sites, such as Flickr, which enable you to paste the BBCodes into your post here.
STAGE 1 takes care of resizing. If you use Tinypic for Stage 2, on the left each image in Tinypic is a list of links. Highlight and copy the entire link 'for forums' from the list for each image - beginning with IMG and ending /IMG (include all the square brackets [ ] ), and paste each link into your post. Each copied and pasted link will embed a thumbnail link in your post.

Using the attachment method is not advised as it means quickly running out of attachment space.

Redact/obscure name, address, PCN number and reg.mark.
LEAVE IN all dates/times; precise location, Contravention code and description.

Also post a GSV (Google Street View) link to the exact location

This post has been edited by John U.K.: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 13:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Anna-2018
post Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 13:40
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 16 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,586



I will start my own thread John UK thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 15:19
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Hi Umtwebby,
I hope all went well today at the TPT ?

Please let us know.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umtwebby
post Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 16:05
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,283



Success!!

This was a demolition of the Manchester City Council representative. I had won without speaking. My notes during the hearing:

Adj asked if MCC had received the request regarding the signage. The adjudicator then used phrases such as

'have issues with sign which is low flying motor cycle'

'hopelessly placed to signify this is a bus lane'

Critical of the way the signage is presented

MCC said that they were looking at additional re-inforcement of signage. Looking to place sign closer to carriageway. He stated that the sign is technically adjacent to the roadway at which Adj said that there is a two stage test.

1 is to make sure it is the right sign and 2 that, in context, it is adequate to provide proper interpretation. She then said that the sign does not tell motorists that they cannot use the roadway and therefore, they should not be enforcing the bus gate/lane at this location. She was further critical that the previous decisions at this location had not been reviewed by MCC at the High Court but they were open to review her decision if she felt that she was wrong (The way she said it left no doubt that she was not wrong).

Adj said further that MCC cannot continue to ignore these decisions and this would remain the adjudicator view until the signage at this location has been sorted.

MCC were questioned for using the Solomon decision in the evidence pack but were somewhat placated when the Council said it was more to reinforce the view that the signage is the correct signage including the signage on the approach.

I will post the actual adjudication once received which may be today. She also agreed to my out of time argument and commented on the fact that, if the timings were accurate as I stated, then she was of a mind to approve a costs award. She put MCC on notice on the OOT matter and the signage although qualified the signage matter as not as persuasive but still would receive due consideration.

Basically, if this is the view now of three adjudicators, then all PCNs at this location are defeatable until MCC sort out the signage. I would suggest that there could be more cost awards in the future as the TPT are clearly angry at repeated appeals for this location.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 16:10
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,308
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



Well done!

I think I can safely say that this has become Manchester's Bank Junction.

Time, methinks, to draw thew attention of the local press? There must be 100s of people with PCNs blissfully unaware that successful appeals are mounting up.

(By the way, what has happened with Bank Junction? All has gone very quiet lately. Jo?)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 16:19
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



QUOTE (Umtwebby @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 16:05) *
Success!!

This was a demolition of the Manchester City Council representative. I had won without speaking. My notes during the hearing:

Adj asked if MCC had received the request regarding the signage. The adjudicator then used phrases such as

'have issues with sign which is low flying motor cycle'

'hopelessly placed to signify this is a bus lane'

Critical of the way the signage is presented

MCC said that they were looking at additional re-inforcement of signage. Looking to place sign closer to carriageway. He stated that the sign is technically adjacent to the roadway at which Adj said that there is a two stage test.

1 is to make sure it is the right sign and 2 that, in context, it is adequate to provide proper interpretation. She then said that the sign does not tell motorists that they cannot use the roadway and therefore, they should not be enforcing the bus gate/lane at this location. She was further critical that the previous decisions at this location had not been reviewed by MCC at the High Court but they were open to review her decision if she felt that she was wrong (The way she said it left no doubt that she was not wrong).

Adj said further that MCC cannot continue to ignore these decisions and this would remain the adjudicator view until the signage at this location has been sorted.

MCC were questioned for using the Solomon decision in the evidence pack but were somewhat placated when the Council said it was more to reinforce the view that the signage is the correct signage including the signage on the approach.

I will post the actual adjudication once received which may be today. She also agreed to my out of time argument and commented on the fact that, if the timings were accurate as I stated, then she was of a mind to approve a costs award. She put MCC on notice on the OOT matter and the signage although qualified the signage matter as not as persuasive but still would receive due consideration.

Basically, if this is the view now of three adjudicators, then all PCNs at this location are defeatable until MCC sort out the signage. I would suggest that there could be more cost awards in the future as the TPT are clearly angry at repeated appeals for this location.


Well Done !!!

Really pleased with the outcome and really good advice given by the guys here.

You also have helped me as well.

Have a nice weekend and justice prevailed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
archiepea
post Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 16:26
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 22 May 2013
Member No.: 62,095



Brilliant!

Well done UMTWEBBY!

Great result!



Great to have your synopsis of the hearing and will look out for the full details...

I do have just one query

I was wondering what was meant by your first line of hearing notes: 'Adj asked if MCC had received the request regarding the signage' ?

Did it refer to a question you had asked them at some point? Thx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umtwebby
post Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 18:19
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,283



QUOTE (archiepea @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 16:26) *
Brilliant!

Well done UMTWEBBY!

Great result!



Great to have your synopsis of the hearing and will look out for the full details...

I do have just one query

I was wondering what was meant by your first line of hearing notes: 'Adj asked if MCC had received the request regarding the signage' ?

Did it refer to a question you had asked them at some point? Thx


She was referring to this request by her of MCC posted in the appeal messages yesterday:

The Council are invited to make representations at or before the hearing tomorrow regarding these points:

1. Despite their assertion that they believe the signage to be adequate, what, if anything, have they done to address the criticism of that signage by two previous adjudicators, Mr Knapp and Mr Solomons? Is it in any material way different to the signage in those two previous cases?

2. Why, despite the clearest deprecation of its inclusion by Mr Solomons, is the irrelevant signage decision once again put forward in their evidence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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 - 02:01
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