PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bus Lane infringement, Threads merged
Bluff cove
post Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 20:23
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,771



Evening folks,

Ok. Not sure of my chances on this one but it's always worth a try right?!

Last week I drove through a Bus Lane. No doubt I did. Circumstances are as follows; It used to be a road some while ago, that was exclusively for buses only, now, weirdly, there are no no entry signs at the start of the road so I drove down it. About 2/3rds of the way down there is a forced U turn road markings arrangement- presumably to allow for access to parking bays and the Cathedral. To me it's a bit of an unusual arrangement so much so that it took me a few seconds to work out what all signs meant. By this time I had passed the point of no return and carried on to the end of the road which wasn't far.

Afterwards I did feel that maybe I'd contravened but wasn't 100% sure. Last week I got the PCN.

It was totally an honest genuine error. I gained no advantage over other cars in the road, there weren't any. Also a few hours earlier I'd found out that an old good friend had passed away unexpectedly early after a terminal illness. To be frank I was really morose and down and not concentrating at my peak as I was preoccupied with those sad thoughts. I can prove to the council about this.

So my question is what representation approach should I use. Can they cancel a PCN for extenuating circumstances and an unusual layout?

Many thanks.

Links below


https://flic.kr/p/Y1fVpa

Dropped pin
near 1 Bishop Crispian Way, Portsmouth PO1 3HJ

https://goo.gl/maps/gE8Zb3CZ9tP2

Other PCN pages

https://flic.kr/p/XXTxSN

https://flic.kr/p/Y1CGAv


I know I made a contravention but would really appreciate any strategy for making formal reps.

This post has been edited by Bluff cove: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 21:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 20:23
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 1 Sep 2017 - 11:27
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,245
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Bluff cove @ Fri, 1 Sep 2017 - 00:29) *
would like to submit online in the next few days if possible. I will still include my extenuating circumstances and signage remarks but de-prioritise then as supplementary.

I don't see the rush but up to you.

The Council are unlikely to agree with anything that's been said here.

Regs are here > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/contents/made
A bit of navigating backwards and forwards for confirmation of time periods.

The ground for Reps - 'not owner' is misleading on PCN re requirement to provide details. See Regs.

Al's Bar v Wandsworth and

Moses v Barnet (R vs the adjudicator ex-parte Barnet)

are both Googlable.

Technical points are best presented last in any reps.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bluff cove
post Fri, 1 Sep 2017 - 17:44
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,771



QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 1 Sep 2017 - 12:27) *
QUOTE (Bluff cove @ Fri, 1 Sep 2017 - 00:29) *
would like to submit online in the next few days if possible. I will still include my extenuating circumstances and signage remarks but de-prioritise then as supplementary.

I don't see the rush but up to you.

The Council are unlikely to agree with anything that's been said here.

Regs are here > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/contents/made
A bit of navigating backwards and forwards for confirmation of time periods.

The ground for Reps - 'not owner' is misleading on PCN re requirement to provide details. See Regs.

Al's Bar v Wandsworth and

Moses v Barnet (R vs the adjudicator ex-parte Barnet)

are both Googlable.

Technical points are best presented last in any reps.




Hey, thanks for this Neal.


I know I have a while before meeting the deadline but an going on a walking trip soon in the sticks and not sure of a reliable network connection and, ideally, wanted to thought purge myself of this before setting off, but not critical. Collating and persuasive draft composition is of greatest importance!



Also that Mick mentioning about language around issuance of a charge certificate, 'will' instead of 'may' is a frequent winner?

Maybe it's me but I thought the grammar was poor when it mentioned 'reply in writing only' but then stated online submission is possible. Writing to an old git like me is usually considered snail mail! Potentially ambiguous.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Bluff cove: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 - 15:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
copper's nark
post Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 16:27
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,768



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 31 Aug 2017 - 08:51) *
Before you do any more research on lines and signs read up on substantial compliance.

An adjudicator is likely to take the line "was the driver aware, from the signage, that there was a prohibition" "was it adequate enough to convey the prohibition?" In this respect I would doubt minor issues with lines and signs would find favour.

Neil's comments on defective documentation are likely to be the key to any appeal grounds. For instance they say they will issue a charge certificate when the legislation says may. Thus they can be accused of withholding their discretion.

Mick


The point is not to appeal to the adjudicator, it is to appeal to the council who issued the PCN. Lock in the discount and see if they can be convinced to cancel the PCN.
The signs are prescribed by regulation and councils need to follow the regulations in order to enforce them. If they don't, they can't enforce them, hence the signage
needs to be correct. The OP needs to create the doubt in the mind of the recipient (i.e. let one go or possibly have a raft of disgruntled motorists get on their case). However, the adjudicator will look at evidence presented and apply the law to decide if there has been a breach of it or not.

As for substantial compliance, they don't comply with TSRDG 2016 (diagram 1048.5 "Bus Gate" should be used and authorised plates for the upright sign is a time plate and/or authorised vehicles plate). This was in force at the time of the order and the High Court has ruled councils need to take these matters into account http://www.buckles-law.co.uk/site/library/...-the-high-court

TSM ch3 p137 Only plate 953.2 May be used only in combination with
diagram 953 or 953.1

PS Thanks to Neil B. I've learnt a bit about the notices.

This post has been edited by copper's nark: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 16:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 17:41
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,481
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (copper's nark @ Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 17:27) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 31 Aug 2017 - 08:51) *
Before you do any more research on lines and signs read up on substantial compliance.

An adjudicator is likely to take the line "was the driver aware, from the signage, that there was a prohibition" "was it adequate enough to convey the prohibition?" In this respect I would doubt minor issues with lines and signs would find favour.

Neil's comments on defective documentation are likely to be the key to any appeal grounds. For instance they say they will issue a charge certificate when the legislation says may. Thus they can be accused of withholding their discretion.

Mick


The point is not to appeal to the adjudicator, it is to appeal to the council who issued the PCN. Lock in the discount and see if they can be convinced to cancel the PCN.
The signs are prescribed by regulation and councils need to follow the regulations in order to enforce them. If they don't, they can't enforce them, hence the signage
needs to be correct. The OP needs to create the doubt in the mind of the recipient (i.e. let one go or possibly have a raft of disgruntled motorists get on their case). However, the adjudicator will look at evidence presented and apply the law to decide if there has been a breach of it or not.

As for substantial compliance, they don't comply with TSRDG 2016 (diagram 1048.5 "Bus Gate" should be used and authorised plates for the upright sign is a time plate and/or authorised vehicles plate). This was in force at the time of the order and the High Court has ruled councils need to take these matters into account http://www.buckles-law.co.uk/site/library/...-the-high-court

TSM ch3 p137 Only plate 953.2 May be used only in combination with
diagram 953 or 953.1

PS Thanks to Neil B. I've learnt a bit about the notices.


The sign 953 is regulatory the road markings are not they are advisory If you want to get the council to cancel the best chance would be to point out the flaws in the PCN, .looking at GSV that is a well signed bus gate I cannot see a council or adjudicator overturning it's validity
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
copper's nark
post Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 21:37
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,768



In response to Pastmybest.

Road markings are not necessarily advisory, some are regulatory e.g. Give Way, Stop and solid whites. The road markings are part and parcel of the regulatory process and are authorised by the TRO and TSM ch 5 para 2.4, 2.5 and DfT circular 1-2016 2.3 will inform you otherwise. Read them. The TRO is posted earlier, and clearly states that TSRGD 2016 apply to the traffic signs.
DfT circular 1-2016 "12.5. Diagrams 1048.3 and 1048.4 have been replaced by a new diagram 1048.5 -"BUS GATE". This is for use on roads used by buses only (formerly diagram1048.3), roads used by buses and tramcars only (previously diagram 1048.2) or roads used by buses and any other vehicles indicated on the upright signs, for example taxis. This road marking is for use in conjunction with the signs shown in Schedule 3 Part 2 Items 10, 33 to 35 and 37 to 40." The traffic signs and road markings are of a bus gate and not a bus lane. The contravention states being in a bus lane (as defined by the Transport Act 2000). Bus gate is not defined but has it's own regulatory signs within TSM ch3 and 5.

The TRO does not include in it that a bus gate has the same meaning as a bus lane.
This is the report by the Adjudication Service https://www.patrol-uk.info/docs/jc/PATROL_B...PER_16_7_12.pdf on the subject.

Where is the statutory ground for appealing a defective PCN?

Reg 9 (2)(a) the contravention did not occur - because the council had erred in law and used unauthorised signage, failed to define the bus gate and invalidated their own TRO. It is the TRO that gives the councils the power to enforce the regulations.

This post has been edited by copper's nark: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 22:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 22:12
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,245
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (copper's nark @ Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 22:37) *
The road markings are part and parcel of the regulatory process and are authorised by the TRO and TSM ch 5 para 2.4, 2.5 and DfT circular 1-2016 2.3 will inform you otherwise. Read them.? T

Where is the statutory ground for appealing a defective PCN?

Erm,

JASON'S BACK !!


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
copper's nark
post Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 22:34
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,768



QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 23:12) *
QUOTE (copper's nark @ Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 22:37) *
The road markings are part and parcel of the regulatory process and are authorised by the TRO and TSM ch 5 para 2.4, 2.5 and DfT circular 1-2016 2.3 will inform you otherwise. Read them.? T

Where is the statutory ground for appealing a defective PCN?

Erm,

JASON'S BACK !!


Sorry I thought the purpose was to help the OP to challenge the PCN and give him the tools to do it or do we just slag each other off instead?

This post has been edited by copper's nark: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 22:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 22:39
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,481
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (copper's nark @ Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 23:34) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 23:12) *
QUOTE (copper's nark @ Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 22:37) *
The road markings are part and parcel of the regulatory process and are authorised by the TRO and TSM ch 5 para 2.4, 2.5 and DfT circular 1-2016 2.3 will inform you otherwise. Read them.? T

Where is the statutory ground for appealing a defective PCN?

Erm,

JASON'S BACK !!


Sorry I thought the purpose was to help the OP to challenge the PCN and give him the tools to do it or do we just slang each other off instead?


You are giving him the tools to lose his money
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
copper's nark
post Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 22:45
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,768



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 23:39) *
QUOTE (copper's nark @ Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 23:34) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 23:12) *
QUOTE (copper's nark @ Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 22:37) *
The road markings are part and parcel of the regulatory process and are authorised by the TRO and TSM ch 5 para 2.4, 2.5 and DfT circular 1-2016 2.3 will inform you otherwise. Read them.? T

Where is the statutory ground for appealing a defective PCN?

Erm,

JASON'S BACK !!


Sorry I thought the purpose was to help the OP to challenge the PCN and give him the tools to do it or do we just slang each other off instead?


You are giving him the tools to lose his money


Explain how and provide any evidence you might have to back up your claim. None of you really understand the legal process and how it works.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 22:46
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,245
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (copper's nark @ Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 23:34) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 23:12) *
QUOTE (copper's nark @ Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 22:37) *
The road markings are part and parcel of the regulatory process and are authorised by the TRO and TSM ch 5 para 2.4, 2.5 and DfT circular 1-2016 2.3 will inform you otherwise. Read them.? T

Where is the statutory ground for appealing a defective PCN?

Erm,

JASON'S BACK !!


Sorry I thought the purpose was to help the OP to challenge the PCN and give him the tools to do it or do we just slang each other off instead?

I was merely speculating. I could be mistaken but, having seen the forum trolled recently, my doubts remain.
If your contributions are genuine, as you seem knowledgeable, then you are more than welcome.





--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 22:47
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,481
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



I think an old friend might be back not Jason but one who has had many incarnations
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 22:52
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,245
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 23:47) *
many incarnations

No coincidennce then that the OP themselves has TWO accounts !

How thick do they think we are?


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
copper's nark
post Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 23:13
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,768



Guys, I joined this site to offer my knowledge gained fighting many PCNs. I've won the arguments on the legal basis of the TRO or traffic signage. The council cancel the tickets without the need to go to the adjudicator. I've used the site a resource to assist in that. I'm trying to give something back. I don't appreciated being confused with anyone else.

Getting back to the original post, the appeal to the council is free. You can say what you like, state of mind, obscured signs or anything else. The discount is frozen until they have considered the appeal. If they reject it - that's decision time. In my experience they rely on the statutory reasons.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 23:17
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,481
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (copper's nark @ Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 00:13) *
Guys, I joined this site to offer my knowledge gained fighting many PCNs. I've won the arguments on the legal basis of the TRO or traffic signage. The council cancel the tickets without the need to go to the adjudicator. I've used the site a resource to assist in that. I'm trying to give something back. I don't appreciated being confused with anyone else.

Getting back to the original post, the appeal to the council is free. You can say what you like, state of mind, obscured signs or anything else. The discount is frozen until they have considered the appeal. If they reject it - that's decision time. In my experience they rely on the statutory reasons.


The discount is frozen until they have considered the appeal.

And the legal basis for this statement is?

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 23:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
copper's nark
post Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 23:23
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,768



That's what they do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 23:26
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,481
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (copper's nark @ Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 00:23) *
That's what they do.


So that's your legal basis. I suggest you check out the legislation
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
copper's nark
post Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 23:29
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,768



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 00:26) *
QUOTE (copper's nark @ Wed, 6 Sep 2017 - 00:23) *
That's what they do.


So that's your legal basis. I suggest you check out the legislation


There's no point. You don't read it. I'm still waiting for your evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bluff cove
post Thu, 7 Sep 2017 - 00:17
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,771



Hey guys. Been busy for a while.

Thanks for continuing the input, I'm composing the initial reps now and get it in well before the 14 day discount rate to see if they provide a speedy response. There's no definitive mention in the PCN whether the discount is suspended pending initial reps resolution. I will use the personal circumstances, then moan about signage then focus n PCN formatting.

Also guys, there seems to be a little angst on the thread. I appreciate everyone's input and have done some crash reading in the regs myself. Please no arguing or trolling, it's just a was of time. I agree that, as you have all kindly contributed, that copper is right it's about trying to challenge the PCN not paranoia or mud slinging! What about two accounts Neal? Why do you think that? How would you know? Thanks for the case law links btw, I had a good read.

I'll post up the outline of the draft later today to see what you think then I'm gonna have too submit sharpish. I was going to go with Stat grounds it didn't take place as the the PCN is defective/signage inadequate not compliant with TSRGD. I read someone used these grounds for a defect I've pcn.

I'm still confused with plate 953.2 usage? It is compliant as it's used with sign 953 right? Blue sign taxi, bike, bus.

Cheers again biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by Bluff cove: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 - 00:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 7 Sep 2017 - 01:23
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,245
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Bluff cove @ Thu, 7 Sep 2017 - 01:17) *
What about two accounts. Why do you think that? How would you know?


wink.gif


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
copper's nark
post Thu, 7 Sep 2017 - 09:30
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,768



I now understand your confusion on the 953 plate. As you rightly point out the buses, taxi and cycle sign is also 953 (the others are 953A and B). The TSRGD 2016 only authorises a time plate or an authorised vehicles plate (p 74-75 of the TSRGD 2016) meaning the ONLY plate is not authorised. You may also find this useful https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...al-guidance.pdf it's the latest one I have found. Para 11.16 p.86 relates to re-offering the discount. Annex D p.140 deals with incorrect signage. I can't find one specifically for bus lanes other than provisional guidance from 2005 and it's similar in nature to the above guidance.
I'm currently fighting a PCN I have received as a keeper of a vehicle with a local authority for a bus lane infringement. Previously, in dealings with councils parking enforcement, the time limit stops when informal and formal challenges are made, retaining the discount. I've had no reason to check as it was to my advantage (but see above). I know if it goes to the adjudicator you lose the discount.
I have just received an email from them the local authority acknowledging an error in their TRO. I'm waiting to hear if they will suspend enforcement. Furthermore, the signs and road markings are wrong and one of the signs was obscured for my PCN. The driver was following another car and that driver was following sat-nav directions. They even turned around on realising their error but still copped a ticket. Again, that's contrary to enforcement guidelines but do they care. That's why I have acquired an interest in bus lane regulations.
Unfortunately for me, the helpful advice from Neil B does not assist me but clearly assists your case.
Pastmybest has added no value to the discussion.
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: Saturday, 22nd September 2018 - 04:19
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.