Bus Lane PCN, Oxford St (Whitworth St West to Chepstow St) Options

[Maxchat]

There's lots on the forums about the inadequate signage and lots of local press coverage about poor this is. I'll post a draft reply for comment shortly. Should I reference any of this media though?

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...mpaign=sharebar

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-45248829

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...mpaign=sharebar

[Advertisement]

[Maxchat]

OK, this is what I've got for the appeal letter:

I submit an appeal against the alleged bus lane contravention (Penalty Charge Notice Number MC-----) on the grounds that this contravention did not occur due to inadequate signage.
When travelling along Whitworth Street there is no signage warning of a bus lane on Oxford Street. The “no motor vehicle” signs at the junction of Whitworth Street and Oxford Street are positioned on Oxford Street and facing perpendicular to the direction of approach. It is only when well into making the turn at the busy intersection that the signs are visible to the motorist. This neither allows the time for the reasonably observant motorist to properly take in the information on the signs, nor the opportunity to safely change course. Likewise, there are no road markings indicating a bus lane. A cycle lane is marked on the road, which it could equally be assumed the “no motor vehicles” signage applies to. The signage in this area is wholly inadequate, failing to give the motorist sufficient information to avoid the bus lane.

This inadequate signage has been well recognised by both the local and national press: (Need to print these articles as hard copy unless any better ideas?)

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...mpaign=sharebar
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-45248829
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...mpaign=sharebar

and also by the adjudicator: ref numbers xxxxxx

Could do with some reference to successful adjudication please.

Any thoughts or succesful references please.

[Maxchat]

This was taken from the 3rd listed newspaper article (the most detailed and relevant).

Out of the 186 appeals received for the Oxford Street Whitworth Street West - Chepstow Street run, 156 have been green-lighted - including 50 the council didn’t contest with the tribunal.

Brian Kearns has successfully taken Manchester Council to tribunal after they dismissed his appeal to a fine issued near Whitworth Street.

Brian was trying to get out of the centre via Whitworth Street and he followed his sat nav at the Palace Theatre junction on to Oxford Road. He says it was raining and he didn’t see any signs or road markings to alert him of the bus lane.

The adjudicator’s conclusion on his case reads: “Overall I have concluded that the signage fails to meet the required standard. It is not surprising that Mr Kearns inadvertently strayed into the bus lane. He did not have enough warning so that he could avoid it.”

Brian said: “The signage is very ambiguous and doesn’t state that you are coming to a bus lane. It’s only visible to traffic travelling on Oxford Road and not turning on to it from Whitworth Street.

“Also the camera’s location gives you no chance to correct your mistake if you turn left.”

[cp8759]

Drop the newspaper references, they will make no difference. Have a read of this: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1435978 I wrote it as an appeal to the tribunal and you're still at the representations stage so it will need a few tweaks. The paragraph about the hypothetical out of town taxi driver is very important, as it is an unanswerable argument. Post a draft on here for comment before sending it to the council.

[Maxchat]

Bearing in mind its at the informal representation stage, how about this?


I submit that the alleged contravention did not occur, due to inadequate signage. I do not dispute that the signs employed by the council comply with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, but I believe the signage fails to convey the restrictions. Neither my Wife, sat nav (Google Maps, in real time - not a download) noticed the restriction at any point, before, during or after the turn in question. ie without local knowledge a reasonable person will fall foul of this restriction more often than not.

On the day of the alleged contravention I was travelling along Whitworth Street and turned left onto Oxford Street, it is my contention that the signage, when approached from this direction of travel, is inadequate and fails to meet the requirements of regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 which provides, in so far as is relevant, that:

"Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—

(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b) the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force"

While there are advance warning signs along Whitworth street, these signs do not convey the restrictions provided for the the Traffic Regulation Order, furthermore advance warning signs do not create any restriction as such, restrictions are only conveyed by regulatory signs placed at, or as close as possible to, the point where the restrictions commence.

The regulatory signs installed by the council face traffic travelling along Oxford Street, and are not visible to traffic turning left onto Oxford Street from Whitworth Street until a motorist has already committed to the turn. The following image illustrates the visibility of the regulatory signs for traffic travelling from Whitworth Street:

(Can you supply a copy of the photo please)

The regulatory signs on Oxford Street convey that a "no motor vehicles" restriction is in force from 6 am to 9 pm, except for buses, taxis and permit holders. There are no signs on Whitworth Street that accurately convey this restriction and even if a motorist turning left were to see the signs on Oxford Street, it would by then be far too late to take an alternative route: reversing or performing a u-turn in the middle of a busy junction is not a safe, realistic or pragmatic option and it may well open up the driver to prosecution from the police for driving without due care and attention.

For the contravention to occur, the motorist must have a lawful route open to him that allows him to avoid committing the contravention, at a point that gives adequate notice of what the restrictions actually are. There is no burden on motorists to avoid taking a route on the off-chance that taking a particular route might be subject to certain unknown restrictions at some point further along the road. The situation might be different if the advance warning signs on Whitworth Street adequately conveyed the restrictions provided for in the Traffic Regulation Order, but that is not the case in this instance.

One has to ask, if the restrictions are adequately conveyed, how would the driver of an exempt vehicle, such as a taxi driver who was delivering a customer to Manchester from a different city, know that the exemption applies and turning left onto Oxford Street is permitted? The simple answer is the driver would have no notice of the exemption, and he would have to either, out of an abundance of caution, drive straight ahead, or turn left and take the risk (at that point unknowable to him) that he might commit a contravention. This sort of ambiguity cannot have been what Parliament intended when it spoke of "securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road".

Therefore because the signage employed by the highways authority does not adequately convey the nature and timing of the restrictions to motorists turning left from Whitworth Street, and because no regulatory signs are visible to motorists turning left from Whitworth Street until it it too late to take an alternative route, the Highways Authority has failed to discharge its duties under regulation 18 above and the alleged contravention did not occur.

[cp8759]

For a bus lane PCN there are no informal representations, it's straight to formal representations and then the tribunal. However Manchester are known for just rejecting any challenge to their bus lane PCNs. That baing said, I think what you've written is fine, but drop the reference to the sat-nav (many people use this argument at the tribunal and it always backfires, as the legal position is that you must obey the signs, no matter what the sat-nav says).

As for the photo, it's here: https://i.imgur.com/jbTuYhS.png (Don't send a link, you'll need to download it and attach it as evidence if the Manchester website lets you do that, or you'll have to print it off and send it by post).

[Maxchat]

The appeal has been lodged. I'll report back.

Regards,

Max

[Maxchat]

Quell Surprise, the appeal has been rejected.

[PASTMYBEST]

See this case signage compliant my a*se

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AtBHPhdJdppVqkNx3g8q3GPKWApV

[Maxchat]

Thanks. That's a pretty comprehensive assessment of the situation. How do I word the appeal to be succinct?

Do I just quote a PATAS refrence or start writing loads?

[cp8759]

I would say very little, just a brief outline and then refer to that case.

[Maxchat]

OK, I'm back in the room having been away for a few days.
1. I note that HPSC84 has had the exact same rejection letter as me and that it is a standard response which hasn't made consideration of the points raised but has made mention of points I HAVEN'T raised ie ref to sat nav, bus lane/bus gates etc. Do I include the response that CP8759 suggested for HPSC84

Firstly, I would put the appeal in this template http://bit.ly/2CSDROS (add your name and the tribunal case number in the obvious places) then save it as a PDF file and upload it to the tribunal as an attachment, then in the reasons box just say "see uploaded grounds of appeal document". As for the contents, I would keep your original appeal pretty much unaltered and put it under Ground 1.

Then add Ground 2 as follows, as always preserve all italics and bold formatting as it will help the adjudicator.

Ground 2: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case:

Regulation 10 of The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 provides as follows:

10.—(1) Where representations are duly made to an authority under regulation 9 and they are made within the 28 day period, it shall be the duty of the authority—

(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence provided;
(b) in relation to each ground on which representations are made, to serve on the person by whom the representations are made notice of their decision as to whether or not they accept that the ground has been established.

The council's response appears to be nothing more than a templated rejection, and it appears the council decision maker has selected the wrong templated paragraphs:

My representations were focused on the council's obligations under The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and regulation 18 in particular. The notice of rejection makes no mention of this and it simply restates the time and location of the alleged contravention, which has never been in dispute. Nor did I ever dispute that the signs comply with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, indeed I explicitly accepted in my representations that the signs comply with the TSRGD 2016 and I also accept that some advance warning signs are present at the location.

I never claimed my vehicle was within a permitted class, nor did I dispute the time and location of the alleged contravention, so it is unclear why the council felt the need to restate what was already stated on the PCN and which was not in issue.

The council then goes on to make comments about the difference between a bus gate and a bus lane. As no mention of any such distinction was made in the representations submitted, I can only assume the decision maker misunderstood the representations being made, or simply selected the wrong templated paragraph from the council's bank of templated paragraphs. There is no other clear explanation as to why the council would make statements about the differences between bus gates and bus lanes when this was not in issue, it should be noted the templated paragraph goes on to discuss road markings, but my representations did not mention road markings in any way, shape or form.

The council asserts the signs are compliant with all appropriate legislation, but this appears to be "catch-all" wording and the council does not explain why the LATOR 1996 regulation 18 issue is not accepted. Finally the council makes a reference to satellite navigation devices, but again no such issue was mentioned in my representations, and the only explanation I can think of for such wording being included, is that the decision maker must have selected the wrong templated paragraph when composing the response.

I draw the tribunal's attention to Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 2170256432):

The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a pro-forma letter and does not deal at all with the representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed.

I also draw the tribunal's attention to Claire Turner v London Borough of Merton (case reference 2180487500):

It seems clear, however, that the Appellant’s representations were hardly considered at all and included a reference to her stating that she was employed by Merton Council something she had never stated at all. The Council later apologised for these errors, but has provided no explanation how they occurred. There is something unattractive about a Council not being prepared to exercise discretion in the case of a motorist who has made a minor error yet expecting its own more serious errors to be overlooked. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered. This does not mean that every point the motorist choses to raise must be thoroughly canvassed but it does mean that – on the facts of the present case - the Council should describe the permit correctly and particularly not import non-existent facts. In my judgement the very unsatisfactory way the representations were dealt with amounted to a procedural impropriety and the Appeals allowed on this ground alone.

In this instance, the council has imported non-existent facts into its response, such as the fact that I supposedly made reference to the differences between bus lanes and bus gates, the lack of road markings and reliance on a sat-nav device. No such representations were made and these references appear to be of the council's own invention.

While I accept the representations do not need to be thoroughly canvassed, the council should have provided an explanation, even if brief, of why the council feels its signage complies with LATOR 1996 regulation 18. Such an explanation could have been as little as one or two lines long, but it is wholly absent. I aver that in failing to address the specific points raised in my representation in any way, and by instead droning on about largely irrelevant or undisputed matters, the council has failed in its duty to properly consider my representations. In such circumstances, even if my representations to the council fail on their merits, the appeal must nonetheless be allowed.

2. post #9 above that PASTMYBEST directs to a previous Adjudication has the reference of the Charge Notice but has been de-identified. Should I just copy and past the post, make reference just to the case number and date.

3. What other wording, if any, should I include?

Regards,

Max

[cp8759]

The case in question is Mr Watkin and others v Manchester City Council (case reference MC0 1044-1808), see also the cases on rows 8 and 9 here: http://bit.ly/2AR0JNg

You could recycle some of the text from HPSC84's case, post a draft on here before submitting it to the tribunal. Lead with the signage, the failure to consider should always be your second ground, not your first.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 - 23:10

[Maxchat]

Is this suitable for the adjudicator.

Grounds 1

The alleged contravention did not occur

I refer you to Mr Watkins and others v Manchester City Council (case reference MC01044-1808). The adjudicator has gone to some lengths to visit the site and understand a whole range of factors to be able to make a very well reasoned and sensible ruling. Every thing he has reported on is also my experience and is why, ultimately, I fell fowl of this Bus Lane contravention. It will be noted that the adjudicator in this case, ruled against the Council.



Grounds 2 (I will put the italics and bold back in as originally posted, it all got lost in the cut and paste exercise)

The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case:

Regulation 10 of The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 provides as follows:

10.—(1) Where representations are duly made to an authority under regulation 9 and they are made within the 28 day period, it shall be the duty of the authority—

(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence provided;
(b) in relation to each ground on which representations are made, to serve on the person by whom the representations are made notice of their decision as to whether or not they accept that the ground has been established.

The council's response appears to be nothing more than a templated rejection, and it appears the council decision maker has selected the wrong templated paragraphs:

My representations were focused on the council's obligations under The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and regulation 18 in particular. The notice of rejection makes no mention of this and it simply restates the time and location of the alleged contravention, which has never been in dispute. Nor did I ever dispute that the signs comply with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, indeed I explicitly accepted in my representations that the signs comply with the TSRGD 2016 and I also accept that some advance warning signs are present at the location.

I never claimed my vehicle was within a permitted class, nor did I dispute the time and location of the alleged contravention, so it is unclear why the council felt the need to restate what was already stated on the PCN and which was not in issue.

The council then goes on to make comments about the difference between a bus gate and a bus lane. As no mention of any such distinction was made in the representations submitted, I can only assume the decision maker misunderstood the representations being made, or simply selected the wrong templated paragraph from the council's bank of templated paragraphs. There is no other clear explanation as to why the council would make statements about the differences between bus gates and bus lanes when this was not in issue, it should be noted the templated paragraph goes on to discuss road markings, but my representations did not mention road markings in any way, shape or form.

The council asserts the signs are compliant with all appropriate legislation, but this appears to be "catch-all" wording and the council does not explain why the LATOR 1996 regulation 18 issue is not accepted. Finally the council makes a reference to satellite navigation devices, but again no such issue was mentioned in my representations, and the only explanation I can think of for such wording being included, is that the decision maker must have selected the wrong templated paragraph when composing the response.

I draw the tribunal's attention to Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 2170256432):

The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a pro-forma letter and does not deal at all with the representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed.

I also draw the tribunal's attention to Claire Turner v London Borough of Merton (case reference 2180487500):

It seems clear, however, that the Appellant’s representations were hardly considered at all and included a reference to her stating that she was employed by Merton Council something she had never stated at all. The Council later apologised for these errors, but has provided no explanation how they occurred. There is something unattractive about a Council not being prepared to exercise discretion in the case of a motorist who has made a minor error yet expecting its own more serious errors to be overlooked. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered. This does not mean that every point the motorist choses to raise must be thoroughly canvassed but it does mean that – on the facts of the present case - the Council should describe the permit correctly and particularly not import non-existent facts. In my judgement the very unsatisfactory way the representations were dealt with amounted to a procedural impropriety and the Appeals allowed on this ground alone.

In this instance, the council has imported non-existent facts into its response, such as the fact that I supposedly made reference to the differences between bus lanes and bus gates, the lack of road markings and reliance on a sat-nav device. No such representations were made and these references appear to be of the council's own invention.

While I accept the representations do not need to be thoroughly canvassed, the council should have provided an explanation, even if brief, of why the council feels its signage complies with LATOR 1996 regulation 18. Such an explanation could have been as little as one or two lines long, but it is wholly absent. I aver that in failing to address the specific points raised in my representation in any way, and by instead droning on about largely irrelevant or undisputed matters, the council has failed in its duty to properly consider my representations. In such circumstances, even if my representations to the council fail on their merits, the appeal must nonetheless be allowed.

[cp8759]

That seems more than adequate, if you want it to look really professional you can put it into this template, save it as a pdf and upload it to the tribunal website as an attachment: http://bit.ly/2CSDROS

[Maxchat]

Morning all. The Council have uploaded their evidence which is the standard stuff and doesn't add anything or address the issues raised.
I can request a telephone hearing or just allow the adjudication to run its course.

Do I need to add anything for the benefit of the Adjudicator or just let it play out, trusting that justice will be done?

Regards,

Max

[PASTMYBEST]

post the council summary, we've seen the TRO the photos and the video

[Maxchat]

SUBMISSIONS OF MCC IN RELATION TO THE CASE OF
Mr M
MC
INTRODUCTION - SUMMARY
⦁ The Council has made the City of Manchester (Oxford Road and Oxford Street, Manchester) (Traffic Management) Part 2 Order 2016 (“the TRO”), which has become effective since 15th September 2017.
⦁ The TRO has been properly signed and, where permitted by law, marked (red surfaced), in accordance with the TSRGD 2016, the Traffic Manual Chapter 3, regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and s.64 of the Road Traffic Act 1984.
⦁ The Council, being an approved authority, has lawfully issued and served the PCN, in accordance with the Transport Act 2000 and the Bus Lanes Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 (The Regulations).
⦁ It is the Council’s case therefore that this appeal should be dismissed and the PCN should be upheld.

THE CONTRAVENTION
⦁ The appellant’s vehicle has been in the bus gate of Oxford Street from Whitworth Street to Chepstow Street.
⦁ The TRO creating the bus gate at this part of Oxford Street applies from Monday to Sunday between 6.00am and 9.00pm. The plan showing the bus gate from Whitworth Street to Chepstow Street is provided at Appendix 1.
⦁ Article 2 of the TRO provides that “Save as provided in Article 3 and 4 of this Order no person shall, except upon the direction or with the permission of a constable in uniform, a civil enforcement officer or a traffic warden, cause or permit any motor vehicle to be in and/or proceed in the length of road specified in the Schedule to this Order between the hours of 6.00am and 9.00pm on Monday to Sunday”. The length of road specified in the schedule is Oxford Street from Whitworth Street to Chepstow Street.
⦁ Article 3 of the same TRO provides that “Nothing in Article 2 of this Order shall apply to any (a) bus (b) hackney carriage © permit holders vehicle”.
⦁ When the contravention occurred, the appellant’s vehicle was on the Oxford Street from Whitworth Street to Chepstow Street, during the hours of operation of the Bus Gate. This has been evidenced by the CCTV camera, which evidence has been provided to the appellant. The appellant’s vehicle is not within the list of vehicles referred to in article 4 (exempted vehicles). Neither is the appellant’s vehicle a Permit Holders Vehicle as defined in the TRO and as explained above.


THE SIGNAGE AT THE LOCATION OF THE CONTRAVENTION
10.0 The enforcement signs for this bus gate are indicated by three yellow backed regulatory signs (shown below in Figure 1). Traffic Enforcement camera signs have been included to indicate to motorists that these signs are being enforced, unlike many other Prohibition of Motor Vehicle signs.


Figure 1 – Oxford Road Bus Gate signs
Diagram 619, 620 and 879

11.0 There are 2 signs of the above diagram at the positions shown at the plan attached to Appendix 2.

12.0 Please note that the Council is unable to use the legend "BUS GATE" on the carriageway in association with signs to diagram 619, because it is not authorised by the Regulations and it would be illegal for the Council to do so. Schedule 9, part 6 of item 15 of the Regulations (Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016) do not list diagram 619 as  a sign to be used in association with this legend (Please see diagram 619 and regulation 15 at Appendix 3) . The Council is currently making submissions to DfT to review this position. Notwithstanding this, the signage to diagram 619 is still adequate and lawful and has been repeatedly used on all bus gates in the area of City Centre. Most of the drivers are familiar with this sign and this is proven by the much higher percentage of drivers who comply with this sign.  

13.0 Red surfacing has been used on part of the carriageway as shown in the attached to Appendix 2 to support / highlight the road marking to diagram 1049 and also to indicate the bus gate. [Red surfacing has been used at the entrance to the restriction adjacent to the signs to diagram 619 in an attempt to create a visual gateway to the restriction].


THE ADVANCE SIGNAGE ON POSSIBLE ENTRIES TO THE LOCATION OF THE CONTRAVENTION

14.0 Advanced Directional Signs route general traffic to and from the city centre, away from the Oxford Road corridor. These are intended to discourage vehicles from moving towards the area if they don’t have a destination along the corridor.

15.0 On the approach to each of the Bus Gates, prescribed signs have been provided to indicate the permitted manoeuvres at the junctions and to local destinations. Examples of the signs and details of actual signs and locations are shown on the technical plans included in each appendix.
16.0 There are 3 advance signs positioned along Whitworth Street West, in an attempt to inform drivers of the restriction at the left turn ahead. Normally, a single sign would suffice, but due to possibility of the signs being obscured by buses or loading vehicles, additional signs, on both the left and right side along Whitworth Street West have been provided. These advance signs have been positioned, as shown on the pictures provided in figure 10 at 40, 80 and 142 m from the junction of Whitworth Street West to Oxford Road. The normal siting distance for such signs is 45 metres from the junction providing a visibly distance to the sign of 45-60 metres. These signs have been positioned at the locations stated to avoid loading in front of "The Ritz" and Sainsbury's and as such, when vehicles are loading to these two locations, the advance signs are clearly visible. The other reason the Council thought important to add 3 instead of 1 advance signs along this route, was because the sign to diagram 619, which contains the restrictions on Oxford Road, cannot be placed on the traffic signs at the junction of Whitworth Street West and Oxford Road, in accordance with the Regulations. The plan showing the advance signs is attached at Appendix 5.
17.0 There are 4 advance signs which have positioned along Whitworth Street, in an attempt to inform drivers of the restriction at the right turn when a vehicle is approaching Oxford Street. The plan showing the advance signs is attached at Appendix 6.
THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE USED TO AVOID THE CONTRAVENTION

18.0 The alternative routes for general traffic, in both directions, are described below and shown on the plan attached at Appendix 7.

⦁ Approaching northbound on Wilmslow Road, general traffic must turn right onto Hathersage Road. Access to the city centre is then achieved by turning left onto Upper Brook Street and continuing straight ahead on Brook Street and Princess Street (new two-way section).
⦁ Approaching southbound on Oxford Street, general traffic must turn left on to Charles Street, turn right onto Princess Street, ahead on Brook Street, Upper Brook Street, turn right onto Hathersage Road and left onto Wilmslow Road.

FURTHER GENERAL SUBMISSIONS

19.0 Before the TRO was made, it was properly and lawfully advertised on the local newspaper and the Council’s website. In addition Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) widely published these restrictions on their website, on the streets and via radio and publicity / poster campaigns.

20.0 When the restrictions became operative the Council issued warning notes for a limited amount of time, from 1 September 2017 till 14 September 2017 in order to notify the drivers of the current changes. The Council also widely publicised the new restrictions and the way they have been signed on the radio, press and its website.

21.0 With all the publicity that took place well in advance of the TRO being made operative, the Council is satisfied that reasonable steps were taken to make motorists aware of the restriction.

22.0 Recently, the Council has placed 4 mobile VMS (Variable Message Signs) and numerous frames on various locations, as shown on the plan attached at Appendix 9, to warn drivers about the bus gates along Oxford Road / Street. With all the publicity that has taken place both well in advance but also after the restrictions came into operation, the Council is satisfied that all reasonable steps were taken to make motorists aware of the restrictions. And it is noticeable that the wide majority of the drivers that are using these streets are complying with the restrictions in place.

CONCLUSION

23.0 The Council has made a lawful TRO to create a bus gate in accordance with s.144(5) of the Transport Act 2000. The bus gate has been properly signed and where applicable marked (red surfaced) to highlight the forthcoming restrictions in place. Numerous advance signs have been placed on numerous locations, clearly visible by all and giving the drivers numerous alerts and opportunities to avoid making contraventions in the restrictive areas. The majority of the users comply with the restrictions in place and follow the signage. Therefore, it is the Council's submission that the signage as a whole, having taken into account the advance signs together with the restriction signs, is adequate and in accordance with the TSRGD 2016, the traffic Manual Chapter 3, regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and s.64 of the Road Traffic Act 1984. The applicant's vehicle was in the bus gate in contravention of the TRO. Evidence has been obtained to prove the contravention. The issue of the PCN is justified and should be upheld. The Council therefore requests that the Adjudicator to apply the law and dismiss the appeal.

[PASTMYBEST]

Have you got and did you refer to the wakins decision in your submissions? I so I dont think you need to add anything if not then perhaps you do

[Maxchat]

This is what I actually submitted.

Grounds 1
The alleged contravention did not occur
I refer you to Mr Watkins and others v Manchester City Council (case reference MC01044-1808). The
adjudicator has gone to some lengths to visit the site and understand a whole range of factors to be
able to make a very well reasoned and sensible ruling. Everything he has reported on is also my
experience and is why, ultimately, I fell foul of this Bus Lane contravention. It will be noted that the
adjudicator in this case, ruled against the Council as also happened in these cases:
MC0 1022-1807 Mr I v Manchester City Council (case reference MC0 1022-1807)
MC0 1040-1808 Mr v Manchester City Council (case reference MC0 1040-1808)
I submit that the alleged contravention did not occur, due to inadequate signage. I do not dispute that
the signs employed by the council comply with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
2016, but I believe the signage fails to convey the restrictions. Neither me or my Wife noticed the
restriction at any point, before, during or after the turn in question. ie without local knowledge a
reasonable person will fall foul of this restriction more often than not.
On the day of the alleged contravention I was travelling along Whitworth Street and turned left onto
Oxford Street, it is my contention that the signage, when approached from this direction of travel, is
inadequate and fails to meet the requirements of regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic
Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 which provides, in so far as is
relevant, that:
"Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps
as are necessary to secure—
(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such
positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information
as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b) the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force"
While there are advance warning signs along Whitworth street, these signs do not convey the
restrictions provided for the the Traffic Regulation Order, furthermore advance warning signs do not
create any restriction as such, restrictions are only conveyed by regulatory signs placed at, or as
close as possible to, the point where the restrictions commence.
The regulatory signs installed by the council face traffic travelling along Oxford Street, and are not
visible to traffic turning left onto Oxford Street from Whitworth Street until a motorist has already
committed to the turn. This is detailed by the adjudicator in Mr Watkins and others v Manchester City
Council (case reference MC01044-1808)
The regulatory signs on Oxford Street convey that a "no motor vehicles" restriction is in force from 6
am to 9 pm, except for buses, taxis and permit holders. There are no signs on Whitworth Street that
accurately convey this restriction and even if a motorist turning left were to see the signs on Oxford
Street, it would by then be far too late to take an alternative route: reversing or performing a u-turn in
the middle of a busy junction is not a safe, realistic or pragmatic option and it may well open up the
driver to prosecution from the police for driving without due care and attention.
For the contravention to occur, the motorist must have a lawful route open to him that allows him to
avoid committing the contravention, at a point that gives adequate notice of what the restrictions
actually are and time to process and understand them.. There is no burden on motorists to avoid
taking a route on the off-chance that taking a particular route might be subject to certain unknown
restrictions at some point further along the road. The situation might be different if the advance
warning signs on Whitworth Street adequately conveyed the restrictions provided for in the Traffic
Regulation Order, but that is not the case in this instance.
One has to ask, if the restrictions are adequately conveyed, how would the driver of an exempt
vehicle, such as a taxi driver who was delivering a customer to Manchester from a different city, know
that the exemption applies and turning left onto Oxford Street is permitted? The simple answer is the
driver would have no notice of the exemption, and he would have to either, out of an abundance of
caution, drive straight ahead, or turn left and take the risk (at that point unknowable to him) that he
might commit a contravention. This sort of ambiguity cannot have been what Parliament intended
when it spoke of "securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to
persons using the road".
Therefore because the signage employed by the highways authority does not adequately convey the
nature and timing of the restrictions to motorists turning left from Whitworth Street, and because no
regulatory signs are visible to motorists turning left from Whitworth Street until it it too late to take an
alternative route, the Highways Authority has failed to discharge its duties under regulation 18 above
and the alleged contravention did not occur.
Grounds 2
The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case:
Regulation 10 of The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement)
(England) Regulations 2005 provides as follows:
10.—(1) Where representations are duly made to an authority under regulation 9 and they are made
within the 28 day period, it shall be the duty of the authority—
(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence provided;
(b) in relation to each ground on which representations are made, to serve on the person by whom the
representations are made notice of their decision as to whether or not they accept that the ground has
been established.
The council's response appears to be nothing more than a templated rejection, and it appears the
council decision maker has selected the wrong templated paragraphs:
My representations were focused on the council's obligations under The Local Authorities' Traffic
Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and regulation 18 in particular. The notice
of rejection makes no mention of this and it simply restates the time and location of the alleged
contravention, which has never been in dispute. Nor did I ever dispute that the signs comply with The
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, indeed I explicitly accepted in my
representations that the signs comply with the TSRGD 2016 and I also accept that some advance
warning signs are present at the location.
I never claimed my vehicle was within a permitted class, nor did I dispute the time and location of the
alleged contravention, so it is unclear why the council felt the need to restate what was already stated
on the PCN and which was not in issue.
The council then goes on to make comments about the difference between a bus gate and a bus lane.
As no mention of any such distinction was made in the representations submitted, I can only assume
the decision maker misunderstood the representations being made, or simply selected the wrong
templated paragraph from the council's bank of templated paragraphs. There is no other clear
explanation as to why the council would make statements about the differences between bus gates
and bus lanes when this was not in issue, it should be noted the templated paragraph goes on to
discuss road markings, but my representations did not mention road markings in any way, shape or
form.
The council asserts the signs are compliant with all appropriate legislation, but this appears to be
"catch-all" wording and the council does not explain why the LATOR 1996 regulation 18 issue is not
accepted. Finally the council makes a reference to satellite navigation devices, but again no such
issue was mentioned in my representations, and the only explanation I can think of for such wording
being included, is that the decision maker must have selected the wrong templated paragraph when
composing the response.
I draw the tribunal's attention to Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference
2170256432):
The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a pro-forma letter and does not deal at all with the
representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that
that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it
applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered
and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this
rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and
this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed.
I also draw the tribunal's attention to Claire Turner v London Borough of Merton (case reference
2180487500):
It seems clear, however, that the Appellant’s representations were hardly considered at all and
included a reference to her stating that she was employed by Merton Council something she had
never stated at all. The Council later apologised for these errors, but has provided no explanation how
they occurred. There is something unattractive about a Council not being prepared to exercise
discretion in the case of a motorist who has made a minor error yet expecting its own more serious
errors to be overlooked. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered. This
does not mean that every point the motorist choses to raise must be thoroughly canvassed but it does
mean that – on the facts of the present case - the Council should describe the permit correctly and
particularly not import non-existent facts. In my judgement the very unsatisfactory way the
representations were dealt with amounted to a procedural impropriety and the Appeals allowed on this
ground alone.
In this instance, the council has imported non-existent facts into its response, such as the fact that I
supposedly made reference to the differences between bus lanes and bus gates, the lack of road
markings and reliance on a sat-nav device. No such representations were made and these references
appear to be of the council's own invention.
While I accept the representations do not need to be thoroughly canvassed, the council should have
provided an explanation, even if brief, of why the council feels its signage complies with LATOR 1996
regulation 18. Such an explanation could have been as little as one or two lines long, but it is wholly
absent. I aver that in failing to address the specific points raised in my representation in any way, and
by instead droning on about largely irrelevant or undisputed matters, the council has failed in its duty
to properly consider my representations. In such circumstances, even if my representations to the
council fail on their merits, the appeal must nonetheless be allowed.