PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Review of Adjudicator's Decision, Nelson Mandela Bus Gate
NELSON MANDELA
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 17:17
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 7 Feb 2018
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 96,389



Hi all,
was snapped by Glasgow City Council (GCC) in 2016 going through the alleged Bus Gate at West George Street into Nelson Mandela Place. Subsequently went to appeal where my main argument was the signage used and its position. The Adjudicator decided against me and I have since requested a review of the Adjudicators decision which has been granted. Almost at the stage where the case will be sent to the reviewing Adjudicator, would be happy to post the details and previous decision notice if it is of interest and wouldn't prejudice my case.

This post has been edited by southpaw82: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 17:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6  
Start new topic
Replies (100 - 109)
Advertisement
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 17:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
4101
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 21:31
Post #101


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



post the draft here before submission.


Do not be afraid to paste in photos.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NELSON MANDELA
post Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 15:19
Post #102


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 7 Feb 2018
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 96,389



Ok, I'll post once I have word back from the proper officer what happens next.

In the meantime I'd still like to hear from anyone that has read Amendment 9 Schedule 44 a), the definitions in Amendment 6 as to what a bus lane is and which roads described in Schedule 37, 38 and 39 it relates to. Please let me know if a prohibition of entry with exemptions for buses and other classes of vehicles with no mention of the offence of being in a bus lane and no description of a bus lane in the title or contents of the order and a definition that only other roads are bus lanes, that is other roads that had there title changed to included the term bus lane and who's contents were changed to that of being in a bus lane, would be sufficient evidence to an Adj that West Gorge Street into Nelson Mandela Place is not a bus lane.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 15:35
Post #103


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (NELSON MANDELA @ Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 15:19) *
Ok, I'll post once I have word back from the proper officer what happens next.

In the meantime I'd still like to hear from anyone that has read Amendment 9 Schedule 44 a), the definitions in Amendment 6 as to what a bus lane is and which roads described in Schedule 37, 38 and 39 it relates to. Please let me know if a prohibition of entry with exemptions for buses and other classes of vehicles with no mention of the offence of being in a bus lane and no description of a bus lane in the title or contents of the order and a definition that only other roads are bus lanes, that is other roads that had there title changed to included the term bus lane and who's contents were changed to that of being in a bus lane, would be sufficient evidence to an Adj that West Gorge Street into Nelson Mandela Place is not a bus lane.



others can comment, but if the Scot Mins have approved the sign then that is that.

Your best bet is Authorised vehicles. I have been doing this a long time but have 0 experience of Scotland.

This post has been edited by 4101: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 15:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NELSON MANDELA
post Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 17:08
Post #104


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 7 Feb 2018
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 96,389



I'm not familiar with bus lane appeals, I'm basing my argument on two court cases : Approved Judgement - R (Oxfordshire CC) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator and Approved Judgement – R (Nottingham CC) v BLA Ors. As you most likely know in both cases the signs were authorised,

DFT advice to change the TRO was cited in the Oxford bus lane case previously mentioned. The background to the case is that the Chief Adjudicator decided that the Bus Gate was not a bus lane and therefore found that the sign used the flying motorcycle 619 was not appropriate. The signs used at the location were quite different to those at Nelson Mandela Place, which are based on the 953 diagram. The review posed some similar questions, but purely relating to the need to change the TRO to being in a bus lane I highlight paragraph 33

“The only change Jacobs Babtie recommend to the Traffic Restriction Orders was (following the Departmental guidance – see paragraph 4.8) to make the offence “to be in” the designated area rather than “to enter and proceed”. Had this been instigated in the relevant TRO in my case then the prohibition would not have extended to all of the road driven, mentioned in Coloumn 1, i.e all of West Nile Street or all of West George Street, where others have driven without prohibition.

paragraph 63;
"I have concluded that the Adjudicator and chief Adjudicator fell into error in concluding that the signage was inadequate in not giving notice that the rationale or basis of this prohibition was a bus lane. I accept the Council's submission that the duty to place signs providing adequate information as to the effect of an Order requires notice of the prohibition and not notice that it was a prohibition because the prohibited area is a bus lane (and it is therefore civilly enforceable). It is the practical effect of the Order and not its precise juridical basis or rationale that is relevant."


What Schedule 44 a) of “The Glasgow City Council (City Centre) (Traffic Management) Order 2010 Amendment No 9_GD) (George Square) actually says is a prohibition on a person allowing a vehicle to enter and driving along variable lengths of road, with exemptions for certain vehicles. The title is Traffic Management. What it does not mention anywhere is that it creates or defines a bus lane, the contravention cited in the PCN, is that of “being in a bus lane”. The legislation under which civil penalties are imposed for bus lane contraventions in Scotland is; The bus lane contraventions (charges, adjudication and enforcement ) (Scotland) Regulations 2011

From the Nottingham case I note, sections;

14. The Adjudicator upheld Adjudicator Garbett’s decision, holding:
“….These signs did not comply with Departmental Guidelines (as set out in the TSM), either as to the signage to be used for a bus lane or as to the circumstances suitable for the establishment of a Pedestrian Zone. The adjudicator clearly saw no good reason for finding that they provide adequate information as to the bus lane restriction which the council seeks to enforce and I see no reason to interfere with that finding.”

“52. I am unable to accept the Council’s submission that, instead of complying with the Traffic Signs Manual 2008, it was entitled to rely upon earlier guidance contained in section 6 of Local Transport Note 1/97, suggesting that Pedestrian Zone diagram 618.2 or 618.3 could be used to sign a bus-only street. I was not provided with evidence that the 1/97 Note was still extant, but even if it has not been formally withdrawn, the Traffic Signs Manual 2008 takes priority as the more recent and authoritative guidance. “

“46. I am doubtful as to whether it is permissible to make up for the deficiencies in the drafting of the 2015 Order by reference to the Statement of Reasons and a subsequent witness statement. The Order is a formal legal document which ought to be construed according to the text within it.”

Conclusions
43. The Council’s case was that the 2015 Order created a Pedestrian Zone and a Bus-only street and Bus gate in a section of Shakespeare Street.
44. The Council submitted that the Adjudicator’s decision was flawed because he doubted whether the 2015 Order did create a Pedestrian Zone in Shakespeare Street. In my judgement, his doubts were justified, since there was no reference to a Pedestrian Zone in the Order. Both the title and the body of the Order only referred to the establishment of a bus-only street. “





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 17:12
Post #105


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



Okay, finish your appeal and post it here. Make strongest point first.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NELSON MANDELA
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 15:49
Post #106


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 7 Feb 2018
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 96,389



QUOTE (4101 @ Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 17:12) *
Okay, finish your appeal and post it here. Make strongest point first.


I have not had any further word back, but have started preparing my final response, taking into account some of the advice I have got here, this is my first draft, look forward to some feedback but appreciate it is quite long.

In light of the many letters back and forth in appeal xxx and the review, I now summarise my points. The review is necessary in the interests of justice, the appeal Adjudicator has made errors and failed to examine the evidence before her. GCC has withheld information which was specifically ordered by the Adjudicator to be provided to me and this has harmed my defence. I will go through each point

Point 1 (Not a bus lane)
The Adjudicator has stated “ In light of both parties' representations and the 'GCC' (City Centre) (Traffic Management) Order 2010 (Amendment No 9 GD (George Square) as amended by 'GCC' (City Centre) (Traffic Management ) Order 2010 Amendment No 6 (Bus Lanes), I am satisfied that the alleged Bus Lane contravention occurred.“ The Adjudicator has made the finding of fact based on Amendment No 9 being amended by Amendment No 6, logically this is absurd, how can Amendment No 6 which pre-dates Amendment No 9 modify an Amendment which did not exist at that time ? The prohibition of entry at Nelson Mandela Place is described in Schedule 44 a of Amendment No 9 and this came into operation on the 25 th of May 2014. Amendment No 6 which relates to bus lanes came into operation on the 12 th of December 2011.
Clearly the Adjudicator has made an error in her finding of fact, her finding is not credible because what she describes is an impossibility. The appeal adjudicator has either not read the evidence before her or not understood it. GCC in their letter of the 11 th of January says “As previously advised, approval was granted by Transport Scotland for the use of the signs in the vicinity of Nelson Mandela Place Bus Lane to facilitate the implementation of the Glasgow City Council (City Centre) (Traffic Management ) Order 2010 as amended by (Amendment No.9_GD) (George Square) Traffic regulation Order.” In the same letter they say “I have attached a copy of the relevant articles of the additional 2 Traffic Orders for your perusal” they then introduce Amendment 6 (Bus Lanes) in the full knowledge that nowhere in this order does it mention Nelson Mandela Place and I believe they have done this to mislead the Adjudicator into thinking that Amendment 6 had a connection with Nelson Mandela Place and therfore that it was a bus lane.
What Amendment No 6 does which is significant is to alter Article two of the original TRO, that is the definitions used throughout the TRO and all subsequent amendments. In particular the definition of a “bus lane” is changed from originally being as described in TSRGD 2002, to; “means any lane in a length of road identified in Schedules 37, 38 or 39 reserved either on a permanent basis or during hours specified in this Order for buses and other classes of traffic prescribed in the Articles pertaining to Schedule 37, 38 and 39 and in respect of which traffic signs are in place indicating the controls.”
GCC withheld Schedule 37, 38 and 39 it is clear from Amendment No 6 that Schedule 37 relates to a contra flow bus lane, 38 a with flow bus lane and 39 a with flow bus lane during Monday to Saturday 8 am to 9.15 am and 4.15pm to 6pm. The alleged Bus gate/bus lane at Nelson Mandela Place is none of these and therefore by definition in the TRO, not a bus lane.
In addition Amendment No 6 goes on to modify the sub heading and contents of Schedules 37, 38 and 39 to “being in a bus lane”. That is schedules containing roads which are by definition “bus lanes” explicitly mention “bus lane” in their title and contents.
My concern about the legal status is not new in this process, in my first letter to the adjudicator I questioned what a bus gate was and sought clarification of whether West George Street at Nelson Mandela Place was properly constituted as a bus lane, in particular I said “The highway code, Rule 141 says “Bus lanes”. These are shown by road markings and signs” As there is no markings to show the location of the alleged contravention as being a Bus lane and together with the fact that there is no diagram 964 depicting the end of the bus lane, then the evidence suggests that a bus gate is not a bus lane.” In my second letter to the Adjudicator I questioned the wording in Schedule 44 a) as to whether it did actually establish a bus lane, in particular I said “The stated contravention in the charge notice is of being in a bus lane and I note West Nile Street is not a bus lane. If it were, signs would be required at the point where the driver entered West Nile Street to say that might be the start of a restriction depending on where the driver was heading and what time of day it was.” In further representation to the Adjudicator I ask “where is the mythical bus lane”. Again I asked whether it was advertised in the consultation process as a bus lane of multiple lengths depending on where on West George Street the journey started. GCC has never responded to this so I have no way to know that the correct consultation was carried out and whether in their application they provided “a statement of the general nature and effect of the order” and that the nature was to explicitly create a bus lane.
Schedule 44 a of Amendment No 9 is a prohibition of entry at certain times, nowhere in the title or contents does it mention the words “bus lane” and by the TRO's own article 2 definition it is not a bus lane. In the letter of rejection by GCC dated 27/06/2016 paragraph 7 GCC is responding to my concern with the use of bus lane camera enforcement. I am not satisfied that GCC has proved the contravention of being in a bus lane and its Notice of rejection is a nullity. My appeal was predicated on the failure of GCC to establish the legal existence of a bus lane at the locus by way of the TRO and or the signage used, thereby their illegal use of camera enforcement to enforce a prohibition of entry for which they have no decriminalised power to pursue. With regard to this review the Appeal Adjudicator has erred in law to say that the alleged Bus Lane contravention occurred because the TRO does not establish a bus lane and Amendment 9 is not amended by Amendment 6.

Point 2 (Wrong Signs)
The appeal adjudicator states “Having examined the documentation and still images incorporated herein, I find that the signage for the Nelson Mandela Bus Gate on 28 April 2016 was in conformity with the Transport Scotland Authorisation dated 13 June 2014 which is the primary requirement.”
I have throughout the appeal made reference to the fact that plates can only be used with certain signs. I have submitted evidence why this is the case in both TSRGD 2002 and also the relevant sections in TSRGD 2016. GCC in their letter of the 23 rd of MAY 2017 accepted that TSRGD 2002 was the relevant legislation. The Appeal adjudicator failed to clarify whether TSRGD 2002 or TSRGD 2016 was the relevant legislation and whether any transitional and savings provisions applied, preferring to reference 'TSRGD'. It is therefore unclear to me whether my first letter setting out my case under TSRGD 20016 or my second letter setting out my case under TSRGD 2002 is correct. Regardless of any sign authorisation that GCC may have diagrams used are prescribed in both TSRGD's and she has not adequately described how these requirements of law are bypassed. Without specific mention of which sections of which law applies the decision is unsound. In my second letter to the Appeal Adjudicator I specifically gave reference to TSM Chapter 3 figure 15-8 and in my request for review I quoted 15.29 of TSM, that signs to be used for a bus gate which operates part time is the 619 sign no motor vehicles. My application for review was based on the interests of justice and administrative error not new information. However the Apeal Adjudicator has stated in her findings that she is required to take account of TSM and therefore she must take account the the authorised signs are not as described in TSM as suitable for a Bus Gate which operates part time.

In both the Oxford bus gate and the Nottingham bus lane cases which used non-prescribed signs it is made clear that the Appeal Adjudicator has erred in law.

Oxfordshire case paragraph 65

“The defendant's submission that signs are prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient for securing adequate information as to the effect of an order is made available to road users is clearly correct. If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed;”

In GCC's email to TS requesting permission to use the 953 sign with a time plate, stating they already have permission for the “authorised vehicles” plate, the reply by TS is that they see no reason against this. In the Oxfordshire bus gate the DFT refused to allow a non prescribed sign combination of the 953 diagram with a time plate because the correct signage for a bus gate which operated part time as described in TSM is the 916 symbol, prohibition of entry.
The apeal Adjudicator has erred in law to say the primary requirement was conformity with TS authorisation, the signage is not in conformity with TSM nor is it suitable to advise of the prohibition, in that case the PCN is a nullity.

Point 3 (Authorised vehicles)
In GCC's Notice of Rejection of the 27 th of June 2016 they say “I would advise that the use of bus lanes within Glasgow is determined by Articles of the relevant Traffic Regulation order. Vehicles which are exempt from the Traffic Order and are permitted to utilise this bus lane during the operational hours are buses, taxis and cycles. Although buses, taxis and cycles are exempt from the prohibition of entry they do not say that “authorised vehicles” are exempt. Following my second letter to the Adjudicator where I said “I have no knowledge as to what is an Authorised vehicle is and what this combination actually means as it is ambiguous and misleading.” In response GCC's letter of the 11 th of January they say “Furthermore, an authorised vehicle is defined in the relevant Traffic Order as “a licensed private hire car”.” It is true that the definition in the TRO of an “authorised vehicle” relates to a licensed private hire car but the exemption from prohibition of entry does not mention “licensed private hire car” or “authorised vehicle” and in this regard the signage is misleading.
Amendment No 6 gives the definition (a)” “authorised vehicles” means a licensed private hire car. And (d) “licensed private hire car” means a private hire car licensed under section 10 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, clearly marked as such and driven by a person holding a valid private hire car driver's license in accordance with section 13 of the aforementioned Act.”
The relevant section of the TRO Schedule 44 a 2. (iii) says “a private hire car. There is no definition in the TRO as to what a “private hire car” is, GCC has already submitted in its evidence checklist an email from a car leasing company detailing my private hire of the car in the PCN. The plain english interpretation of the words “private hire car” from the relevant TRO exempt me from the prohibition of entry. The Apeal Adjudicator has erred in not examining the TRO to see what an “authorised vehicle” was and again her statement in her finding of facts that conformity to TS approval was the primary requirement was wrong as the signage was not sufficient for securing adequate information as to the effect of an order.

Point 4 (Regulatory signs)
There is no Chapter 3 of TSM entitled “Regulations”, the Adjudicator was wrong to accept this evidence given by GCC, as it was false, I believe that this evidence was deliberately intended to mislead the Adjudicator that the non-approved sign authorisation was approved by TSM. This is not just an administrative mistake by GCC and the Adjudicator. TSM Chapter 3 (Regulatory Signs) relates to signs which normally give effect to a TRO, however the non-prescribed sign at Nelson Mandela Place is not one of those described in TSM Chapter 3 (Regulatory Signs) because it is non-prescribed and nowhere in the authorisation does it state it is a Regulatory Sign. In the application for the non-prescribed sign authorisation GCC clearly stated that they were not applying for a regulatory sign. The Adjudicator has placed much emphasis on TSM Chapter 3 in the belief that it was “Regulations” when in fact it was “Regulatory Signs” and it is shown in the evidence supplied by myself that GCC and TS intended the sign to be non-regulatory. In my second letter to the Adjudicator I specifically mentioned General direction 7 of TSRGD 2002 which means that any sign which incorporates as a symbol the 953, 953.2 diagrams are to be placed only to indicate the effect of a statutory prohibition. As such the Adjudicator was wrong to agree that this Chapter 3 of TSM applied in my case. The Adjudicator in her finding of fact states that “I consider that the Council's application for authorisation as opposed to special directions is consistent with this guidance because the signage and line variation sought by 'GCC' from 'TS' were clearly not prescribed in sign plate 953 and road marking 1048.1 and extend well beyond the threshold described in the 'TSM' applicable to special directions.” The decision is inconsistent if directions 20 and 21 of TSRGD don not apply to the non-prescribed sign because it is a new sign then how can this new sign be a prescribed sign that is described in TSM as a regulatory sign. The adjudicator has stated “whilst the 'TSM' is advisory in status, I am also required to take account of the advice set out within it.” In this case the Adjudicator has taken account of advise in TSM in the belief that it related to the sign in question and it did not and she erred to accept it.

Point 5 (RTRA 1967)
The RTRA 1967 is repealed and its successor RTRA 1984 does not prohibit a challenge of the validity or substance of a non-prescribed sign Authorisation or indeed an examination of the TRO. The appeal Adjudicator erred on the legislation under which the TRO was granted. The Appeal Adjudicator has erred in law that I could not challenge the non-prescribed sign authorisation due to a 6 week time limit. RTRA 1984 does not prevent this and in addition it is repeated in The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 where in Schedule 1 it says

PARTICULARS TO BE INCLUDED IN PRESS NOTICES

PART III
PARTICULARS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE OF MAKING THE ORDER

6. In the case of an order under section 1, 9, 19, 32, 37, 38 or 45 of the Act a statement that any person wishing to question the validity of the order or of any of its provisions on the grounds that it is not within the powers of the relevant enabling Act or that a requirement of any such enabling Act or of any relevant regulations made thereunder has not been complied with may, within 6 weeks from the date on which the order was made, make application for the purpose to the Court of Session.”

I cannot accept the Appeal Adjudicators decision that I could not challenge the validity or substance of the non-prescribed sign authorisation. The Adjudicator erred in law to state this and this prevented an examination of the various points that I had previously stated why it was not allowed under TSRGD 2002 or TSRGD 2016.

Point 6 (Signs not Authorised)
Regardless of a non-prescribed sign authorisation or any requirement of RTRA 1984 the Adjudicator erred by not allowing an examination of the signs which were actually in place as these were not part of the original non-prescribed sign authorisation. The “authorised vehicle” plate in the non-prescribed sign authorisations 1571 and 1634 is a variant to the plate 953.2 “Only”. The 953.2 plate is prescribed in TSRGD 2002 and it is prescribed by direction 21(1) item 65 to be used only with the diagrams 953 or 953.1. The Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999 describes “Only the function of giving directions other than general directions.” From this TS cannot modify general directions in TSRGD 2002 save as described in Part 11 of TSRGD 2002 Special Directions “59. Nothing in these Directions shall be taken to limit the power of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly of Wales(1) by special direction to dispense with, add to or modify any of the requirements of these Directions in their application to any particular case.”
The Appeal Adjudicator erred in law to say that conformity with TS authorisation was the primary requirement. Conformity with mandatory requirements of parliament is the primary requirement. TS have devolved powers to modify General Direction 21 of TSRGD in this particular case but they have not done so because the one way sign and the Bus Lane Camera sign were not part of the original sign authorisations. There cannot be substantial compliance when a requirement of an Act is Mandatory and in this respect the signage at Nelson Mandela Place is an unlawful obstruction in the highway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 18:04
Post #107


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



Make the strongest point 1st in PLAIN ENGLISH.

1. The sign allegedly contravened has a lower plate "Authorised vehicles".

As a matter of law, the message conveyed by the whole sign must be legible and comprehensible at 30mph (the relevant speed limit) by the average motorist.

The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 provides:
Notice of making the order
17.—(1) When the authority have made the order they shall
(f)where the order relates to any road, forthwith take such steps as are necessary to secure–
(i)the erection on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the authority may consider requisite for the purpose of securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is given to persons using the road;

Furthermore in exercising any of its functions under a statutory scheme, an authority must not only comply with the letter of the regulations : it also has a duty to act fairly.

Following R -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody[1994] 1 AC 531 at 560, per Lord Mustill : “Where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances.”

In my view the statutory scheme obliges the Council to erect and maintain signs and road markings which accord with the concept of fairness to the motorist, and the need in unusual locations to ensure that the motorist is fully informed of the relevant traffic restrictions.

The burden of proof that the sign meets these requirements falls solely upon the traffic authority.

The average motorist has no way of knowing, from the traffic signs in place, what "Authorised" means.

The only way to discover the meaning is to read the traffic order. To make matters worse, the pole contains 5 different messages causing
'sign overload':
Buses, taxi and cycles only
Authorised vehicles
Time (does not state if 7am-7pm is time of restriction or no restriction)
Enforcement cameras
One way arrow

When making a sharp turn into the relevant street, the motorist cannot absorb all this. The topic is covered in the Traffic Signs Manual Ch.7 para 3.3, page 22.

The signs are therefore inadequate to enforce the restriction.

The fact that the non-prescribed sign has been authorised by Scottish Ministers has no
relevance in law. The sole test is adequacy. The contravention did not occur as the signage is inadequate, therefore the appeal must be allowed.

This post has been edited by 4101: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NELSON MANDELA
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 19:02
Post #108


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 7 Feb 2018
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 96,389



Ok thanks for reading, the Amendment No 9 which creates the prohibition into Nelson Mandela Place has no mention of "authorised vehicles" anywhere in it, its not clear why they are using the plate. The exemption stated in the Order is for a "private hire car".

I guess it relates to 1571 the approval for the use of the sign 953 with the plate, these are used by bus lanes throughout Glasgow as described in Amendment 6 (Bus Lanes), but in their Schedules they explicitly mention an exception for "authorised vehicles" eg Sch 37 "No person shall...other than a bus, taxi, authorised vehicle or pedal cycle."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 19:18
Post #109


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



copy and paste my stuff in para 1, then say what you want below.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NELSON MANDELA
post Sat, 10 Mar 2018 - 13:25
Post #110


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 7 Feb 2018
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 96,389



QUOTE (4101 @ Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 19:18) *
copy and paste my stuff in para 1, then say what you want below.


Thanks again, my preference was to attack the TRO because it does not establish a bus lane and I had mentioned it in my case which is now a review. The "authorised vehicles" point I did question but did not push at the time and I now realise that this was in part because they misled me. They sent a letter saying that the only ones exempt from using the bus lane was; buses, taxis, licensed private hire vehicles and cycles. It was only later that I got the TRO and found there was no mention of "authorised vehicles" or licensed private hire vehicles and that having privately hired the car I was included in the exemption in the TRO which is stated as "private hire car".

Looking back at the earlier posts I think that once you click to view the document in tinypics then go back some adverts are substituted into the links so I will re-post the original pcn. One of the problems I had with the pcn was that the car hire company responded to GCC on the 26 th of May 2016 to say that I was the keeper of the vehicle and they supplied my name and address. What I found strange was that the Charge Notice Number was the same for them as for myself, what I expected was that the hire company would have made representation against the original charge and GCC would have either accepted or rejected their representation. My expectation is that the original Charge Notice would have been cancelled and a new "fresh" one issued, given that both charge notices, the hire company and mines are numbered the same then this did not happen. All they did was paste in my name and Address, its only now having read; The Bus Lane Contraventions (Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 section 10 Response to representations, that I realise they had to change the description of detection date and the actual date to the date of the cancellation. In my PCN they have not changed the description or the date, my question then is how do I bring this to the review Adj attention when I have not previously mentioned it, should I say that I would have expected the Appeal Adj to have noticed this given the letter from the hire company making their representation and her being an expert ?


(5) Where a charge notice is cancelled under paragraph (2), the authority may serve on any person other than the person on whom the original charge notice was served a fresh charge notice in relation to the alleged contravention that was the subject of the cancelled notice.

(6) Regulation 8 applies in relation to a fresh notice served under paragraph (5) as if—

(a)in paragraph (2), for “the detection date”, there were substituted “the date on which the charge notice is cancelled”; and
(b)in paragraph (3)—
(i)in sub-paragraph (a), for “the detection date”, there were substituted “the date on which the charge notice is cancelled”; and
(ii)in sub-paragraph (b), the reference to paragraph (2) were a reference to that paragraph as modified by sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 19:22
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