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   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 17:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 17:26
Post #2


Member


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



Why should it prejudice your case? And what would be the point of your thread otherwise. We can offer no advice without seeing everything

post the lot PCN

Reps Rejection Appeal decision and reasons for review. + anything else


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NELSON MANDELA
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 20:10
Post #3


Member


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



Ok, thanks, was just checking there were no issues with me discussing. there's quite a lot to get through, I'm going to attempt to add the PCN and the decision notice and if that goes ok I'll add more.

For those that are not familiar with the location the GSV is :

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8621557,-...3312!8i6656

A recent article in the press gives good insight to the problem

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish...a-hits-11884071

Back ground info is that I have a lease car, snapped on the 08/06/2016 at 18.42, hours of bus gate operation 7:00 am - 7 :00 pm, had never even heard of a bus gate at the time. Date of posting 08/06/2016, date of me going on holiday 06/06/2016, any way letter from lease company dated 26/05/2016 giving my details. Date of service stated on PCN as the third working day after the day on which this Charge Notice was posted.

Wrote letter to GCC saying that I though the signage was unclear, asked for copy of the TRO, declined on the basis that it was publicly available, if you went to the City Chambers in person. FOI request showed that the signage was a combination of non prescribed sign authorisation 1571 and 1634, i.e 1571 gave GCC authorisation for the plate "authorised vehicles" and 1634 gave them authorisation for the time plate.

Basis of my appeal was that the 953 roundel is only allowed (TSRGD 2002) to be displayed with the plate "Only" and vice versa, nothing in 1571 or 1634 described any mechanisms where mandatory requirements of TSRGD were varied. Second point was that even if 1634 and 1571 were legitimate two other signs the one way arrow and the bus lane cameras sign had been added. So even if the non-prescribed orders were valid they gave no authorisation for these signs to be displayed next to the 953 roundel.

Adjudicator seems to have interpreted this as I was questioning the number of signs on a pole, i have asked for an review on two points, firstly GCC has said that TSM Chapter 3 (Regulations) is appropriate. I have noted that Chapter 3 TSM is in fact titled regulatory signs and that in GCC application for a non-prescribed sign authorisation, in the box marked regulatory signs the applicant marked N/A. From this I questioned whether the Adjudicator had checked any of the facts supplied by GCC. My second point was that the Adjudicator in response to my point that the signs needed to be a close as reasonably practical to the start of the restriction stated that in accordance with the authorisation by Transport Scotland they only needed to be within 5m of the plan outline. I have suggested that this makes no sense as the prohibition is on a corner this would allow the signs to be placed round the corner on another street e.g West Nile Street and the Adjudicator would hold that this was sufficient to inform of a prohibition of West George Street.



















Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NELSON MANDELA
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 20:22
Post #4


Member


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



PCN


http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=14vpwkh&s=9#.Wonh5PnFLIU


This post has been edited by NELSON MANDELA: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 20:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mdann52
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 20:30
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 272
Joined: 19 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,499




Probably want to check your image source...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 20:35
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,912
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



It is clear that the Scottish bus lane adjudicators have very few cases to deal with if they can write page upon page of this guff.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 21:05
Post #7


Member


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



Your application for review is based on?? please post it and the acceptance of it


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 21:09
Post #8


Member


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



a Review is not a rehearing, it is to see if there was a mistake in law or procedure. Where is the error?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NELSON MANDELA
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 21:37
Post #9


Member


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



The review Adjudicator has basically said to me that it is not a rerun of my previous arguments, in that anything decided by the adjudicator already is off limits. Threre is two issues in my mind first the Adjudicator has accepted that Chapter 3 of TSM is titled "regulations", this was provided by evidence of GCC. This calls into question by me that she is an expert or she checked any of the evidence supplied by GCC. Additionally she states that the signs can be placed anywhere within 5 m and that to me is silly. As I look at it again she states that I am time barred due to RTRA 1967, which I now recognize as being repealed. Would this be enough ? she has not even read the order given in evidence by GCC that states the TRO was issued under RTRA 1984, surely she needs to buy some new legal text books. Although RTRA 1967 mentions any instrument under the act RTRA 1984 does not. There is no time bar on the validity or substance of a non-prescribed sign authorisation.

Will post the letter saying review granted asap
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 21:45
Post #10


Member


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



that decision are stupid long.

your argument is that the sign is not prescribed and that there is not special authorization from DfT in place?

is this the sign?

https://goo.gl/maps/ugBewGHER5p


TSM is guidance, not law but should be followed unless good reason not.


where is the order NPS/1/GC/2014/3????????

This post has been edited by 4101: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 21:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 21:53
Post #11


Member


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



The decision is long winded, but the signage seems to comply with TSRGD 2016


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:01
Post #12


Member


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



We need to see the Order and the drawings, if you dont have them do an FOI request.

Is there an advanced warning sign with a re-route?????????????
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:09
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,263
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (4101 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:01) *
We need to see the Order and the drawings, if you dont have them do an FOI request.

Is there an advanced warning sign with a re-route?????????????

foi to get a traffic order?


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NELSON MANDELA
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:13
Post #14


Member


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



I have all the info and will post as soon as I can, in the mean time, i post the previous request


http://tinypic.com/r/2egafyq/9

This post has been edited by NELSON MANDELA: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:22
Post #15


Member


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



QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:09) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:01) *
We need to see the Order and the drawings, if you dont have them do an FOI request.

Is there an advanced warning sign with a re-route?????????????

foi to get a traffic order?



I cant find it online. Maybe GCC will hand it over informally. Its all weird up there.

we will let you know when we see all the documents including the pcn all sides.

NPS/1/GC/2014/3
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:37
Post #16


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



There are a number of issues here which confuse. First the TSRGDs only apply to England and Wales and there is no reason for the DfT to approve anything because Scottish Ministers can, by regulation, see to matters.

If the TSRGDs were in play Schedule 9, Part 5 (1) indicates "must be conveyed by a road marking that is of the size, colour and type shown in the diagram in column 3". The "must" is critical because it is mandatory and not something the DfT or anyone else IMO can alter. So the road markings in W George Street would not comply with that legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made

My second point is the time taken to reach a conclusion which to me is wholly unfair and prejudicial. A contravention in 2016 should have been dealt with long before now. I would point to this case (unsuccessful) to demonstrate the rationale for this ground:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...st&p=891411

Last, but not least, I seem to recall the PCNs from Glasgow had a will/may issue which might be worth a collateral challenge if that situation still exists.


Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:46
Post #17


Member


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



they have an authorization from TS, but we need to see it.
https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/6269/a...ns-database.pdf

rear of pcn?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/614/made

is this in force?????????????????

(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;

This post has been edited by 4101: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NELSON MANDELA
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 23:27
Post #18


Member


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



QUOTE (4101 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 21:45) *
that decision are stupid long.

your argument is that the sign is not prescribed and that there is not special authorization from DfT in place?

is this the sign?

https://goo.gl/maps/ugBewGHER5p


TSM is guidance, not law but should be followed unless good reason not.


where is the order NPS/1/GC/2014/3????????


This is the sign, my argument was not that it was not approved it was that it was approved but the authorisation was meaningless. Some of the signs were placed under a non-prescribed sign authorisation by Transport Scotland and the authorisation stated that the authorisation would continue until it was revoked. It gets a little more complex all the bus lanes in Glasgow that allow private hire vehicles use the plate "authorised vehicles" although the plate "& Authorised vehicles" is allowed under TSRGD 2016 it was not at the time of the authorisation. This is why TS issued a city wide authorisation for the plate at the time, when Glasgow e-mailed TS for the Nelson Mandela Bus Gate they stated that they already had permission for the use of the "authorised vehicles" plate and their application stated the reason why a non-prescribed sign was required was because the bus lane operated part time 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. My first issue with the 1571 authorisation for "authorised vehicles" is that direction 20 and 21 of TSRGD prevent the 953 diagram being used with any sign other than the plate "only" and vice versa and that there are no words in the authorisation that overcome that. In particular the wording is jumbled instead of saying that the 953 sign can be used with the authorised plate it uses the wording "can used", I understand this may not be a bigy, but there are no special directions which explicity refer to TSRGD General Directions 20 and 21.
In viewing the other sign authorisation 1634 which allows the time plate there is basically no directions at all, this is what my argument with the Adjudicator relates, she decides that a non-prescribed sign authorisation is enough i.e. no special directions are required just a picture of a sign. Even though some diagrams are prescribed by TSRGD to be used only in a certain way.
My second point is that even if the two mentioned authorisations were correct, as well as the authorised signs GCC has installed a one way arrow and a bus lane camera sign, these are not part of any authorisation but general directions in TSRGD prevent them being displayed next to the 953 roundel.
Either way the Adjudicator has dismissed these arguments due to a presumption of regularity and a time bar due to RTRA 1967.

With regard to the Oxford bus case the question was whether the flying motor cycle was the wrong sign for a bus lane that operated part time, the answer given was that it was the sign specified in TSM for a bus lane that operated part time. With regard to the Nottingham bus lane 2017 it was stated that the council was wrong to follow earlier DFT advice as TSM must be followed as it was more authoriative and recent. Again from the Oxford case the fact that a sign is authorised is not sufficient to say that it adequately describes the prohibition. TSM clearly states that the sign for a bus lane which operates part time is the flying motorcycle.

Having trouble getting to grips with tiny pics

letter for review


http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2egb0v8&s=9

pcn pg 2 hopefully

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=beirg6&s=9


1634 sign authorisation main page



1634 pg 2




TRO PG 1



TRO PG 2




Definition of a bus lane ( Not Nelson Mandela Place)




Following DFT advice the words in Sch 37, 38 and 39 ( Not 44 a Nelson Mandela Place) were changed to that of "being in a bus lane"








This post has been edited by NELSON MANDELA: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 00:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 23:57
Post #19


Member


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



Nothing about the road markings?

they have added a one way sign and camera sign without permission that causes clutter.

The road marking is wrong. What is an authorized vehicle?

Where is the advanced warning sign?


We need so see the full auth' including the 'map'.

This post has been edited by 4101: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 00:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NELSON MANDELA
post Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 00:41
Post #20


Member


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



[quote name='Mad Mick V' date='Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:37' post='1359256']
There are a number of issues here which confuse. First the TSRGDs only apply to England and Wales and there is no reason for the DfT to approve anything because Scottish Ministers can, by regulation, see to matters.

If the TSRGDs were in play Schedule 9, Part 5 (1) indicates "must be conveyed by a road marking that is of the size, colour and type shown in the diagram in column 3". The "must" is critical because it is mandatory and not something the DfT or anyone else IMO can alter. So the road markings in W George Street would not comply with that legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made

My second point is the time taken to reach a conclusion which to me is wholly unfair and prejudicial. A contravention in 2016 should have been dealt with long before now. I would point to this case (unsuccessful) to demonstrate the rationale for this ground:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...st&p=891411

Last, but not least, I seem to recall the PCNs from Glasgow had a will/may issue which might be worth a collateral challenge if that situation still exists.


Mick

Thanks for you input, I will look into them, however TSRGD is approved into Law by the Scottish Government, however the Scottish Government has no devolved power to alter TSRGD, however they have the power to issue a sign of another character or issue special directions to modify/ nullify regulations or directions in TSRGD in a case by case basis.
In this particular case they have used the 953 roundel prescribed in TSRGD in a way which is explicitly prevented by TSRGD and they have not issued a single direction which would allow it. According to the Adjudicator decision I can not question it. With regard to the road markings the Adjudicator was satisfied it was as approved.
However if you read the TRO then you will see that nowhere in the title or the contents of the TRO does it mention a bus lane, in the definition contained in the TRO the term "bus lane" specifically only relates to those roads contained in Schedules 37, 38 and 39 off which the road mentioned in Schedule 44a (Nelson Mandela Place) is not one. with reference to the High Court decision in Nottingham, as it does not contain a description in the title or in any of the contents of a bus lane then it is not a bus lane.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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 - 08:47
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