PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Being in a bus Lane in Reading
Bahar20
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 07:47
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 7 Aug 2017
From: London
Member No.: 93,408



Hi
I received a letter by post that I used a bus lane during the restricted hours.
It was accessible for permit holders too. I had a delivery to a bank and needed access. I appealed on that ground but I received a rejection with the reason that they didn't receive the attached runsheet and the road was only for bus.
I appreciate your help smile.gif



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 16)
Advertisement
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 07:47
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 11:52
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,465
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Show us the PCN in full (all sides of all pages), the council video, and a link to the location on Google Street View. Reading PCNs are known for being poorly drafted.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 12:16
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,337
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4543502,-...3312!8i6656

Those signs are DfT approved by the way.

I would have a search on the TPT website for the TRO:-

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/a...thority=Reading

If there is an exemption for loading that is key. If there is an exemption for CITV (cash in transit vehicles) that would swing it IMO.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bahar20
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 21:15
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 7 Aug 2017
From: London
Member No.: 93,408



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 12:52) *
Show us the PCN in full (all sides of all pages), the council video, and a link to the location on Google Street View. Reading PCNs are known for being poorly drafted.


This was the original PCN:


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 21:24
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,959
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



always will/may with reading they are arrogant
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bahar20
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 21:30
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 7 Aug 2017
From: London
Member No.: 93,408



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 13:16) *
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4543502,-...3312!8i6656

Those signs are DfT approved by the way.

I would have a search on the TPT website for the TRO:-

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/a...thority=Reading

If there is an exemption for loading that is key. If there is an exemption for CITV (cash in transit vehicles) that would swing it IMO.

Mick


Thanks Mike.
I found this from that website:
file:///C:/Users/TECH/Downloads/BLTROMinsterStreetOrder2017%20(1).pdf



Does it mean I was allowed to enter the road for delivery?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bahar20
post Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 20:04
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 7 Aug 2017
From: London
Member No.: 93,408



...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 18:28
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,465
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



There is no loading exemption at all, businesses that need an exemption need to apply for a special permit from the Council and you clearly don't have one or I'm sure you would have mentioned it.

However the pcn template used by Reading Council is crap, I would challenge in on the will/may issue. Have a search for will/may in the forum, there's loads of examples and this is a very likely win at the tribunal.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 18:55
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,337
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



That Order does not quote St Mary's Butts so I don't think it applies.

It is interesting however at 6(a)(ii) that the order appears to allow unloading via the bus lane:

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...etOrder2017.pdf

If the appropriate Order has the same type of article then an exemption argument might be made.

On the will/may issue I am less confident than cp8759 because we have had adjudicators dismiss that ground in Reading.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 19:23
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,959
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 19:55) *
That Order does not quote St Mary's Butts so I don't think it applies.

It is interesting however at 6(a)(ii) that the order appears to allow unloading via the bus lane:

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...etOrder2017.pdf

If the appropriate Order has the same type of article then an exemption argument might be made.

On the will/may issue I am less confident than cp8759 because we have had adjudicators dismiss that ground in Reading.

Mick


I too am not confident on the will/may I would like lots of other reasons to back it up. But will not give up on it. IMO the adjudicators are wrong. Given the differing views the two tribunals should sit down together as a panel and agree Yea or nay on it
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bahar20
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 22:01
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 7 Aug 2017
From: London
Member No.: 93,408



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 19:55) *
That Order does not quote St Mary's Butts so I don't think it applies.

It is interesting however at 6(a)(ii) that the order appears to allow unloading via the bus lane:

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...etOrder2017.pdf

If the appropriate Order has the same type of article then an exemption argument might be made.

On the will/may issue I am less confident than cp8759 because we have had adjudicators dismiss that ground in Reading.

Mick


what about this one?
file:///C:/Users/TECH/Downloads/BL-TRO-A33-Order-2017.pdf
5(a)(i) ?

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 22:24) *
always will/may with reading they are arrogant


what do you mean by Will/may?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 10:31
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,959
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



This is from an appeal I wrote re the issue for another person in a Reading bus lane. It should be noted that the appeal was allowed on the ground of inadequate signage. The adjudicator did not consider other issues but said they would be unlikely to have succeeded.

IMO this is a cop out. Indeed the signage argument was weak, but its not the first time we have seen this taking the easy option



QUOTE
3:-The use of the term WILL as opposed to the regulatory requirement of MAY is one that has many times been before both the TPT and the London tribunal service. It is a collateral challenge under the statutory ground that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

This comes about as the PCN states that “if you do neither of these things within 28 days from the date of service of this notice the council will serve a charge certificate.

The regulations as set down at 32(1) that the authority may serve a charge certificate.

Case law has laid down first and foremost in Barnet vs the parking adjudicator Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin) Jackson J said this in endorsing the findings of parking adjudicator Mr Mark Hinchcliffe

•     Section 66(3)©,(d) and (e) requires every PCN to convey certain specified information. The use of the words 'must state that' suggests that the exact words of the section are not mandatory, but the PCN must accurately convey the information set out in the subsections . .

Can the words Will and may be read to mean the same thing. My contention is that they cannot.

WILL must denote an action that has be taken if the criteria are met. Whereas May denotes an action that can be taken if it is deemed fit in the same circumstances.

Will sets a path that must be followed, May allows a deviation. I submit that the meaning of the information required by the regulations is not conveyed and the statutory requirement is not met

A further test is, is the required information conveyed by the PCN when read as a whole. Again I submit not. Only one reference to a charge certificate is made and it is not correct

Jackson J also endorsed the finding of adjudicator Mr Martin wood who found that literal compliance was not necessary. Substantial compliance is all that is needed. Case law in both tribunals has found substantial compliance to mean. The information must be clear and not mislead or confuse. To ascribe a completely different meaning to a regulation with the use of different words ,must be said to mislead as to the intent of the regulations

The next question I put is why is the what could be seen as a minor difference so important?

A council as a public body has an over riding duty to act fairly at all times. In the exercise of its punitive powers it has and must maintain at all times discretion in its actions. It must not fetter that discretion. It may set a policy as to how it may act but must always be prepared and able to act outside that policy.

There may be many reasons why a council would not or should not issue a charge certificate. A recipient might be discovered to be very ill and hospitalised, and are thus unable to deal with a PCN, it could be they have passed away, or it could be that a persons financial state would place an unbearable burden if a PCN was pursued.

The draftsman aware of this drafted the regulations in such a way as to maintain the councils discretion, parliament passed the regulation drafted this way for that reason. It is not for the council to seek to go beyond this safeguard written into the regulations

I would by way of support for my contention relay in summery a case taken before London tribunals. Case ref 2170501900 and review This gentleman asked for a review this was also denied. He then sought advice from an intenet advice site. His claim was that the council (London borough of Newham) had identified the wrong car. He posted evidence of this. Experienced members of this site attempted to help as there did appear to be a miscarriage of justice. Contact was made with the council who agreed to look again at the issue. They agreed an error had been made and cancelled the penalty. Without discretion this could not happen.
I opened this chapter with the assertion that this as a matter that has been before the tribunal many times. In reaching a finding I ask that the adjudicator gives consideration to the view of the following adjudicators all of whom have found on this in the past

2130516990 Andrew Harman
2140046893 Anthony chan

216022028A Belinda Pearce
2160211926 Christopher Rayner
2110072817 Edward Houghton

2120021652 Henry Michael Greenslade
2150379790 Joanne Oxlade
2160211959 John Lane
2100649871 Michael Burke
2160422149 Michael Lawrence
2110415753 Michael Nathan
2150479729 Neeti Haria
2160210490 Sean Stanton-Dunne

I submit that no doubt inadvertently the authority play fast and lose with the regulations, and that this PCn be declared a nullity

I would like to thank the adjudicator for their time and consideration of the points raised and respectfully submit that you find as I contend, that this PCN is unenforceable by way of no contravention being committed or that the shear number of flaws render it a nullity.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 11:37
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,337
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Been reading some old threads on this bus lane-- still cannot find the Order --it was an Experimental Order first off and must have been confirmed.

On the will/may issue, EDW and Hippocrates mention the TPT adjudicators don't bite when a procedural impropriety is contended and it is better to use the phrase:- "A document which does not comply with the regulations is not a PCN and therefore no charge is payable".

An interesting snippet suggests St. Mary's Butts cannot be classed as a bus Lane/Gate:-

https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-new...otoring-4327186

That's a bit old now but it is redolent with the Lendal Bridge case.

EDIT

Here's the Order:- https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...ding/RG173B.pdf

This is not a bus lane and therefore they cannot use bus lane cameras or enforce as a bus lane. At Sch 4 the the Order prohibits motor vehicles with exceptions.

I do believe there is a unloading exemption as per 10(a)(ii)--if this is regarded as a bus lane by the Council.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 12:01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 21:34
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,465
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 12:37) *
This is not a bus lane and therefore they cannot use bus lane cameras or enforce as a bus lane. At Sch 4 the the Order prohibits motor vehicles with exceptions.

But section 144(5) of the Transport Act 200 just says:

"And an area of road is or forms part of a bus lane if the order provides that it may be used—
(a)only by buses (or a particular description of bus), or
(b)only by buses (or a particular description of bus) and some other class or classes of vehicular traffic.
"

There is no requirement that the order mentions the words "bus lane" as far as I can see. A TRO that says a road is prohibited to all traffic except buses, taxis and cycles plainly falls within section 144(5)(b)

I wouldn't take legal advice from Andy Woolford on this topic, nor on any other legal topic to be honest.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 21:34


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 23:37
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,337
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



The Woolford case is 5 years old but his PCN was cancelled which is of interest.

Sect 144 of the Transport Act 2000 has been repealed ----No?

I am more with the Lendal Bridge precedent which determined what constituted a bus lane with regard to the number of exemptions.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Yesterday, 00:13
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,465
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 00:37) *
Sect 144 of the Transport Act 2000 has been repealed ----No?

No, it's only repealed in Wales.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Yesterday, 00:15


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Yesterday, 06:31
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,337
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Section 5 of the following document is interesting regarding exceptions and exemptions which I think makes the unloading situation clearer vis-a-vis the TRO:-

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...pqjDzpLK-h1qnRW

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Sunday, 22nd July 2018 - 03:00
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.