Bus Gate Shakespeare Street Nottingham, PCN for alleged contravention Code 34 Being in a Bus lane Options

[Steofthedale]

On Saturday 02 April 2016 we drove to Nottingham, a city that we do not know, in order to attend a family wedding at 1230pm. The venue we sought was part of Nottingham Trent University, the Arkwright Rooms in the Maudslay Building, situated according to google maps on a wedge of land between Goldsmith Street and Shakespeare Street. Due to parking restrictions around the campus, provision had been made for immediate family to access a car park linked to this location.

Due to the vagaries of the M6 we arrived later than intended (just after 12 noon), and by use of sat nav and google maps endeavoured to identify the whereabouts of the car park. We approached down Clarendon Street and turned right into Goldsmith Street. After only a few hundred yards there was a junction with Shakespeare Street. As the car park we sought was not clearly marked on any map, we initially carried on following the tram lines on Goldsmith Street, noting that there was a no through road sign. This seemed unimportant as our intention was simply to access the car park associated with the Maudslay Building. (The latter is sited further along Goldsmith Street on the left.) There was no car park, and a blue sign indicated that ahead, where the street narrowed, the road was for trams only. Somewhat nervously we executed a three point turn, keeping a wary eye out for any approaching trams, retraced our steps and turned sharp right into Shakespeare Street. Not having found a car park off Goldsmith street, it seemed logical that it might be accessible from the other side of the building, off Shakespeare Street.

In turning into Shakespeare Street we did not see any signs restricting access to vehicles.

In our search for the car park, (it was discovered eventually to be a basement facility underneath an adjacent building) it seems we traversed a short stretch of carriageway which we now learn to be a "bus gate", an entity we have never previously encountered. These are apparently signed differently from bus lanes.

As we live in a city which has suspended its bus lanes and to my knowledge has no bus gates, it maybe that we have become desensitised to restrictions still in force elsewhere. We are clear that we saw no obvious, recognisable, signs indicating any restriction on Shakespeare Street. (It is not our practice to disregard appropriate notices as evidenced by our actions on Goldsmith Street on encountering a tram only section of highway.)

Perhaps we are guilty of arriving late, naively following guidance from a sat nav and being distracted by our search for a parking facility and consequently missed the signs on Shakespeare Street. GSV unfortunately does not help since the images are from 2012 when there was much construction work on Shakespeare Street and before the bus gate was established. There are some local news reports on line indicating NCC's intention to create the bus gate (dated 2013) but whilst there are some who have fallen foul of the nearby tram gate, I can find no other forum posts regarding Shakespeare Street.

We have become aware of NCC's reputation regarding PCNs and are minded to not simply pay the discounted amount but would wish to ensure that any "pound of flesh" has to be well and truly earned.

As we reside some 2 hours away from Nottingham, it would be helpful should anyone be able to post pictures of the signs associated with the Shakespeare Street bus gate. (The council video only shows the obverse of a sign on the right hand side of the carriageway.) It is possible that our unusual approach from the direction of the tram gate on Goldsmith street is not sufficiently well signed for vehicles entering Shakespeare Street from this direction.

If the route were conventionally signed including road markings, it would be expected that very few would transgress and NCC would achieve their stated aim of discouraging through traffic. Less clear indication would still be well known locally and enable a similar end, with the added bonus of a steady stream of local authority income courtesy of the unsuspecting visitor. One wonders what possible motive NCC may have for novel and perhaps less than obvious indications of traffic restrictions.

[Advertisement]

[Mad Mick V]

This is the junction with Goldsmith Street:-

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.9583597,-...3312!8i6656

Not a bus lane/gate but a pedestrian zone which exempts buses--- ergo not being a bus lane the use of cameras could be illegal.

You need to read this thread for background on this type of case:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=101835&hl=

Here's the TRO:-

http://www.nottinghamshireinsight.org.uk/i...ashx?node=95238

I have a full appeal written up somewhere on this type of contravention if you need it.

Mick

[Steofthedale]

Thanks Mick

The link to the thread is very helpful...(I will read the TRO when I have a moment.)

I am sure that the "no entry" signs for Shakespeare Street shown on GSV are no longer in position. I cannot believe we would have missed them. Perhaps they were temporary whilst the construction work was underway.

I would like to challenge the PCN and it would clearly help to have sight of the current actual signage. (I may have to bite the bullet and spend a few hours on a trip to Nottingham).

The full appeal you have already worked up would be appreciated.

Ste

[Mad Mick V]

I've sent you a message with the appeal.

Mick

[Steofthedale]

Thanks Mick.

I am also interested to know the signs from the direction of the "tram gate" on Goldsmith Street. I suspect as few vehicles (other than trams) would approach from this direction they may be even more deficient. GSV appears to show no signs whatsoever and it is from this direction that we turned right into Shakespeare Street.

This post has been edited by Steofthedale: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 - 16:12

[grayee]

I found this thread after also getting an identical PCN from the same Nottingham Shakespeare Street 'bus gate' on Sat 2nd (oddly enough, also after visiting a family wedding albeit a different one!). I've also never encountered such a thing before...

I would also be very interested to know what is currently displayed on the signs if there are any Nottingham locals reading (I am not from the area) - according to Google Street View (albeit quite old) and according to the TRO linked above, the bus gate on Shakespeare Street at least used to be in operation only from 7am-7pm.

I'm not sure whether this is still the case or whether it has changed to 'at any time' - the PCN we've received having snapped us on CCTV at 20:47 i.e. certainly outside of the previous time window so I'm not convinced it's valid.

Thanks,
Gray

[Steofthedale]

Reluctantly I have returned to the scene of the alleged crime to take photos which I hope will support an appeal.

Here then is an illustrated narrative.


On arriving at Nottingham Trent University we sought a car park associated with the Maudslay building which is sited on a wedge of land between Goldsmith Street and Shakespeare Street. From Clarendon Street we turned right onto Goldsmith Street and shortly afterwards encountered a "No through Road" sign.



(Goldsmith Street is the tramway carrying straight on and Shakespeare Street the left turn.)



This we ignored and carried straight on reasoning that the car park might be situated off the accessible part of Goldsmith Street. However, within a few yards we encountered what I now know to be called a "tram gate". Perhaps it was the big blue signs or the "Tram Only" writing on the road that alerted us, but it was abundantly clear that we should proceed no further.



We executed a 3 point turn and retraced our path to the junction of Shakespeare Street (now on the right). At no point on this short stretch of road are there any warning signs regarding restricted access to Shakespeare Street. There is no "no right turn" sign and the identification of the "pedestrian zone" (with exceptions) is by way of road signs orientated towards traffic from the opposite direction. (The nearer of these two signs as we drove being at an oblique angle with respect to Goldsmith Street.)



(On the left is a blue sign positioned for vehicles exiting Shakespeare Street onto Goldsmith Street and indicating "No through road" to the left)



(The Right turn is into Shakespeare Street. The rear of the nearer "pedestrian zone" sign, at an oblique angle, is on the pavement on the right of picture and the edge of the further sign on the opposite side of the junction.)

Not surprisingly we failed to spot that we were entering a "Pedestrian Zone (with exceptions)", albeit a very short one, as we turned into and drove down Shakespeare Street. (I have walked and videoed the route taken to show how poorly signed this junction is, given the direction of our approach.)

We continued our search for the car park down Shakespeare Street but its location remained elusive. We executed another 3 point turn before the zebra crossing and retraced our path back towards Goldsmith Street. (This appears to be when the alleged contravention occurred) The signage approaching from this direction follows a similar pattern. There are two "No through road" signs but we had turned before either of them. There are no other warning signs along the accessible stretch of Shakespeare Street.



(The car park we eventually discovered to be the ground floor, under the building to the left of the blue audi/zebra crossing)

We were unaware of the two "Pedestrian Zone" signs. Perhaps we were distracted by our search for the car park and the impending start of the wedding. Maybe we were lulled having traveled the route in the opposite direction moments earlier. Perhaps the sign, and in particular the detail, is in too small a font and too detailed to be read by a motorist travelling at 20mph.



Perhaps the tree on the left partially obscured the sign.



So NCC believes that a Penalty Charge is due for contravention "Code 34 being in a bus lane".


I hope to appeal on the following grounds (.....thanks Mick)

The Contravention Did Not Occur

(a) Contravention is Incorrect

The contravention (being in a bus lane) cannot apply with the signs in place since it is a "pedestrian zone" (with exceptions).

(b) Signage is not Adequate

The Council has a duty not to mislead or confuse.

The signage is both inadequate for the purpose and confusing. I understand the "pedestrian zone" is considered by NCC to be a "bus gate" yet they have chosen to indicate this using a less obvious and contrasting means when compared with the adjacent "tramgate" on Goldsmith Street. The lack of any signage specific to Bus facilities and Bus Lanes both confuses and fails to comply with the requirements of the Council's Traffic Order. Furthermore, I have been unable to identify any scheduled bus route that include Shakespeare Street.

(d) Illegal use of Cameras

There were no signs in the vicinity to indicate the use of cameras, and if Shakespeare Street cannot be properly described as a bus lane then PCNs should not have been issued on the basis of evidence from a roadside camera.



I would value any thoughts and opinions.
Thanks.

Ste

[Neil B]

Councils outside London do seem to be successfully getting away with enforcing using bus lane
legislation. That due to -

a) it is a bus lane, by the applicable definition, Edit > Oh, is the fact that 'permit holders' is not a 'class of vehicle' possibly helpful?

b) they have no authority to enforce as anything else.

Because of b) I can't see how you can claim wrong contravention, since there isn't a right one
other than prosecution by the Police.

Maybe about time someone challenged this lucrative little misapplication of the law?
but then a) is a problem.

--
I'm curious about the unusual reference to RTRA at the top and complete absence of the more
usual reference to Bus Lane Regs.

In particular, sections 9 and 14 relating to temporary and/or experimental Orders?
I think it's been mentioned this restriction has existed for a while?

I defer to Mick if he fancies untangling that aspect as he's far more knowledgable on such things.

This post has been edited by Neil B: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 - 11:45

[Steofthedale]

I am contemplating reps along the following lines:-

The Contravention Did Not Occur


(a) Contravention is Incorrect

The contravention (being in a bus lane) cannot apply with the signage in place. What is represented is a "Pedestrian Zone" with exceptions for buses and other vehicles listed in the TRO and, from the first of September 2015, "any vehicle in respect of which a current valid Restricted Access Permit has been issued...on the Pedestrian Zone on Shakespeare Street".


(b) Not a "Bus lane, street or gate"

I would draw the adjudicator’s attention to the TPT decision on the Lendal Bridge case, York (YR05035C) in which the adjudicator indicated:-

“In my judgement notwithstanding the designation in the Traffic Order
neither Coppergate nor Lendal Bridge can sensibly be described as a bus
lane, street or gate but rather the roads are part of a general traffic scheme
from which non-exempt vehicles are restricted at certain times and where
buses are just one of the excepted categories or classes of vehicle“

In my case, the signage on Shakespeare Street relates to a Restricted Access Street and not a Bus Lane. There are no less than 7 exemptions listed in the original TRO which was further extended by the Order in August 2015 to include "any vehicle" with a valid permit.


© Signage is not Adequate

(i) If the Council wishes to denote a Bus Lane it should be precise otherwise it fails in its duty not to mislead or confuse. Whilst a sign may be authorised it does not necessarily mean it is sufficient for securing adequate information as to the effect of an order.

The signage in Shakespeare Street does not conform to the Department for Transport authorisations GT/50/117/0017 and GT/50/117/0004 which make no reference to Pedestrian Zones. Neither does the signage denote a bus gate or a bus lane as required by the TRO, which defines a bus lane as being “bounded by delineating road markings and or signs as prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) or otherwise authorised by the Relevant National Authority”.

None of the signs used comply with Sch 5 of the TSRGD nor are there any road markings which delineate a Bus Lane.

Under Regulation 18 Local Authorities Traffic Orders Regulations 1996, the Council has a duty not to mislead or confuse. The lack of any signage relative to Schedule 5 of TSRGD (specific to Bus facilities and Bus Lanes) both confuses and fails to comply with the requirements of the Council's Traffic Order. Such signage fails the adequacy test per Regulation 18 The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

I would highlight the decision by Mr Justice Beatson in "The Queen on the application of Oxfordshire County Council v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (admin). The judgement includes the following:

“The Defendant’s submission that the fact that signs are described as
authorised does not mean that 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... Where signs have not been placed in positions
where they cannot be seen or easily seen, are not obscured by vegetation
or other street furniture and are clearly visible and comply with
departmental guidance there must be strong reasons for concluding that
they do not provide adequate information ......”

This is further stressed in Moss, R (on the application of) v KPMG Llp [2010] EWHC 2923 (Admin) (14 October 2010)

"The effect of non-compliance with the requirements of the prescribed diagrams on enforcement by criminal proceedings or by PCN has been considered in a number of cases. There is one group of cases in which there was a breach of the requirement in the 1996 Local Authority Traffic Order Procedure Regulations to place signs or markings adequately so that those affected would know what was forbidden. Examples are Hassan v Director of Public Prosecutions [1992] RTR 209 and James v Caley [1967] QB 676: where there was no sign stating the day or hours when parking on a yellow line was forbidden, the information as to the prohibition indicated by that line had not been adequately conveyed. The statutory requirement in the procedure order that the prohibition be adequately signed had not been met, and the offence of breaching the prohibition could not be proved. Those cases make it clear that if a traffic sign does not adequately inform the driver as to what is forbidden or where, the penalty cannot be enforced and, in a criminal context, no offence is committed."

The signs on Shakespeare Street do not adequately inform the driver, therefore the penalty cannot be enforced.



(ii) There are 7 exceptions set out in the schedule to the original Nottingham TRO (not including pedestrian access) which were further amended in September 2015 to include "any vehicle" with a valid permit. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn, notwithstanding the designation in the TRO, is that Shakespeare Street cannot be sensibly described as a bus lane, street or gate, analogous to the adjudication in the York case. That I have been unable to identify any scheduled bus service using Shakespeare Street adds additional credibility to this conclusion.



(iii) Furthermore, the route taken in approaching and passing through the "Pedestrian Zone" was such that the signage was not adequately visible or comprehensible.

Approaching from the direction of the tram gate on Goldsmith Street gives no indication of any restriction to any vehicle (prior to executing a right turn into Shakespeare Street) and there are no advance warning sides whatsoever, from any direction. The alleged contravention occurred when my vehicle turned left out of a narrow car park exit onto Shakespeare Street and headed westbound towards the "Pedestrian Zone". Whilst executing this manoevre both signs were obscured by a tree growing in front of the "Barnes Wallis" building on the immediate left of the basement parking. The visual restriction was further compounded by the close proximity of the "Pedestrian Zone" to the car park exit which afforded insufficient opportunity for the intended meaning of the signage to be conveyed, if that possibility existed.



(d) Unlawful use of Cameras

At Shakespeare Street the Council has used a sign in the form of motorcycle and car symbol inside a red circle which, according to schedule 2 of the 2002 Regulations is normally used to indicate "motor vehicles prohibited". Above this is written "Pedestrian Zone".

Camera enforcement is only permissible if the Council has correctly established a bus lane or street. In the equivalent York case, the adjudicator wrote "I find that neither location can properly be described as a bus lane or street with the result that PCNs should not have been issued on the basis of evidence from the roadside cameras".

Shakespeare Street is a "Pedestrian Zone" with multiple exemptions. As in York, the signage does not convey the designation of the TRO and, as established by the adjudicator in the York case, PCNs should not be issued on the basis of evidence from roadside cameras.

Yours faithfully,


xxxxxxxxx


Any comments or amendments would be appreciated.

Is this too much for informal reps?
Should there be camera warning signs?
Should there be something regarding prejudice regarding the wording in the PCN?
Is there any merit in pursuing the points raised by Neil B?

Thanks in advance

Ste

[Incandescent]

It is not an informal appeal, this is your formal appeal to the PCN, as there is only one opportunity to appeal before you can appeal to the adjudicator. Bus lane PCNs are all sent by post to the owner as per V5, so there is no opportunity to challenge as is regularly done with parking PCNs stuck on the car or handed to driver.

In view of the above, it is important that your formal appeal is complete, so it is not too long or complex. Nottingham are a particularly ruthless, venal, and rapacious council so don't make it simple for them. Your appeal is about right, I would say.
Only problem for us all is that even if you win, it is water off a duck's back to them, they can carry on as before and thumb ther noses at everybody, including the adjudicator because they face no penalties, civil or criminal. Would that they did !

[Steofthedale]

Thanks for that....formal it is.

1. Do I included photographs of the area/signs? (I have read elsewhere that an adjudicator may perceive them as lacking objectivity and create an adverse impression regarding integrity).

2. Do I need to include some narrative regarding the route taken leading to the issue of a PCN?

3. Any views on the other questions in #9?

Thanks.



This post has been edited by Steofthedale: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 - 08:09

[Incandescent]

Regarding Q2, I think you need to set the scene for the adjudicator, on the lines you give us in your first post. Always take what Neil B says seriously. You can always PM him.

[Steofthedale]

Here then a draft of formal representations.

Dear Sir or Madam

I wish to make formal representations regarding Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) No xxxxxxxx on the grounds that it was issued incorrectly because the alleged contravention did not occur.

Introduction

On Saturday 02 April 2016 we drove to Nottingham, a city that we do not know, in order to attend a family wedding at 1230pm. The venue we sought was part of Nottingham Trent University, the Arkwright Rooms in the Maudslay Building, situated according to google maps on a wedge of land between Goldsmith Street and Shakespeare Street. Due to parking restrictions around the campus, provision had been made for immediate family to access a car park linked to this location.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Goldsmi...16b39f992fe144d

Due to the vagaries of the M6 we arrived later than intended just before 12 noon, and by use of sat nav and google maps endeavoured to identify the whereabouts of the car park. We approached down Clarendon Street and turned right into Goldsmith Street. After only a few hundred yards there was a junction with Shakespeare Street. As the car park we sought was not clearly marked on any map, we initially carried on, following the tram lines along Goldsmith Street, noting that there was a no through road sign. This appeared less important as there was no immediately obvious blockage of the road and our intention was simply to access the car park associated with the Maudslay Building.




However there was no obvious car park, and blue signs and road markings clearly indicated that ahead, where the street narrowed, the road was for trams only.



Recognising the restriction, we executed a three point turn, keeping a wary eye out for any trams, retraced our steps and turned sharp right into Shakespeare Street. (Not having found a car park off Goldsmith street, it seemed logical that it might be accessible from the other side of the buildings, off Shakespeare Street.) On approaching the junction with Shakespeare Street there were no signs visible to indicate any restriction. Consequently we were unaware that we were entering a "Pedestrian Zone".




The car park was located on Shakespeare Street beneath a facility adjacent to the Maudsley Building so we used the key code in order to raise the entrance barrier at the western end and then parked.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.9580372,-...3312!8i6656

Once on foot we unfortunately discovered this to be the location for the reception. The ceremony was actually being held in Lenton. We returned to the car and left the car park via the narrow exit at the eastern end (adjacent to the Barnes Wallis building in front of which there was a large tree.)

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.9580415,-...3312!8i6656

Turning left onto Shakespeare Street and heading westbound appears to be when the contravention "Code 34: Being in a Bus Lane" is alleged to have occurred.


The Contravention Did Not Occur


(i) Contravention is Incorrect

The contravention (being in a bus lane) cannot apply with the signage in place. What is represented is a "Pedestrian Zone" with exceptions for buses and other vehicles listed in the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and, as amended from the first of September 2015, "any vehicle in respect of which a current valid Restricted Access Permit has been issued...on the Pedestrian Zone on Shakespeare Street".




(ii) Not a "Bus lane, street or gate"

I would draw the adjudicator’s attention to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) decision on the Lendal Bridge case, York (YR05035C) in which the adjudicator indicated:-

“In my judgement notwithstanding the designation in the Traffic Order neither Coppergate nor Lendal Bridge can sensibly be described as a bus lane, street or gate but rather the roads are part of a general traffic scheme from which non-exempt vehicles are restricted at certain times and where buses are just one of the excepted categories or classes of vehicle"


In my case, the signage on Shakespeare Street relates to a Restricted Access Street and not a Bus Lane. There are no less than 7 exemptions listed in the original TRO which was further extended by the Order in September 2015 to include "any vehicle" with a valid permit.


(iii) Signage is not Adequate

a. If the Council wishes to denote a Bus Lane it should be precise otherwise it fails in its duty not to mislead or confuse. Whilst a sign may be authorised it does not necessarily mean it is sufficient for securing adequate information as to the effect of an order.

The signage in Shakespeare Street does not conform to the Department for Transport authorisations GT/50/117/0017 and GT/50/117/0004 which make no reference to Pedestrian Zones. Neither does the signage denote a bus gate or a bus lane as required by the TRO, which defines a bus lane as being “bounded by delineating road markings and or signs as prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) or otherwise authorised by the Relevant National Authority”.

None of the signs used comply with Schedule 5 of the TSRGD, nor are there any road markings which delineate a Bus Lane.

Under Regulation 18 Local Authorities Traffic Orders Regulations 1996, the Council has a duty not to mislead or confuse. The lack of any signage relative to Schedule 5 of TSRGD (specific to Bus facilities and Bus Lanes) both confuses and fails to comply with the requirements of the Council's Traffic Order. Such signage fails the adequacy test per Regulation 18 The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

I would highlight the decision by Mr Justice Beatson in "The Queen on the application of Oxfordshire County Council v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (admin). The judgement includes the following:

“The Defendant’s submission that the fact that signs are described as authorised does not mean that 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...

Where signs have not been placed in positions where they cannot be seen or easily seen, are not obscured by vegetation or other street furniture and are clearly visible and comply with departmental guidance there must be strong reasons for concluding that they do not provide adequate information ......”

This is further stressed in Moss, R (on the application of) v KPMG Llp [2010] EWHC 2923 (Admin) (14 October 2010)

"The effect of non-compliance with the requirements of the prescribed diagrams on enforcement by criminal proceedings or by PCN has been considered in a number of cases. There is one group of cases in which there was a breach of the requirement in the 1996 Local Authority Traffic Order Procedure Regulations to place signs or markings adequately so that those affected would know what was forbidden. Examples are Hassan v Director of Public Prosecutions [1992] RTR 209 and James v Caley [1967] QB 676: where there was no sign stating the day or hours when parking on a yellow line was forbidden, the information as to the prohibition indicated by that line had not been adequately conveyed. The statutory requirement in the procedure order that the prohibition be adequately signed had not been met, and the offence of breaching the prohibition could not be proved. Those cases make it clear that if a traffic sign does not adequately inform the driver as to what is forbidden or where, the penalty cannot be enforced and, in a criminal context, no offence is committed."

The signs on Shakespeare Street do not "adequately inform" the driver of a Bus Lane, therefore the penalty cannot be enforced.


b. There are 7 exceptions set out in the schedule to the original Nottingham TRO (not including pedestrian access) which were further amended in September 2015 to include "any vehicle" with a valid permit. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn, notwithstanding the designation in the TRO, is that Shakespeare Street cannot be sensibly described as a bus lane, street or gate, analogous to the adjudication in the York case. That I have been unable to identify any scheduled bus service using Shakespeare Street, along with the nature of the signs placed by the Council, add additional credibility to this conclusion.



c. The route taken in approaching and passing through the "Pedestrian Zone" was such that the signage was not adequately visible or comprehensible.

Approaching from the direction of the tram gate on Goldsmith Street gave no indication of any restriction to any vehicle (prior to executing a right turn into Shakespeare Street) and there are no advance warning signs whatsoever, from any direction.

The alleged contravention occurred when my vehicle turned left out of a narrow car park exit onto Shakespeare Street and headed westbound towards the "Pedestrian Zone". Whilst executing this manoevre both signs were obscured by the tree in front of the "Barnes Wallis" building on the immediate left of the basement parking.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.9580415,-...3312!8i6656

As per Mr Justice Beatson "Where signs have not been placed in positions where they cannot be seen or easily seen, are not obscured by vegetation or other street furniture and are clearly visible and comply with departmental guidance there must be strong reasons for concluding that they do not provide adequate information ......”

The visual restriction was further compounded by the close proximity of the "Pedestrian Zone" to the car park exit, and the signs bearing significant additional written information in small font, which afforded insufficient opportunity for the intended meaning of the signage to be conveyed to the driver of a vehicle travelling at appropriate speed, if that possibility existed.



(iv) Unlawful use of Cameras

At Shakespeare Street the Council has used a sign in the form of motorcycle and car symbol inside a red circle which, according to schedule 2 of the 2002 Regulations is normally used to indicate "motor vehicles prohibited". Above this is written "Pedestrian Zone".

Camera enforcement is only permissible if the Council has correctly established a bus lane or street. In the equivalent York case, the adjudicator wrote "I find that neither location can properly be described as a bus lane or street with the result that PCNs should not have been issued on the basis of evidence from the roadside cameras".

Shakespeare Street is a "Pedestrian Zone" with multiple exemptions. As in York, the signage does not convey the designation of the TRO and, as established by the adjudicator in the York case, PCNs should not be issued on the basis of evidence from roadside cameras.

Yours faithfully,


xxxxxxxxx



I would appreciate any comments, corrections or additional suggestions.
Date of service was 08 April so I have some time yet to make changes.

Ste

This post has been edited by Steofthedale: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 - 20:04

[DonkeyTom]

Hi,
I'm new to this forum but I have just had the same PCN come through the door this morning about the same stretch of road.
I am going to be challenging the PCN.

Because I know that there has been road works for a number of years on that stretch with no access during that time, and those works have only recently been finished, plus the PCN says I entered a bus lane I decided to contact Nottingham City transport with this email:


Message Body:
Hi, I am writing to ask about bus routes that travel through Nottingham.
Are there any bus routes that travel down Shakespeare St (NG1) specifically between the junctions of Dryden St and Goldsmiths St since the start of 2016?
If so, when was the first time the bus/buses used this stretch of Shakespeare Street?
Thank you
Regards
Tom

The reply was really quick and as follows:

Hi Tom

Many thanks for contacting us. Details of roads in the city centre that are served by NCT buses can be found on the following map taken from our website..

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Bakersf...2aae05e785ff7af

As you’ll see, there are certainly NCT buses along part of Shakespeare St. But those routes that go to the junction near the Central Fire Station all turn to/from South Sherwood St, with none going straight on to the vicinity that you are referring to at Dryden St. We can’t speak for other bus operators, but if you check Google Maps for instance, you will see that all bus stops are clearly shown with a blue icon. No stops are indicated along Dryden St or on that part of Shakespeare St. You may want to contact Nottingham Trent University (NTU,) whose premises dominate that locality, to see if they have any bus type vehicles operating around there?

Regards

Giles

NCT Travel Centre

Now if that road is not used for the purpose of bus routes and there is no marking stating it is a bus lane then I do not see how anyone could have entered a bus lane, as a result there is no contravene of any regulations.

I will message Trent Barton buses as well but I dont think they will tell me any different.
Hope this helps.

Tom

ADDITIONAL
I have just got a reply from Trent Barton which is as follows:
Good afternoon Thomas

Thank you for your email.

Unfortunately we don't have any services that cover that side of Shakespeare street. However our centrelink service will travel as far as S Sherwood Street

I hope this helps

Kind regards

Laura

Customer Services | trentbarton


This post has been edited by DonkeyTom: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 - 16:34

[Incandescent]

Hi, I'm new to this forum but I have just had the same PCN come through the door this morning about the same stretch of road. I am going to be challenging the PCN. Because I know that there has been road works for a number of years on that stretch with no access during that time, and those works have only recently been finished, plus the PCN says I entered a bus lane I decided to contact Nottingham City transport with this email: Message Body: Hi, I am writing to ask about bus routes that travel through Nottingham. Are there any bus routes that travel down Shakespeare St (NG1) specifically between the junctions of Dryden St and Goldsmiths St since the start of 2016? If so, when was the first time the bus/buses used this stretch of Shakespeare Street? Thank you Regards Tom The reply was really quick and as follows: Hi Tom Many thanks for contacting us. Details of roads in the city centre that are served by NCT buses can be found on the following map taken from our website.. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Bakersf...2aae05e785ff7af As you’ll see, there are certainly NCT buses along part of Shakespeare St. But those routes that go to the junction near the Central Fire Station all turn to/from South Sherwood St, with none going straight on to the vicinity that you are referring to at Dryden St. We can’t speak for other bus operators, but if you check Google Maps for instance, you will see that all bus stops are clearly shown with a blue icon. No stops are indicated along Dryden St or on that part of Shakespeare St. You may want to contact Nottingham Trent University (NTU,) whose premises dominate that locality, to see if they have any bus type vehicles operating around there? Regards Giles NCT Travel Centre Now if that road is not used for the purpose of bus routes and there is no marking stating it is a bus lane then I do not see how anyone could have entered a bus lane, as a result there is no contravene of any regulations. I will message Trent Barton buses as well but I dont think they will tell me any different. Hope this helps. Tom ADDITIONAL I have just got a reply from Trent Barton which is as follows: Good afternoon Thomas Thank you for your email. Unfortunately we don't have any services that cover that side of Shakespeare street. However our centrelink service will travel as far as S Sherwood Street I hope this helps Kind regards Laura Customer Services | trentbarton

Please start your own thread.The forum rule on only one OP per thread.

[DonkeyTom]

Hi, I'm new to this forum but I have just had the same PCN come through the door this morning about the same stretch of road. I am going to be challenging the PCN. Because I know that there has been road works for a number of years on that stretch with no access during that time, and those works have only recently been finished, plus the PCN says I entered a bus lane I decided to contact Nottingham City transport with this email: Message Body: Hi, I am writing to ask about bus routes that travel through Nottingham. Are there any bus routes that travel down Shakespeare St (NG1) specifically between the junctions of Dryden St and Goldsmiths St since the start of 2016? If so, when was the first time the bus/buses used this stretch of Shakespeare Street? Thank you Regards Tom The reply was really quick and as follows: Hi Tom Many thanks for contacting us. Details of roads in the city centre that are served by NCT buses can be found on the following map taken from our website.. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Bakersf...2aae05e785ff7af As you’ll see, there are certainly NCT buses along part of Shakespeare St. But those routes that go to the junction near the Central Fire Station all turn to/from South Sherwood St, with none going straight on to the vicinity that you are referring to at Dryden St. We can’t speak for other bus operators, but if you check Google Maps for instance, you will see that all bus stops are clearly shown with a blue icon. No stops are indicated along Dryden St or on that part of Shakespeare St. You may want to contact Nottingham Trent University (NTU,) whose premises dominate that locality, to see if they have any bus type vehicles operating around there? Regards Giles NCT Travel Centre Now if that road is not used for the purpose of bus routes and there is no marking stating it is a bus lane then I do not see how anyone could have entered a bus lane, as a result there is no contravene of any regulations. I will message Trent Barton buses as well but I dont think they will tell me any different. Hope this helps. Tom ADDITIONAL I have just got a reply from Trent Barton which is as follows: Good afternoon Thomas Thank you for your email. Unfortunately we don't have any services that cover that side of Shakespeare street. However our centrelink service will travel as far as S Sherwood Street I hope this helps Kind regards Laura Customer Services | trentbarton

Please start your own thread.The forum rule on only one OP per thread.

I'm not asking for help and I am not a second OP. I am attempting to contribute and provide the OP information that I have gained, which is no bus company in Nottingham has any route going town that section of Shakespeare St , if it's not used as a bus route and there are no bus signs then there is no bus lane to enter and so no regulations have been broke.

But I am also happy to delete my post if that is braking the forum rules.

[Nik123]

Hi. Can I ask if you were successful in your appeal ?

[Steofthedale]

Hi Nik,

I've sent you a PM and will post the Council's response tomorrow.

[Steofthedale]

As anticipated I received the following Notice of Rejection.











I have already drafted the core arguments earlier but any further advice prior to submitting to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal would be appreciated. I note their comments regarding exemptions being clearly marked on the signs. The following link indicates permit U1 to be for any vehicle with a valid Restriction Access Permit. http://www.public-notices.co.uk/attachment...4519b4eb455.pdf

That seems to include the potential for very many vehicles to be exempt on this allegedly bus only street!


Ste

This post has been edited by Steofthedale: Wed, 11 May 2016 - 05:34

[John U.K.]

I have already drafted the core arguments earlier

Is this a fresh draft for submission to tribunal, or a repeat of your earlier reps?
If the former, please post here for comment.

I must say, on the surface, Nottingham have done a very thorough consideration, including a site visit, so you must carefully highlight any elements of their consideration where you feel they have drawn an erroneous conclusion.