Bus Lane infringement, Threads merged Options

[Bluff cove]

Evening folks,

Ok. Not sure of my chances on this one but it's always worth a try right?!

Last week I drove through a Bus Lane. No doubt I did. Circumstances are as follows; It used to be a road some while ago, that was exclusively for buses only, now, weirdly, there are no no entry signs at the start of the road so I drove down it. About 2/3rds of the way down there is a forced U turn road markings arrangement- presumably to allow for access to parking bays and the Cathedral. To me it's a bit of an unusual arrangement so much so that it took me a few seconds to work out what all signs meant. By this time I had passed the point of no return and carried on to the end of the road which wasn't far.

Afterwards I did feel that maybe I'd contravened but wasn't 100% sure. Last week I got the PCN.

It was totally an honest genuine error. I gained no advantage over other cars in the road, there weren't any. Also a few hours earlier I'd found out that an old good friend had passed away unexpectedly early after a terminal illness. To be frank I was really morose and down and not concentrating at my peak as I was preoccupied with those sad thoughts. I can prove to the council about this.

So my question is what representation approach should I use. Can they cancel a PCN for extenuating circumstances and an unusual layout?

Many thanks.

Links below


https://flic.kr/p/Y1fVpa

Dropped pin
near 1 Bishop Crispian Way, Portsmouth PO1 3HJ

https://goo.gl/maps/gE8Zb3CZ9tP2

Other PCN pages

https://flic.kr/p/XXTxSN

https://flic.kr/p/Y1CGAv


I know I made a contravention but would really appreciate any strategy for making formal reps.

This post has been edited by Bluff cove: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 21:47

[Advertisement]

[stamfordman]

GSV (from 2015):

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8000972,-1....33;8i6656?hl=en

Not often you are encouraged to make a u-turn. Maggie Thatcher wouldn't have liked it.

Although in fact it is more of a turn right - which would put you in the cathedral.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 20:44

[Neil B]

Several legal errors on the PCN.

Need to see the rest.

[copper's nark]

Please post the photographs. They are not clear enough to see the detail in the entry markings or the traffic sign. TRO is here https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/a...rity=Portsmouth PO63B. It would appear to be a bus street but the road marking indicating "bus, taxi, (cycle symbol) only" is not an approved diagram 1048 road marking as far as I can tell from both TSRGD manual ch 5 and TSRGD 2016.

This post has been edited by copper's nark: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 21:59

[Bluff cove]

Several legal errors on the PCN.

Need to see the rest.

Legal errors? Sounds potentially promising! . Other PCN pics in OP

Please post the photographs. They are not clear enough to see the detail in the entry markings or the traffic sign. TRO is here https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/a...rity=Portsmouth PO63B

https://flic.kr/p/XBVKJ7

https://flic.kr/p/XXUxEb


Thanks bud

This post has been edited by Bluff cove: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 21:47

[Bluff cove]

Please post the photographs. They are not clear enough to see the detail in the entry markings or the traffic sign. TRO is here https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/a...rity=Portsmouth PO63B. It would appear to be a bus street but the road marking indicating "bus, taxi, (cycle symbol) only" is not an approved diagram 1048 road marking as far as I can tell from both TSRGD manual ch 5 and TSRGD 2016.

From TSRGD 2016 Sch 9 Part 6

'Diagram 1048

Traffic lane reserved for buses and other vehicles as indicated on the sign at item 8 or 10 in the sign table in Part 4'


Item 10 sign says 'Diagram 959B
Nearside with-flow bus lane, which authorised vehicles, taxis, solo motor cycles and pedal cycles'

Does that mean they are legit road markings do you think? Or should 'ONLY' not be on the road?


Also TSM Ch5 17.18 states ;

17.18 Where streets are reserved for the use of buses
only, or buses and trams, or buses and cycles, the
entry should be marked with diagram 1048.3 BUS
ONLY, 1048.2 TRAM & BUS ONLY or 1048.4 BUS
AND (cycle symbol) ONLY as appropriate.


TSRGD 2016 Sched 3 part 2
Diagram 953

(Upright Sign)

Route for use by buses, pedal cycles and taxis

only

(Alternative types)



If that helps!

This post has been edited by Bluff cove: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 - 08:19

[copper's nark]

Pg 141 para 15.32 ch 3 TSM shows the signs necessary for a bus street or gate (it isn't a bus lane) with signs to the nearside and offside but the TSRGD 2016 may have eliminated the need for two signs. It also permits a road marking 1048.3 to be varied for bus, taxi and cycle only. However, according to the TRO, it is a bus gate as it only creates the restriction going westbound. The TSRGD 2016 creates a new road marking of 1048.5 "Bus Gate" for use by buses, taxis and cycles (shown just below your 1048 diagram). The ONLY plate is not authorised for the sign. Since the TRO is dated 19/7/16, I would expect the road markings and signage to conform to the TSRGD 2016, which they don't.
It's always worth getting photographs of the approach in order to check that the advanced warning signs are there and in the correct format.

This post has been edited by copper's nark: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 - 10:49

[Bluff cove]

Pg 141 para 15.32 ch 3 TSM shows the signs necessary for a bus street or gate (it isn't a bus lane) with signs to the nearside and offside but the TSRGD 2016 may have eliminated the need for two signs. It also permits a road marking 1048.3 to be varied for bus, taxi and cycle only. However, according to the TRO, it is a bus gate as it only creates the restriction going westbound. The TSRGD 2016 creates a new road marking of 1048.5 "Bus Gate" for use by buses, taxis and cycles (shown just below your 1048 diagram). The ONLY plate is not authorised for the sign. Since the TRO is dated 19/7/16, I would expect the road markings and signage to conform to the TSRGD 2016, which they don't.
It's always worth getting photographs of the approach in order to check that the advanced warning signs are there and in the correct format.

Excellent response. Thanks buddy.

I'm going to go down there and take some pics of the Eastern entrance to that road and re-post today. Interesting that it's actually. a 'BUS GATE', I've personally never heard of that nomenclature before. The Western end has o/s and n/s signs, buses/taxis and cycles only, appears to be the 953 and has the 'only' plate underneath. That restriction pre dates the TRO of 2016 and has been there for years.

TSM Ch5

17.19 Bus gates restrict entry to one end of a street
to buses only. Beyond the gate, other vehicles may be
encountered. The entrance to a bus gate should be
marked in the same manner as a bus-only street.


Tsrgd

Sch 9 Part6

Diagram 1048.5 'Bus Gate'

Road or part of a road with access permitted only for buses and other vehicles when so indicated by any of the signs at items 10, 33 to 35 and 37 to 40 in the sign table in Part 2 of Schedule 3

[Neil B]

I'll run through the PCN when I get a mo.

[copper's nark]

The previous Order in 2015 (PO05B https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/a...ity=Portsmouth) was revoked by the 2016 Order. The 2015 Order revoked the 2013 Order (not available). I can't see a restriction for eastbound traffic within either Order but Google maps has prohibition signs on the eastbound entrance. The Order states the prohibition is "Westbound, from the junction with Anglesea Road eastbound for 52 metres." P140 ch3 TSM may explain the significance of the Motor vehicles prohibited sign on the offside of the road. The advanced warning sign (shown on p141 fig 15-14 ch3 TSM) appears to be some distance from the gate and it could be argued it should be more visible.
Although you can't use the extenuating circumstances officially to avoid a fine, I tried that once and it was rejected, they changed their tune when presented with the errors in the signage and authorisation. However, I do start with the extenuating circumstances and then go on to highlight their errors. This, I believe gives them an "out" to cancel the ticket without admitting the signs are wrong. Remember it will cost them money to change the signs or repay all the money collected. Signs are deemed to be lawful unless proven otherwise, which is why they need to be challenged.
As the Order is after the commencement of TSRGD 2016, then the road markings etc. should comply with that.

This post has been edited by copper's nark: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 - 15:23

[Bluff cove]

New photos from today, of the signage around the bus street in question. The diagram 953 pair of signs are at the West entrance to the road and the red circular 'Except buses and taxis' is on the off side facing West near the Cathedral West face. Interestingly, someone else (left of photo) did exactly what I did and probably will be getting a PCN soon

The other two are on the approach to the East end of the road, at the entrance and a little down the street n/s obscured by the foilage a bit.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/71043822@N08/shares/Z9F3K8

[Bluff cove]

The previous Order in 2015 (PO05B https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/a...ity=Portsmouth) was revoked by the 2016 Order. The 2015 Order revoked the 2013 Order (not available). I can't see a restriction for eastbound traffic within either Order but Google maps has prohibition signs on the eastbound entrance. The Order states the prohibition is "Westbound, from the junction with Anglesea Road eastbound for 52 metres." P140 ch3 TSM may explain the significance of the Motor vehicles prohibited sign on the offside of the road. The advanced warning sign (shown on p141 fig 15-14 ch3 TSM) appears to be some distance from the gate and it could be argued it should be more visible.
Although you can't use the extenuating circumstances officially to avoid a fine, I tried that once and it was rejected, they changed their tune when presented with the errors in the signage and authorisation. However, I do start with the extenuating circumstances and then go on to highlight their errors. This, I believe gives them an "out" to cancel the ticket without admitting the signs are wrong. Remember it will cost them money to change the signs or repay all the money collected. Signs are deemed to be lawful unless proven otherwise, which is why they need to be challenged.
As the Order is after the commencement of TSRGD 2016, then the road markings etc. should comply with that.

Thanks copper for taking the time to analyse this. I'm very grateful. I'm a novice to evaluating road traffic regs and there's a great amount of depth to the subject, as you know.

Yes the Eastbound entrance has been no entry to cars for decades (if I remember correctly, the road used to be called Edinburgh Road years back and no entry to all cars) so signage/ markings compliance is only relevant from the westbound approach. If I'm comprehending you correctly you cannot see any signage errors?


I'm looking into the PCN formatting now as someone else mentioned errors. I did read that the Date of notice shouldn't be on the tear slip at the bottom and that 'Date of Notice' should be mentioned too, but this Council calls it 'Date of Service's

Thanks again😁

I'll run through the PCN when I get a mo.

Cheers

[copper's nark]

Only thing I can suggest is that legend 1048.5 Bus Gate should be used since the Order was made after TSRGD 2016 came into force and the ONLY plate under the traffic sign is not permitted with the sign. I don't know if the bus taxi cycle only legend is still approved. No harm in asking - get it in early and lock in the discount period.

[Bluff cove]

Only thing I can suggest is that legend 1048.5 Bus Gate should be used since the Order was made after TSRGD 2016 came into force and the ONLY plate under the traffic sign is not permitted with the sign. I don't know if the bus taxi cycle only legend is still approved. No harm in asking - get it in early and lock in the discount period.

Where's the regs relating to the ONLY plate not being permitted with sign 953 mate?

Thanks Copper. Yes I'm going to submit formal reps online in a day or so. I'll wait for another members comment on the PCN layout first. I churlishly chuckled when I saw the other car do the same today when I was down there. Bit schadenfreude though. I also noticed what appears to be a cop car in the council images of the contravention laying in wait nearside at the western edge of the junction near the traffic lights, take a look! Perhaps trapping people and alerting a time stamp for offences to the control room staff to identify if it's unmanned. Pretty cynical.

I was also thinking about mentioning that an option according to TSM Ch 3 diagram 15.13 is to have a 616 sign on the traffic island? I definitely would have taken more notice. Not sure whether that's guidance or mandatory. Also the arrow pointing right, to the railings is not really professional. I had to reverse back today as I couldn't do the u turn it's so tight. Not great for buses if they were behind me!

This post has been edited by Bluff cove: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 - 08:44

[Mad Mick V]

Before you do any more research on lines and signs read up on substantial compliance.

An adjudicator is likely to take the line "was the driver aware, from the signage, that there was a prohibition" "was it adequate enough to convey the prohibition?" In this respect I would doubt minor issues with lines and signs would find favour.

Neil's comments on defective documentation are likely to be the key to any appeal grounds. For instance they say they will issue a charge certificate when the legislation says may. Thus they can be accused of withholding their discretion.

Mick

[Bluff cove]

Before you do any more research on lines and signs read up on substantial compliance.

An adjudicator is likely to take the line "was the driver aware, from the signage, that there was a prohibition" "was it adequate enough to convey the prohibition?" In this respect I would doubt minor issues with lines and signs would find favour.

Neil's comments on defective documentation are likely to be the key to any appeal grounds. For instance they say they will issue a charge certificate when the legislation says may. Thus they can be accused of withholding their discretion.

Mick

Thanks for the input and taking the time to peruse the documents.

'Substantial compliance' has to be a sliding scale of subjectivity so it's surely a grey area. Unless it's defined with a word like 'reasonable' which again means different things to different people. I understand the import of your remarks though. My 'substantial' may be someone else's insubstantial or insignificant!

Personally, I think there was sufficient signage to relay a prohibition but it could have been improved with a 616 sign on the traffic island. To me that would have made my brain think more urgently and instinctively to stop due to it's visual impact. However, the road layout pointing into the Cathedral's railings is bizarre in my opinion. There was absolutely no malice or intention to contravened. By the time I'd processed the signage and it's meaning I'd passed the traffic island and it was too late. No-one's a computer and my brain was lagging a bit because of the upset I mentioned. There didn't used to be a camera there. Obviously it's a cashcow for them now.

,

It's not even possible to do a u-turn without doing a 3 pointer in my wide wheel based car. Pretty crazy.

This post has been edited by Bluff cove: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 - 08:38

[Neil B]

Sorry, I'm not likely to post in detail until tonight.

Meanwhile, Mick has mentioned one of the points which has frequently been a winner on its own.

On others, for now, can I just leave you with some questions:-

The PCN is deemed, by law, to have been served two working days after posting.

Please tell me the last dates on which >

> You may pay at the discounted rate,

> You may pay at the full rate.

> Your representations should reach the Council.

These are not trick questions; don't second guess or try to be clever.
The PCN should tell you.

Back later.

[Bluff cove]

Sorry, I'm not likely to post in detail until tonight.

Meanwhile, Mick has mentioned one of the points which has frequently been a winner on its own.

On others, for now, can I just leave you with some questions:-

The PCN is deemed, by law, to have been served two working days after posting.

Please tell me the last dates on which >

> You may pay at the discounted rate,

> You may pay at the full rate.

> Your representations should reach the Council.

These are not trick questions; don't second guess or try to be clever.
The PCN should tell you.

Back later.

Thanks for coming back. To answer your questions.

Please tell me the last dates on which >

> You may pay at the discounted rate, 12th September

> You may pay at the full rate. 26th September

> Your representations should reach the Council. 26th September


Cheers

[Neil B]

Please tell me the last dates on which >

> You may pay at the discounted rate, 12th September

> You may pay at the full rate. 26th September

> Your representations should reach the Council. 26th September

and you are completely correct --- but the PCN isn't.

PCN served Wednesday 30th Aug.

The correct periods all begin on the date of service. So that's the first day you count.

On the PCN, their first description of 28 days, referring to either payment or reps, is correct.

Then they say "must be paid 28 days from the date of service --"
In English, this isn't even a period, it's a single day surely? And, with that wording, actually equates to one day
after the correct 28 days finishes because, arguably, 'from' would count starting on the day after service.
Why? In common parlance, a week (7 days) from today is next Thursday: In legal terms, 7 days beginning
today ends next Wednesday.

Then we have, prominent in italic caps, "WITHIN 14 DAYS OF".
This equates to one day too many slightly more so.

Then, similarly, "NEITHER OF THESE THINGS WITHIN 28 DAYS FROM", same problem.
This time in bold caps.

So there is potentially great confusion over the periods in which you should act.

This is far worse than just using the wrong wording for everything, as some do: The variety, from correct to
wrong, to wrong again with a third version and the use of type styles, is all very relevant.

Relevant to ---- the High Court, where it has been clearly ruled there needs to be clarity of timescales.
Justice Jackson in the case colloquially known as 'Moses vs Barnet'.

---
So hang on, they're allowing me more time - that's good isn't it?

No - because >

> They probably aren't. The draftsman of the PCN is not the person programming the computer that instigates
progression of enforcement. Any recipient is at risk of acting too late.

> The law requires that the PCN tells you the periods accurately. It can be ruled invalid if it doesn't.

--
On the matter of the PCN possibly giving you extra time, Justice Jackson, in the same case, was not so supportive as some
think. He did not have to rule on it but expressed a negative view (as I read it).
It doesn't matter because he did rule, as I said, on the need for clarity, so clearly missing here.
Even if it arose, I've got stuff ready, I've never had to use yet, to argue the t1ts off it.

I'll link/list the relevant parts of legislation later.
The key adjudication of Al's Bar v Wandsworth is also very relevant to the poor wording.

Now we need to take time to decide how to present this - as concisely as possible.

--

And there's more on the other pages. At least one strong point to be included.

Laterz.

This post has been edited by Neil B: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 - 21:14

[Bluff cove]

Please tell me the last dates on which >

> You may pay at the discounted rate, 12th September

> You may pay at the full rate. 26th September

> Your representations should reach the Council. 26th September

and you are completely correct --- but the PCN isn't.

PCN served Wednesday 30th Aug.

The correct periods all begin on the date of service. So that's the first day you count.

On the PCN, their first description of 28 days, referring to either payment or reps, is correct.

Then they say "must be paid 28 days from the date of service --"
In English, this isn't even a period, it's a single day surely? And, with that wording, actually equates to one day
after the correct 28 days finishes because, arguably, 'from' would count starting on the day after service.
Why? In common parlance, a week (7 days) from today is next Thursday: In legal terms, 7 days beginning
today ends next Wednesday.

Then we have, prominent in italic caps, "WITHIN 14 DAYS OF".
This equates to one day too many slightly more so.

Then, similarly, "NEITHER OF THESE THINGS WITHIN 28 DAYS FROM", same problem.
This time in bold caps.

So there is potentially great confusion over the periods in which you should act.

This is far worse than just using the wrong wording for everything, as some do: The variety, from correct to
wrong, to wrong again with a third version and the use of type styles, is all very relevant.

Relevant to ---- the High Court, where it has been clearly ruled there needs to be clarity of timescales.
Justice Jackson in the case colloquially known as 'Moses vs Barnet'.

---
So hang on, they're allowing me more time - that's good isn't it?

No - because >

> They probably aren't. The draftsman of the PCN is not the person programming the computer that instigates
progression of enforcement. Any recipient is at risk of acting too late.

> The law requires that the PCN tells you the periods accurately. It can be ruled invalid if it doesn't.

--
On the matter of the PCN possibly giving you extra time, Justice Jackson, in the same case, was not so supportive as some
think. He did not have to rule on it but expressed a negative view (as I read it).
It doesn't matter because he did rule, as I said, on the need for clarity, so clearly missing here.
Even if it arose, I've got stuff ready, I've never had to use yet, to argue the t1ts off it.

I'll link/list the relevant parts of legislation later.
The key adjudication of Al's Bar v Wandsworth is also very relevant to the poor wording.

Now we need to take time to decide how to present this - as concisely as possible.

--

And there's more on the other pages. At least one strong point to be included.

Laterz.

Hey Neil. Thanks so much for taking the time to analyse my case and offer some comprehensive ideas about challenging the PCN. Being cognizant of the pertinent legislation and cases will hopefully be critical in getting this one over turned. It's really illuminating how, to an experienced the eye, the defectively formatted PCN can be so sloppily constructed. These documents surely should be water tight and composed by a lawyer to or technical author, something to chew on though!

I actually thought it was nonsensical English when it says 'must be paid 28 days from the period of service' you're right, that means I have to pay on 26th September only! What if I have food poisoning on that day! I just didn't realised the potentiality of invalidation. All these cases are basically investigations into law, language and procedure! Woolly language is not adequate!

The Italics section says 'within 14 days from' not 'of' so makes more sense which would mean 12 September.

Ok. Yes I'll give some thought about construction of a concise draft and would like to submit online in the next few days if possible. I will still include my extenuating circumstances and signage remarks but de-prioritise them as supplementary. I'm feeling a bit more sanguine now!

Any relevant last links comments (you mentioned the other pages) would be happily received when you have a moment. Thanks again.


I deffo think that cop car was there to catch punters out!

Merci!

This post has been edited by Bluff cove: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 - 12:09