PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bus Lane PCN help needed please.
Manchester Chap
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 11:19
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 8 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,074



Hi all

I got a PCN last month for being in a bus lane on Buxton Road in Stockport.
The road has recently been cut through by a new bypass and a bridge created over the new road. There are properties either side of the bridge. The bridge itself is a single lane whereas the rest of the road either side is two lanes.
Prior to the bridge there are no signs on the roadside stating that there is a bus lane ahead (there are some on adjacent roads, but not visible from every approach direction).
There are no road markings stating 'BUS LANE' or lines indicating the start/finish of the lane, only stop/give way dotted junction lines on the left side before the road fileters to the bridge lane on the right hand side only.
There is a small area before the start of the single lane with a turning area and a sign saying Prohibited vehicles turn here.
Google maps which I use for SatNav sent me across the bridge, the road was completely clear at the time and I didn't .
As soon as I entered the bridge, I stopped and reversed out
Attached Image


I was on the bridge for about 5 seconds driving about 5-10 metres before I realised it was restricted and turned round to go around. The video they provided clearly shows this happening.

I appealed stating that there were no road markings, insufficient signage and that I had not crossed the bridge but turned around and left when I realised the error and had caused no obstruction to any other road user.
The appeal was rejected.
Basically saying you were in the bus lane, tough.

Should I appeal to the independent adjudicator and if so, what are the best grounds to cite?
The original PCN was dated 19/9/19, the appeal rejection dated 04/10/19 so I assume I have 28 days from 04/10/19 to pay the £30 or appeal before it goes up to £90.

Thanks for any help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 11:19
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 11:45
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Post PCN, video and rejection.

Most you can pay is £60 if following process.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 11:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 13:02
Post #3


Member


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



Do as Stamf asks this can be fought There should be a legend painted on the road " BUS GATE" or a variant. Post a GSV so I can get an idea.

Here

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3679905,-...3312!8i6656

There are AWS on all approaches on the A6. This is one

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3721221,-...3312!8i6656

The difference is though the AWS allow access the signs at the bridge do not. But regardless the road markings are mandatory



--------------------
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
Manchester Chap
post Thu, 10 Oct 2019 - 10:03
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 8 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,074



Attached Image

Attached Image

Attached Image

Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Manchester Chap
post Thu, 10 Oct 2019 - 10:14
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 8 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,074



https://youtu.be/ql0qa-5qbFw
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 10 Oct 2019 - 10:22
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



They say 'unable to cancel' which is a discretion fetter. That they say the contravention had occurred is not a reason why discretion cannot be applied here, especially for such a ridiculous thing where you reversed out almost immediately.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 - 10:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 10 Oct 2019 - 12:02
Post #7


Member


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



IMO you can win this, but you have redacted to much of the notice of rejection please post it all redacting only your name address and VRM

I'm a stockport lad but would not identify that little cresent as (old A6) as has been done on the PCN so how is someone who does not know the area supposed to know where the contravention occurred from the PCN (remember the owner would not necessarily be the driver)

The regulations do require the road markings and the advance warning signs cause confusion by allowing access


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Fri, 11 Oct 2019 - 10:34
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Are there any more pages of the PCN? I can't see where it advises the recipient of their statutory right to view the video at the council offices, which is a mandatory requirement under the regulations.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 11 Oct 2019 - 10:40
Post #9


Member


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



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 11 Oct 2019 - 11:34) *
Are there any more pages of the PCN? I can't see where it advises the recipient of their statutory right to view the video at the council offices, which is a mandatory requirement under the regulations.


It allows online viewing, TPT have generally accepted this as acceptable


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Fri, 11 Oct 2019 - 20:07
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 11 Oct 2019 - 11:40) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 11 Oct 2019 - 11:34) *
Are there any more pages of the PCN? I can't see where it advises the recipient of their statutory right to view the video at the council offices, which is a mandatory requirement under the regulations.


It allows online viewing, TPT have generally accepted this as acceptable

That's not a reason not to challenge it.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Manchester Chap
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 21:20
Post #11


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 8 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,074



Thanks for all the advice.

To answer a few of your questions, the redactions are just of my name, address and reg no. The white bits are just where I deleted dark grey areas to reduce the JPEG file size. The only page I did not put up is just the paper representations page and council's data protection information.

The PCN does not state I can view the video at council premises but does say it can be viewed on the council's website. I have no issue with he validity of the video recording and do not dispute that I drove onto the bridge, only that the road markings were missing and that by reversing out almost immediately, it was not reasonable to invoke the penalty.

The fettered discretion mentioned seems like a perfectly good approach, as Stamf says, he is removing his own discretion to waive the charge by arbitrarily deciding that the contravention cannot be judged on its circumstances.

I'll have a look at the tribunal website and put an appeal together. Will post on here for comment before I submit it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 14 Oct 2019 - 22:29
Post #12


Member


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



The strongest point you have is the missing road markings. This is an appeal section I wrote for a chap in Preston on the same ground.

QUOTE
I refer to regulation 18 of the Local authorities traffic orders (procedure) (England & Wales) regulations 1996

regulation 18 (1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—

(a )before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
regulation 18(1)(b) and © are not applicable

I contend that the TSRGD 2016 make road marking mandatory, absent these markings the restriction is not correctly signed and as such no contravention occurs.

Schedule 9 part 5 para 1 of the TSRGD 2016 says this

“The information, requirement, restriction or prohibition of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in Part 6 must be conveyed by a road marking that is of the size, colour and type shown in the diagram in column 3.”

Part 6 of the schedule is entitled Regulatory road markings. At item 15 can be found the marking ( 1048.5) “ BUS GATE” The description in column 2 being

“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
(Alternative types)”

Referring to to paragraph 1 of part 5 the term used is MUST. The use of the word must signifies a mandatory requirement

The bus gate sign (953) is found at schedule 3 part 2 items 33 to 35 as such the road marking MUST be used with that sign.
I would refer the adjudicator to the case heard at the London tribunal case number 2180198194 Where Respected adjudicator Teresa Brennan found as follows

Representations are made by Mr Dogan on the basis that the signage in Lombard Street does not comply with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The appellant refers to a decision of Adjudicator Edward Houghton appeal 2170469229. In that appeal the Adjudicator initially adjourned the appeal and asked the City of London to explain why the legend Bus Gate was not on the carriageway. The Enforcement Authority did not reply. The appeal was allowed on the basis that the requirement for the legend Bus Gate was mandatory. No application for review was made.
In this appeal the local authority argues that the legend Bus Gate is not mandatory because there is no link from the Route for Bus and Cycle Only sign in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The case summary does not refer to Schedule 9 Part 5 para 1 TSRGD 2016 which provides that the information etc. of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in Part 6 “must” be conveyed by a road marking shown in column 3. The legend bus gate is one of the items in column 3 of part 6 of Schedule 9.

Item 15 of the sign table in part 6 contains the description ” 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”.

The restricted access of that type in the present case is indicated by a (permitted variant of) a sign to Diagram 953 shown in the Schedule 3 Part 2 sign table at item 33.
I find that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 state that the bus gate legend is mandatory.
The local authority refers to a decision of Adjudicator John Lane. I am not bound by the decision of any Adjudicator. In this case I follow the decision of Adjudicator Edward Houghton.
The appellant was well aware that the restriction was in operation and to that extent the appeal has little merit. Previous Penalty Charge Notices issued to the appellant had been cancelled.
I am satisfied that the bus gate requirement is mandatory therefore I must allow this appeal.

No finding of one adjudicator is binding on another, although I submit that the findings in this case are persuasive and amenable to being followed. I ask that the adjudicator does so in this case and does order the PCN cancelled


There are other points to make as well, so don't rush in you have time


--------------------
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
Manchester Chap
post Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 13:03
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 8 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,074



Wow!, Thanks, that's great.

I just looked on the appeal website and was concerned that the only grounds I appear to have for appeal is the lack of BUS LANE road markings. This led me to think the previously mentioned discretion fetter might not apply (though I intend to include it anyway).

I have until 1st Nov to appeal so any further pointers will be gratefully received.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 13:12
Post #14


Member


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



QUOTE (Manchester Chap @ Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 14:03) *
Wow!, Thanks, that's great.

I just looked on the appeal website and was concerned that the only grounds I appear to have for appeal is the lack of BUS LANE road markings. This led me to think the previously mentioned discretion fetter might not apply (though I intend to include it anyway).

I have until 1st Nov to appeal so any further pointers will be gratefully received.


I would amend that a bit and add the other points but am committed to a couple of others so wont have time this week bmp next week and I will go through it all.


--------------------
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
Manchester Chap
post Thu, 24 Oct 2019 - 13:43
Post #15


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 8 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,074



One further question, do I need to include my original appeal evidence and the PCN video or will the Adjudicator have sight of the previous PCN and appeal evidence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 24 Oct 2019 - 13:46
Post #16


Member


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



QUOTE (Manchester Chap @ Thu, 24 Oct 2019 - 14:43) *
One further question, do I need to include my original appeal evidence and the PCN video or will the Adjudicator have sight of the previous PCN and appeal evidence?


let me look at the other points will have time tomorrow


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 15:26
Post #17


Member


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



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 24 Oct 2019 - 13:46) *
QUOTE (Manchester Chap @ Thu, 24 Oct 2019 - 14:43) *
One further question, do I need to include my original appeal evidence and the PCN video or will the Adjudicator have sight of the previous PCN and appeal evidence?


let me look at the other points will have time tomorrow


you have until the 4th of November to register your appeal, I will be tied up most of this week helping another person but if you bump the thread on Saturday I will draft an appeal for you that gets in all the legal points


--------------------
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
Manchester Chap
post Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 16:17
Post #18


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 8 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,074



I have prepared my appeal as follows: (any thoughts appreciated)

I wish to appeal on the grounds that the alleged bus lane was not properly demarcated due to the lack of correct road markings which previous adjudications have deemed mandatory and insufficient warning signage on the road in advance of the alleged bus lane. (please see attached evidence, which includes my original appeal evidence)
In addition, I also ask that consideration is given to the failure of the original appeal rejection to take account of the fact that having strayed into the alleged bus lane, I stopped and reversed out after 3 seconds, causing no disruption to any other road user. The decision to apply the PCN suggests that in denying my appeal, Mr O'Donnell imposed upon himself a discretion fetter thereby removing his own ability to show common sense discretion.

(Word doc to be attached as evidence)
I wish to appeal against the rejection of my initial appeal to overturn PCN XXXXXXXXX issued by Stockport Borough Council against me for “Being in a Bus Lane” on 11/09/2019 on Buxton Road (Old A6). This is a fairly new road layout created when the airport link road was built (which runs beneath the ‘bus lane’ bridge). At the time of the PCN this was the first time I had driven on this section of road and my Google Maps satnav did not show the restriction – I was visiting an address at the other side of the bridge for my work - (the system has since been updated to show the restriction).
I believe that the PCN is incorrect as the road in question has insufficient signage and road markings for the alleged restricted Bus Lane to be correctly differentiated from the rest of the road and therefore fails to meet the legal requirements for a bus lane to be enforceable. There is no signage on the old section of A6 Buxton Road until the single lane bridge which is claimed as the bus lane. The enforcement camera is placed before the warning signs and
https://youtu.be/z1pqq0iha0w I took this video of the A6 Buxton Road and turn onto Buxton Old Road up to the alleged bus lane on 27/10/19 (time & date stamps are incorrect). (Skip to 50 seconds for relevant start)
The only road markings are broken give-way lines as seen in the photo below.
(photo here of the start of the 'bus lane and lack of markings)
As there was no oncoming traffic to give way to I drove straight on, but stopped almost immediately I realised that the bridge was likely to be the bus lane. I then reversed back, turned around and continued my journey. (Please see the video from the original PCN https://youtu.be/ql0qa-5qbFw. In fact I had not even fully passed the signs when the video recording begins and these signs are the first on the Old Buxton Road to indicate the supposed bus lane. It is also the case that at no time did I cause any delay or hindrance to any other road user.
With regard to the lack of correct road markings, I refer to regulation 18 of the Local authorities traffic orders (procedure) (England & Wales) regulations 1996
Regulation 18 (1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a )before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
regulation 18(1)(b) and © are not applicable.
I contend that the TSRGD 2016 make road marking mandatory, absent these markings the restriction is not correctly signed and as such no contravention occurs.
Schedule 9 part 5 para 1 of the TSRGD 2016 says this

“The information, requirement, restriction or prohibition of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in Part 6 must be conveyed by a road marking that is of the size, colour and type shown in the diagram in column 3.”
Part 6 of the schedule is entitled Regulatory road markings. At item 15 can be found the marking ( 1048.5) “ BUS GATE” The description in column 2 being
“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
(Alternative types)”
Referring to paragraph 1 of part 5 the term used is MUST. The use of the word must signifies a mandatory requirement
The bus gate sign (953) is found at schedule 3 part 2 items 33 to 35 as such the road marking MUST be used with that sign.
I would refer the adjudicator to the case heard at the London tribunal case number 2180198194 Where Respected adjudicator Teresa Brennan found as follows
Representations are made by Mr Dogan on the basis that the signage in Lombard Street does not comply with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The appellant refers to a decision of Adjudicator Edward Houghton appeal 2170469229. In that appeal the Adjudicator initially adjourned the appeal and asked the City of London to explain why the legend Bus Gate was not on the carriageway. The Enforcement Authority did not reply. The appeal was allowed on the basis that the requirement for the legend Bus Gate was mandatory. No application for review was made.
In this appeal the local authority argues that the legend Bus Gate is not mandatory because there is no link from the Route for Bus and Cycle Only sign in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The case summary does not refer to Schedule 9 Part 5 para 1 TSRGD 2016 which provides that the information etc. of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in Part 6 “must” be conveyed by a road marking shown in column 3. The legend bus gate is one of the items in column 3 of part 6 of Schedule 9.
Item 15 of the sign table in part 6 contains the description ” 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”.
The restricted access of that type in the present case is indicated by a (permitted variant of) a sign to Diagram 953 shown in the Schedule 3 Part 2 sign table at item 33.
I find that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 state that the bus gate legend is mandatory.
The local authority refers to a decision of Adjudicator John Lane. I am not bound by the decision of any Adjudicator. In this case I follow the decision of Adjudicator Edward Houghton.
The appellant was well aware that the restriction was in operation and to that extent the appeal has little merit. Previous Penalty Charge Notices issued to the appellant had been cancelled.
I am satisfied that the bus gate requirement is mandatory therefore I must allow this appeal.

In rejecting my initial appeal it is stated that they are ‘unable to cancel’ which is a discretion fetter. That they say the contravention had already occurred is not a reason why discretion cannot be applied, especially when I caused no detriment to any other road user and, having realised that the restriction applied, took action to reverse and leave the bridge area after just 3 seconds.

No finding of one Adjudicator is binding on another, although I submit that the findings in this case are persuasive and amenable to being followed.

I ask that the Adjudicator takes into consideration the above precedent, inadequate signage and lack of discretion show despite my action taken to immediately reverse off the bridge into consideration and order the PCN cancelled.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 16:48
Post #19


Member


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



You must get in that the first signs you see are on the A6 and include the plate "except for access" and that you wanted access to an address on that road and that the signs at the bridge are different. That you were not expecting this difference negating the access to other vehicles so made a short incursion into the restricted zone rather than brake dangerously sharply. You reversed out straight away. this is not the mischief that the restriction was designed to prevent.

Make no mention whatever to google or to using as sat nav. Sat nav not being accurate is no defence and is usually damming when brought up as a reason for contravention


--------------------
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
Manchester Chap
post Tue, 29 Oct 2019 - 00:15
Post #20


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 8 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,074



Thanks again.

I have amended it as advised and will submit (don't want to miss the deadline)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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 - 11:12
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