PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bus Lane Penalty Charge Notice Oxford Rd Manchester, But doesn't look like a bus lane!
Umtwebby
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 20:17
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 427
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,283



First of two incidents in a week at my house.

Son driving a mini received a bus lane Penalty Charge Notice:

Being in a bus lane (during the hours of operation of the bus lane). Location – Oxford Road (Nelson Street to Hathersage Road. This in Manchester outside the Manchester Royal Infirmary.

Detection date is 22 October 2017 at 12:06pm. Date of Penalty Charge Notice is 16 November 2017 (service is stated as being 18 November 2017).

Google view: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4622658,-...3312!8i6656

Although the signs cannot be seen properly, the signs at the opposite end of this stretch of road are available here and are the same signs exactly: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.459218,-2...3312!8i6656

The relevant cctv photograph is available here but please note the vehicle in the foreground which features in my son’s representation:

My son had turned left onto Oxford Road from Grafton Street approximately 70 yards previously. The GSV has loads of road works which are not there now. He was behind the taller vehicle which I think is a ford possible C-max. As they approached the area the ford indicated and pulled over to the kerb side effectively blocking my son’s view of the entrance to the cycle lane. He remembers seeing the prohibition sign but thought that the sign applied to prevent vehicles driving along the cycle lane although when you see it live, the likelihood is that it is not wide enough for a vehicle at the entrance. It probably could take a vehicle a few yards beyond the entrance. However he could not see the cycle lane entrance. There is a corresponding prohibition sign on the opposite side of the road.

Looking at the penalty notice , it is for a bus lane but there is no demarcation other than the red strip (presumably) that the bus lane starts and, in fact, the signs do not indicate bus lane merely prohibit vehicles between 6am and 9pm daily beyond the sign.

We will submit these representations and, if rejected, will consider a traffic tribunal. Does anyone have any observations on our chances?. I have the penalty notice in a pdf but need to redact it first and convert to JPG if it is needed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 20:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 20:42
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,114
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Another recent one here – it's a fairly new scheme:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=116872

I said in that thread that I think the signs are set too wide - a point you make.


Makes me a bit glad my son (who's up at Manchester Uni) failed his driving test.



This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 21:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umtwebby
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 12:39
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 427
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,283



Penalty Charge Notice Attached . Please see additional comments below the images:







I do have some observations. This Penalty relates to a Bus Lane Contravention. The Manchester City Council Website has the following in relation to a bus lane on their page titled Bus Lane Rules:

What does a bus lane look like and when do they operate?

Bus lanes are marked with a white line and the words "Bus Lane" marked on the road. A section of broken white lines in the bus lane means it is permitted for vehicles to cross the bus lane to turn left or into an adjacent loading bay.
Operating times vary from location to location, but a sign displaying the times of operation will be in place ahead of any bus lane.
If no times are stated, then the lane is operational 24 hours a day.


Clearly, this is not a bus lane as described by the council website and appears to be, if anything, a breach of a 'No Motor Vehicle' sign into a street where it may be intended for buses. There is no demarcation of the bus lane on the street. Is the Penalty charge issued for the correct offence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 12:50
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 263
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



The DfT has given guidance to all councils about the use of bus lane signing in Part 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual [TSM]. Chapter 15 of the guidance includes diagrams for the layout of standard bus restrictions including of relevance here, a bus only street. The guidance in the TSM does not have the force of statutory regulation but Paragraph 1.1 in Chapter 3 states:

QUOTE
The Traffic Signs Manual is intended to give advice to traffic authorities and their agents on the correct use of signs and road markings. Mandatory requirements are set out in the current version of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions. Nothing in the manual can override these... It is for Traffic Authorities to determine what signing is necessary to meet those duties although failure to follow the manual’s guidance without good reason might well lead to enforcement difficulties. In particular Adjudicators might consider such failure to be evidence that the signing was unclear. Traffic Authorities should always remember that the purpose of regulatory signs is to ensure that drivers clearly understand what restrictions or prohibitions are in force.

With that in mind, and leaving aside your representations for now, is there adequate information at the roadside or on the carriageway in Grafton Street or opposite the junction, that Oxford Road to the south is restricted with the route shown for unauthorised vehicles? Is there an advance sign in Grafton Street that includes the 619 symbol with information as to the time when the restriction is in force and the exception information? This is particularly important where the restriction is not 24 hours. Paragraph 15.29 in the TSM states this:

QUOTE
Where access to premises is required for other vehicles or where the bus only restriction does not apply at all times a sign to diagram 619 (No Motor Vehicles) with an exception plate to diagram 620 should be used.

A driver having turned onto Oxford Road from Grafton Street who is not so informed would be suddenly faced with this information, and need to quickly work out from a moving vehicle whether the restriction is in force and if an exception could apply by which point if the driver were to decide that the route ahead is not permitted the possible manoeuvres would be to stop and reverse or make a U-turn, which in traffic conditions may not be practicable—I note the reversing vehicle in the foreground which features in your son’s representation.

Is it possible when using the route your son did, that this information is available only when a vehicle is near the signs? It is not at all unreasonable for a driver to expect adequate signing not only of the restriction ahead, but how to avoid it.


--------------------
As there is nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the Universe!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 14:52
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 109
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Hi Umtwebby,
How did you appeal go or did they waive your PCN ticket, as your position and location is exactly as mine.

i appreciate your reply.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 15:02
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,456
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Thanks CYRIL

That PCN's out of time too service date is 20th---- but it had to be served by 18th.

What are they playing at?

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 18:27
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 109
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Hi Mick,
Umtwebby date was 22/10/17 and letter issued on 16/11/17 so this is 25 days from 22/1017 to 16/11/17 and the letter may have received on 17/11/17 or 20/11/17, so this works out approximate 26 days if received on 17/11/17 or 29 days if received on 20/11/17.

I Never knew about the 28 Days Rule.

I had not a reply from Umtwebby yet, to see How she/He got on with Manchester City Council.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 19:07
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,114
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (CYRIL @ Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 18:27) *
I had not a reply from Umtwebby yet, to see How she/He got on with Manchester City Council.



If you want contact a member it's best to send a private message - this sends them an email alert.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 19:31
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 109
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Thanks Stamfordman
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 20:04
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,160
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (CYRIL @ Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 18:27) *
Hi Mick,
Umtwebby date was 22/10/17 and letter issued on 16/11/17 so this is 25 days from 22/1017 to 16/11/17 and the letter may have received on 17/11/17 or 20/11/17, so this works out approximate 26 days if received on 17/11/17 or 29 days if received on 20/11/17.

I Never knew about the 28 Days Rule.

I had not a reply from Umtwebby yet, to see How she/He got on with Manchester City Council.


MMV is right.
Given contravention date of 22nd Oct, service deadline is 18th Nov.
Given date of notice and deemed service, 2nd business day after date of posting, PCN is deemed served 19th Nov...a day late.
Missing deadlines has consequences for the motorist, such as not being able to claim discount. Or a 50% increase in the penalty charge.
Consequence for the council is the PCN is void.

Use it, it is a winner.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umtwebby
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 09:27
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 427
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,283



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 20:04) *
QUOTE (CYRIL @ Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 18:27) *
Hi Mick,
Umtwebby date was 22/10/17 and letter issued on 16/11/17 so this is 25 days from 22/1017 to 16/11/17 and the letter may have received on 17/11/17 or 20/11/17, so this works out approximate 26 days if received on 17/11/17 or 29 days if received on 20/11/17.

I had not a reply from Umtwebby yet, to see How she/He got on with Manchester City Council.


MMV is right.
Given contravention date of 22nd Oct, service deadline is 18th Nov.
Given date of notice and deemed service, 2nd business day after date of posting, PCN is deemed served 19th Nov...a day late.
Missing deadlines has consequences for the motorist, such as not being able to claim discount. Or a 50% increase in the penalty charge.
Consequence for the council is the PCN is void.

Use it, it is a winner.


Thanks guys. I sort of lost this thread following the representations on behalf of my son and only sought to re-visit it after seeing the other threads on the date of service.

Unfortunately, the reps have gone in without the reference to the expired time limit which I now recognise.

Am I able to add to the reps? Should I bother at this stage as it has been 10 days since I made the reps on his behalf?

Can I still use the out of time at a TPT in the future if I didn't make the representation at the time?

Clearly a significant error at Manchester City Council.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 10:09
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,456
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP---I wouldn't wait. Tell them they have served the PCN out of time because the legislation says the 28 day deadline relates to the date of service not the date of issue.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umtwebby
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 08:30
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 427
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,283



Representations not accepted. It appears that they refused my out of time representation by providing me the law which proves the PCN was out of time!!








Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 12:41
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,202
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



See the appeal i wrote for the OP towards the end of this thread

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117139

Point 1 you would have to re word to suit your circumstances.

point 2 you need to change the days and dates

point 3 you can use verbatim if you wish
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 15:27
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 109
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Typical Council replies and they have more powers and they will just make your life harder, instead of looking at first offence, just give a warning letter.

I had the same incident outside my house, which we have limited bay and all these Disabled badge holder parks outside house, by using their family member disabled badge, so i parked in the limited bay over an hour, as i was bringing rubbish down from the loft and the traffic warden booked me , i was parked longer than 1hour. I told him the situation, it is like whacky races , as one car goes and another car comes and park or the disabled badge holder will come and leave his car their for days or weeks and no consideration for the people who has to live here.

i went to the appeal and i lost, as i was in the wrong , as i parked more then 1 hour and the problem i an describing it is an parking issue and you need to sort it out with your Councillors and council officers. All this 15 years no Councillors nor the council officers are interested and told me move house, typical replies from the Councillors.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umtwebby
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 12:15
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 427
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,283



I am currently formulating the appeal. I can see on page 1 in the notice of rejections that Manchester City Council state (my bolding):

'As you enter the bus gate there are signs and road markings to indicate the start of the bus gate and an alternative route should have been taken.'

The only road marking is a strip of pink/red tarmac across the road. Is this tarmac a road marking covered by any regulations?

There are other issues with the rejections which I need to check such as, there are no signs on the approach to the bus gate (only those at the bus gate which may be incorrectly placed) and the fact that the only warning signs are several hundred yards away from the bus gate on Grafton Street. I will need to research that further later today.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 18:18
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,456
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP --I don't know why you are taking time and effort with the lines and signs --you have a cast iron case with an out of time PCN.

The Council have not complied with the appropriate legislation and the PCN is a nullity. By all means mention the inadequate signage to the adjudicator but further research is unwarranted IMO.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umtwebby
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 11:22
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 427
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,283



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 18:18) *
OP --I don't know why you are taking time and effort with the lines and signs --you have a cast iron case with an out of time PCN.

The Council have not complied with the appropriate legislation and the PCN is a nullity. By all means mention the inadequate signage to the adjudicator but further research is unwarranted IMO.

Mick


Mick,

I sincerely appreciate the efforts you and others put into this site and your comments except the last. I note it probably took as long to answer in the way you did as it would if you answered the question I posed in relation to whether the red tarmac is a road marking.

A number of years ago I was assured by a contributor on this site that the signage in respect of a loading zone was a guaranteed win at the adjudicator when my wife parked in one. Except it wasn't. The reason why the adjudicator commented was because I mistakenly believed that, as I was guaranteed to win, I could apply for a costs order for a frivolous claim. I did not win the TPT appeal on the the guaranteed win point but I did win it on other issues that I had additionally included. The adjudicator gave me the reasons why and I reported back by PM to the contributor. I guess we both learned something that day.

What I learned was that, you should appeal on every single point in issue, just in case the one you think is 'guaranteed' comes back to bite you in the back side. You would expect that a guaranteed win such as 'out of time' would mean that the council cancel the ticket after Representations but they didn't.

I fully expect to win the out of time issue. It is listed as point 1 on my appeal. I expect that the adjudicator may well not consider any points beyond the out of time question so I might not get a response to the other issues raised. However, there are others on this forum who are communicating with me by PM as they have also fallen foul of this location. I know they are following my thread and they may need the question answering. One such person is unlikely to be out of time so the issue is very relevant to their signage representations.

The question is quite simple: Manchester City Council refer to road markings in their Notice of Rejection. The only road marking is a strip of pink/red tarmac across the road. Is this tarmac a road marking covered by any regulations?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 16:23
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,202
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Umtwebby @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 11:22) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 18:18) *
OP --I don't know why you are taking time and effort with the lines and signs --you have a cast iron case with an out of time PCN.

The Council have not complied with the appropriate legislation and the PCN is a nullity. By all means mention the inadequate signage to the adjudicator but further research is unwarranted IMO.

Mick


Mick,

I sincerely appreciate the efforts you and others put into this site and your comments except the last. I note it probably took as long to answer in the way you did as it would if you answered the question I posed in relation to whether the red tarmac is a road marking.

A number of years ago I was assured by a contributor on this site that the signage in respect of a loading zone was a guaranteed win at the adjudicator when my wife parked in one. Except it wasn't. The reason why the adjudicator commented was because I mistakenly believed that, as I was guaranteed to win, I could apply for a costs order for a frivolous claim. I did not win the TPT appeal on the the guaranteed win point but I did win it on other issues that I had additionally included. The adjudicator gave me the reasons why and I reported back by PM to the contributor. I guess we both learned something that day.

What I learned was that, you should appeal on every single point in issue, just in case the one you think is 'guaranteed' comes back to bite you in the back side. You would expect that a guaranteed win such as 'out of time' would mean that the council cancel the ticket after Representations but they didn't.

I fully expect to win the out of time issue. It is listed as point 1 on my appeal. I expect that the adjudicator may well not consider any points beyond the out of time question so I might not get a response to the other issues raised. However, there are others on this forum who are communicating with me by PM as they have also fallen foul of this location. I know they are following my thread and they may need the question answering. One such person is unlikely to be out of time so the issue is very relevant to their signage representations.

The question is quite simple: Manchester City Council refer to road markings in their Notice of Rejection. The only road marking is a strip of pink/red tarmac across the road. Is this tarmac a road marking covered by any regulations?


I read this post with dismay. You are right put in any and all reasons you can for appeal. It might well pee off the adjudicator but hey ho. And to ask advice here and the keep discussion to PM with others that could benefit from our help.

I hope these people are following your thread and that they read this.

I suggest the collective knowledge of the posters here will be of more help than a few narrowly directed PM's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umtwebby
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 18:29
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 427
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,283



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 16:23) *
QUOTE (Umtwebby @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 11:22) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 18:18) *
OP --I don't know why you are taking time and effort with the lines and signs --you have a cast iron case with an out of time PCN.

The Council have not complied with the appropriate legislation and the PCN is a nullity. By all means mention the inadequate signage to the adjudicator but further research is unwarranted IMO.

Mick


Mick,

I sincerely appreciate the efforts you and others put into this site and your comments except the last. I note it probably took as long to answer in the way you did as it would if you answered the question I posed in relation to whether the red tarmac is a road marking.

A number of years ago I was assured by a contributor on this site that the signage in respect of a loading zone was a guaranteed win at the adjudicator when my wife parked in one. Except it wasn't. The reason why the adjudicator commented was because I mistakenly believed that, as I was guaranteed to win, I could apply for a costs order for a frivolous claim. I did not win the TPT appeal on the the guaranteed win point but I did win it on other issues that I had additionally included. The adjudicator gave me the reasons why and I reported back by PM to the contributor. I guess we both learned something that day.

What I learned was that, you should appeal on every single point in issue, just in case the one you think is 'guaranteed' comes back to bite you in the back side. You would expect that a guaranteed win such as 'out of time' would mean that the council cancel the ticket after Representations but they didn't.

I fully expect to win the out of time issue. It is listed as point 1 on my appeal. I expect that the adjudicator may well not consider any points beyond the out of time question so I might not get a response to the other issues raised. However, there are others on this forum who are communicating with me by PM as they have also fallen foul of this location. I know they are following my thread and they may need the question answering. One such person is unlikely to be out of time so the issue is very relevant to their signage representations.

The question is quite simple: Manchester City Council refer to road markings in their Notice of Rejection. The only road marking is a strip of pink/red tarmac across the road. Is this tarmac a road marking covered by any regulations?


I read this post with dismay. You are right put in any and all reasons you can for appeal. It might well pee off the adjudicator but hey ho. And to ask advice here and the keep discussion to PM with others that could benefit from our help.

I hope these people are following your thread and that they read this.

I suggest the collective knowledge of the posters here will be of more help than a few narrowly directed PM's


Yes. I am also dismayed as it appears that I have to explain myself when all I wanted was a simple answer.

You kindly offered me a form of words for the appeal, the majority of which I am using. I am very grateful for the help. Your words provided three areas of appeal. I have changed your words slightly as the first point in my appeal is the out of time issue. One of the other points in your appeal was unique to the poster of that particular thread and related to the signage. Therefore, I wanted to edit this appeal point (as you indicated I should do to fit my circumstances) so I sought information about the signage including the road markings. I did not realise that I wasn't supposed to follow your instructions.

It is perplexing that I get told to concentrate on the sole point relating to the out of time issue by one of the posts and seemingly that you support this point of view particularly, as described above, you pointed me towards a three point appeal. I will restrict my third argument to the use of the word 'from' instead of 'beginning with' as you have described for me in the text provided. These three areas are my 'every single point in issue' which, coincide in subject with the three points in your appeal on the other thread. I certainly don't want to pee off the adjudicator so perhaps you could just confirm whether, in providing a three point appeal, I should only use one, two or all three of the points you kindly provided.

Furthermore, I wonder why you think that the other persons haven't actually created threads on this forum. They are reading this thread and asking advice on their own threads. Perhaps we should all ask exactly the same question on each thread. Alternatively, you could answer my question and the other OP's can see whether the answer I receive applies to their thread. Unless, of course, they are not allowed to ask this question because they also can make the out of time appeal.

On a final point, regarding the PM's behind the scene. They are of a general nature such as whether we had received the response to our representations, the date by which we should receive the response to our representations; Am I going to appeal if my representations are rejected? etc. We certainly aren't conducting a secret discussion about this particular bus lane.

Once again, thank you for your help. It was much appreciated. I'll leave it with you as I certainly don't wish to offend anyone's sensibilities.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 17th August 2018 - 07:45
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.