Review of Adjudicator's Decision, Nelson Mandela Bus Gate |
Review of Adjudicator's Decision, Nelson Mandela Bus Gate |
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 17:17
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 70 Joined: 7 Feb 2018 From: Glasgow Member No.: 96,389 |
Hi all,
was snapped by Glasgow City Council (GCC) in 2016 going through the alleged Bus Gate at West George Street into Nelson Mandela Place. Subsequently went to appeal where my main argument was the signage used and its position. The Adjudicator decided against me and I have since requested a review of the Adjudicators decision which has been granted. Almost at the stage where the case will be sent to the reviewing Adjudicator, would be happy to post the details and previous decision notice if it is of interest and wouldn't prejudice my case. This post has been edited by southpaw82: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 17:21 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 17:17
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 00:58
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 70 Joined: 7 Feb 2018 From: Glasgow Member No.: 96,389 |
Nothing about the road markings? they have added a one way sign and camera sign without permission that causes clutter. The road marking is wrong. What is an authorized vehicle? Where is the advanced warning sign? We need so see the full auth' including the 'map'. Authorised Vehicle is defined in the definitions of the TRO as a "private hire vehicle", I will upload all information as required, as I understand it in the Nottingham bus lane/pedestrian crossing the advance signs were ruled to be for information only. In my own case I travelled down West Nile street and turned left into West George Street and into Nelson Mandela Place. The wording of the TRO is strange, travelling down West Nile Street so as to enter Nelson Mandela Place, given that West George Street is in the middle between them its not physically possible to drive down west Nile Street so as to enter Nelson Mandela Place, even with a stretch limo. As I drove down West Nile Street at quarter to 7, the road markings were obscured by parked vehicles because the single yellow line next to them allowed cars to park after 6 pm, have shown the pictures of this to the Adjudicator but it did not even merit a reply. |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 01:05
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 353 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,634 |
how is the driver supposed to know what an AV is?
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 01:14
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
how is the driver supposed to know what an AV is? That's easy; they'll know if they are one. -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 08:25
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
How a "prohibition of entry" Order morphs into a bus lane defeats me.
The only reason that the enforcement under the bus lane legislation can take place is that there is an underlying Order which specifies a bus lane/bus gate. The above Order has an exemption for buses but that does not make it a bus lane. The signage approved by Ministers further complicates matters by being based on a 953 but that does not accord with what the Order states--a prohibition on entry. Perhaps the OP should read up on the Lendal Bridge case where, in a Review of the adjudicators decision, it was stated:- "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". That said the "exemption list" was large in that case. Last, I don't know if W George Street was an addition to the original Order but if we have a prohibition of entry then the Council has to consider Sect 122 of the RTRA 1984 and there is the possibility of them having vitiated the need for consultation. This case gives a good interpretation of the Sect 122 issue:- http://www.alrc.co.uk/downloads/Marsden_2_judgment.pdf Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 09:23 |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 09:24
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 353 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,634 |
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 10:00
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
how is the driver supposed to know what an AV is? That's easy; they'll know if they are one. From the sign? LOL. Do you ever see doors marked 'staff only', 'authorised personnel only', 'women', 'men' ? Do you know which ones you can enter? It's a ridiculous argument. -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 10:02
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 353 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,634 |
someone knows if they are staff or not, they have a contract, how does a motorist know who is and who is not authorised from the sign?
simple question. |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 10:18
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Unless OP is claiming to have been driving an authorised vehicle or that the authorised vehicle part confused, any discussion on that is irrelevant.
I cannot see either of those claims being made. I can see a sign that is on the face of it authorised by Transport for Scotland. I can see additional signs that IMO do not alter or weaken that authority except possibly by sign clutter. Argument that OP has put forward is that TS have acted outside their authority in authorising signs. Adjudicator disagreed. That is a potential error in law. Now prove it or at least lay out the basis why TS exceeded their remit. AFAIK, TS like DFT have blanket authority to authorise non standard signage. It will need digging through the relevant legislation to find limits on that authority TSRGD 2016 part 1(4) would seem to preclude anything in respect of that legislation. TSRGD 2002 Section 2(8) has same/similar wording. Which leaves me at a loss on how TS exceeded their bounds. The 5m placement is irrelevant unless OP can show that the signs were outside the 5m limit. Even then substantial compliance comes to mind. Argument that 5m could have seen signs placed around corner is irrelevant. What is counts, not what if. |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 10:54
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
how does a motorist know who is and who is not authorised from the sign? Because he/she would have prior knowledge if he/she was authorised? If i see a sign that says "authorised vehicles only" and i know i have not been given any special autrhorisation, then i would assume i am prohibited. And that who might be authorised is of no consequence to me. This post has been edited by peterguk: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 11:08 -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 11:03
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 70 Joined: 7 Feb 2018 From: Glasgow Member No.: 96,389 |
How a "prohibition of entry" Order morphs into a bus lane defeats me. The only reason that the enforcement under the bus lane legislation can take place is that there is an underlying Order which specifies a bus lane/bus gate. The above Order has an exemption for buses but that does not make it a bus lane. The signage approved by Ministers further complicates matters by being based on a 953 but that does not accord with what the Order states--a prohibition on entry. Perhaps the OP should read up on the Lendal Bridge case where, in a Review of the adjudicators decision, it was stated:- "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". That said the "exemption list" was large in that case. Last, I don't know if W George Street was an addition to the original Order but if we have a prohibition of entry then the Council has to consider Sect 122 of the RTRA 1984 and there is the possibility of them having vitiated the need for consultation. This case gives a good interpretation of the Sect 122 issue:- http://www.alrc.co.uk/downloads/Marsden_2_judgment.pdf Mick I had already had a quick look at the Coppergate/ Lendal Bridge but need to study it, the addition of Sch 44a Nelson Mandela Place is an amendment to the original order, as I understand it theres are requirement in the advertising to specify the length of road to which the prohibition relates. The wording of the TRO is a all the road in Coloumn 1 i.e. West George Street travelled along so as to enter Coloumn 2, Nelson Mandela place. From this the bus lane is of varying lengths depending on where on West George street you joined it, even if others travelled down the same section and did not comitt a contravention of being in a bus lane by entering Nelson Mandela Place, all of the road travelled becomes a bus lane. |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 11:49
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Can we wind back a bit.
Has the adjudicator established the legal framework correctly? I'm not convinced. TSRGD 2016 came into effect on 22 April 2016. This contravention was dated 28 April. As all issues regarding authorisation etc. pre-date 28 April, the issue therefore relates to transitional and savings provisions regarding which I can see nothing in the adj's decision, even worse the adj uses 'TSRGD' in quotes but the decision fails to define it thus leaving the reader somewhat lost. |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 11:57
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
.......As all issues regarding authorisation etc. pre-date 28 April, the issue therefore relates to transitional and savings provisions regarding which I can see nothing in the adj's decision, even worse the adj uses 'TSRGD' in quotes but the decision fails to define it thus leaving the reader somewhat lost. Surely authorisations come under TSRGD 2002 ? Which as far as I can see, includes the blanket "8. Nothing in these Regulations shall be taken to limit the powers of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales under section 64(1) and (2) of the 1984 Act(1) to authorise the erection or retention of traffic signs of a character not prescribed by these Regulations. " http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/31...gulation/8/made I accept the adjudicator could have been far clearer but cannot see that they erred. |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 12:36
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 70 Joined: 7 Feb 2018 From: Glasgow Member No.: 96,389 |
Can we wind back a bit. Has the adjudicator established the legal framework correctly? I'm not convinced. TSRGD 2016 came into effect on 22 April 2016. This contravention was dated 28 April. As all issues regarding authorisation etc. pre-date 28 April, the issue therefore relates to transitional and savings provisions regarding which I can see nothing in the adj's decision, even worse the adj uses 'TSRGD' in quotes but the decision fails to define it thus leaving the reader somewhat lost. I'll post more tonight when I get home, the TRO was issued under RTRA 1984, the non-prescribed sign authorisation is issued under RTRA 1984 also and uses signs which it says are from TSRGD 2002 and overall the authorisation continues until it is revoked. In my various letters back and forth GCC replies to me that they accept that TSRGD 2002 is the relevant legislation and not TSRGD 2016. The Adjudicator did not rule that my points about the signs were wrong she said any examination was time barred due to RTRA 1967 and there was likely to be a presumption of regularity. |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 12:38
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Unclear? Opaque more like it
We cannot know to which TSRGD the adj is referring because they haven't said which one. We should not have to guess as in 'surely it must ....'. Therefore what is or is not a prescribed sign must be unclear. And if the adj is referring to TSRGD 2016 in the context of signs and directions issued pre-2016 then IMO they must state clearly in their reasoning why the transitional provisions apply. This post has been edited by hcandersen: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 15:54 |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 13:03
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Unclear? Opaque more like it We cannot know to which TSRGD the adj is referring because they haven't said which one. We should not have to guess as in 'surely it must ....'....... But is still only IMO an indication that the adjudicator erred in law and thus a review would be appropriate. After that, the need is to show why the signs cannot be regarded as authorised or are otherwise wrong. Inadequate is not enough, that is a decision the original adjudicator is entitled to make, the signs must be unauthorised or plain wrong. And that is where I get stuck. This post has been edited by DancingDad: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 13:03 |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 16:06
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Let me put it another way:
The adj relies for their reasoning on 'TSRGD'; The adj does not define 'TSRGD'; Therefore absent anything which clearly ties the legal points to relevant legislation, IMO the written decision must be falsely or at best unsoundly reasoned - the adj cannot make a finding of fact which depends upon an unknown, and potentially repealed, legal basis. I've gone as far as I can with this point. On the basis of what we know ( bearing in mind that most of the evidence is not available and we only have the adj's summary to rely on) I do not see other substantive grounds because it is not a rehearing and therefore the OP is prevented from arguing the points again or introducing new evidence or arguments which were known at the time of the first decision. This post has been edited by hcandersen: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 16:07 |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 17:19
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Let me put it another way: The adj relies for their reasoning on 'TSRGD'; The adj does not define 'TSRGD'; Therefore absent anything which clearly ties the legal points to relevant legislation, IMO the written decision must be falsely or at best unsoundly reasoned - the adj cannot make a finding of fact which depends upon an unknown, and potentially repealed, legal basis. Which are all excellent reasons to use when requesting a review. But as the OP has already had a review granted, cannot see how they help? I've gone as far as I can with this point. On the basis of what we know ( bearing in mind that most of the evidence is not available and we only have the adj's summary to rely on) I do not see other substantive grounds because it is not a rehearing and therefore the OP is prevented from arguing the points again or introducing new evidence or arguments which were known at the time of the first decision. All I got is questions. Like how can we show signs are unlawfully authorised when what seems to be the relevant legislation (TSRGD2002) specifically does not limit Transport for Scotland and the 1984 Act allows ? |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 20:38
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 70 Joined: 7 Feb 2018 From: Glasgow Member No.: 96,389 |
Having trouble posting will add in small chunks
1571 main 1571 pg 3 1571 pg 5 1571 pg 7 |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 20:39
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 353 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,634 |
Unless OP is claiming to have been driving an authorised vehicle or that the authorised vehicle part confused, any discussion on that is irrelevant. I cannot see either of those claims being made. I can see a sign that is on the face of it authorised by Transport for Scotland. I can see additional signs that IMO do not alter or weaken that authority except possibly by sign clutter. Argument that OP has put forward is that TS have acted outside their authority in authorising signs. Adjudicator disagreed. That is a potential error in law. Now prove it or at least lay out the basis why TS exceeded their remit. AFAIK, TS like DFT have blanket authority to authorise non standard signage. It will need digging through the relevant legislation to find limits on that authority TSRGD 2016 part 1(4) would seem to preclude anything in respect of that legislation. TSRGD 2002 Section 2(8) has same/similar wording. Which leaves me at a loss on how TS exceeded their bounds. The 5m placement is irrelevant unless OP can show that the signs were outside the 5m limit. Even then substantial compliance comes to mind. Argument that 5m could have seen signs placed around corner is irrelevant. What is counts, not what if. You are wrong. The sign MUST convey the restriction etc. or it is not lawfully placed. According to the OP a private hire vehicle is an 'Authorised vehicle(s)'. How does a private hire driver know from the sign if his vehicle is an Authorised vehicle? The sign makes no mention of private hire. So it cant. This really is simple stuff. The fact that the sign has a TS authorisation is irrelevant. The OP had no reason to believe that his vehicle was not authorised, so blame cannot be attached to him. What happens to a private hire driver from, say, Belfast? Is he supposed to know if he is Authorised? Did the council send a letter to every PH driver in the EU? No, so how does anyone know? |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 20:46
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 70 Joined: 7 Feb 2018 From: Glasgow Member No.: 96,389 |
1634 main
1634 pg 2 1634 pg 3 1634 pg 4 1634 pg 5 1634 pg 6 1634 pg 7 1634 pg 8 nelson email pg 1 nelson email pg 2 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 21:31 |