Bus lane penalty (Manchester) - how long to wait for appeal?
Discussion
Have had a bus lane penalty in Manchester (Portland St, existing New Yk St, its badly signed - but that's a debate for another day!) a few weeks back.
Lodged the appeal via the Manchester council website (because it's free to ask for forgiveness, and because it's badly signed - arguably not a bus lane but a "no motor vehicles" road with numerous exceptions which the council are not able to enforce, maybe).
So, question is, the appeal confirmation says to wait 21 working days for their response, and if no response to contact them (essentially chase them to respond). Is there a time limit on their response? Do I have to do that chasing?
Logically, I will email them (already have a reminder set in the calendar to do so) because I think that not doing so would result in further potential wallet-ache - but wanted opinions on whether it's reasonable for them to try to lay responsibility on me to chase them to reject my appeal (which is what I expect to happen, given they fine so many drivers on that road each day!).
Lodged the appeal via the Manchester council website (because it's free to ask for forgiveness, and because it's badly signed - arguably not a bus lane but a "no motor vehicles" road with numerous exceptions which the council are not able to enforce, maybe).
So, question is, the appeal confirmation says to wait 21 working days for their response, and if no response to contact them (essentially chase them to respond). Is there a time limit on their response? Do I have to do that chasing?
Logically, I will email them (already have a reminder set in the calendar to do so) because I think that not doing so would result in further potential wallet-ache - but wanted opinions on whether it's reasonable for them to try to lay responsibility on me to chase them to reject my appeal (which is what I expect to happen, given they fine so many drivers on that road each day!).
Manchester CC are taking 8-10 weeks to reply to me at the moment. Which is still better than Camden who are working on 12 weeks turnaround.
I did suggest to one of them that they are issuing too many tickets if they can't deal with the appeal workload. I forgot they are not employed for their sense of humour....
Even if you call them up for progress, they will just say it will be dealt with when we get to it. If you have appealed within the 14 days and it is subsequently rejected, you will still get the offer of a 14 day early payment discount
I did suggest to one of them that they are issuing too many tickets if they can't deal with the appeal workload. I forgot they are not employed for their sense of humour....
Even if you call them up for progress, they will just say it will be dealt with when we get to it. If you have appealed within the 14 days and it is subsequently rejected, you will still get the offer of a 14 day early payment discount
10 weeks!? That's ridiculous.
My main complaint is that when turning left out it NY street, it's not immediately obvious to a non-local that you have to then IMMEDIATELY turn right off the main road - but I've also mentioned in the appeal that the road-markings and signage don't appear to be compliant with the rules for bus lanes, and that the council cannot enforce "no motor vehicles" with CCTV. I've resisted claiming to be "loading" (an acceptable exception) because I won't fib.
My main complaint is that when turning left out it NY street, it's not immediately obvious to a non-local that you have to then IMMEDIATELY turn right off the main road - but I've also mentioned in the appeal that the road-markings and signage don't appear to be compliant with the rules for bus lanes, and that the council cannot enforce "no motor vehicles" with CCTV. I've resisted claiming to be "loading" (an acceptable exception) because I won't fib.
tigger1 said:
So, question is, the appeal confirmation says to wait 21 working days for their response, and if no response to contact them (essentially chase them to respond). Is there a time limit on their response? Do I have to do that chasing?
I can't find any time limit in the relevant legislation - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/conte...Unlike parking contraventions where there is a 56 day time limit.
Why the legislators didn't see fit to impose the same limit for bus lane contraventions can only be guessed at.
tigger1 said:
Logically, I will email them (already have a reminder set in the calendar to do so) because I think that not doing so would result in further potential wallet-ache - but wanted opinions on whether it's reasonable for them to try to lay responsibility on me to chase them to reject my appeal (which is what I expect to happen, given they fine so many drivers on that road each day!).
The LA is under a statutory duty to respond. AFAICS there is nothing in the legislation which compels the RK chase it up.So I see no reason not to shelve it until you get a notice which will either be of cancellation or rejection. Most likely the latter.
The legislation prescribes what a rejection notice must contain. Any appeal to the TPT must be submitted in writing.
The time limit for that is specified in Section 14.
In the meantime do as silverfoxcc said.
OP are you actually for real? As you turn left out of New York Street, the centre lane which you shouldn't drive down is coloured red and you're naturally fed into the offside lane which clearly says "Turn Right". There are also two pairs of signs which clearly show that general traffic is not allowed along Portland Street and that the carriageway is monitored by cameras.
KFP - yes. A terribly careless error. Not having been since the layout changed, and trying to find way safely out in heavy traffic, yes, had already reached those signs before noticing that I should have been going right (not straight over as in your second pic).
All the same though, those signs and markings don't (IMHO) depict a bus lane, do they?
All the same though, those signs and markings don't (IMHO) depict a bus lane, do they?
Red Devil / SilverFox - thanks for the info.
pim said:
The signs are clear no general traffic allowed.
Saying that it's easy to make a mistake because so many drivers don't take notice of signs.
Yes, as I said, now do it in an unfamiliar place in heavy traffic. I appreciate that my appeal is a Hail Mary (I'm an idiot for going through those signs - although I'm in good company apparently, they're issuing a LOT of these penalty notices) - the point being that the council cannot enforce a "no motor vehicles" exclusion, but the penalty notice they've sent is for entering a bus lane. Are those "clear" signs clearly indicating a bus lane - I say not. Saying that it's easy to make a mistake because so many drivers don't take notice of signs.
tigger1 said:
Have had a bus lane penalty in Manchester (Portland St, existing New Yk St, its badly signed - but that's a debate for another day!) a few weeks back.
If you check Google Street View you'll notice that Portland Street has changed over time.In 2015 that section did have a bus lane - https://goo.gl/maps/okXMGnX5cz72
By April 2016 it had been reconfigured - https://goo.gl/maps/YZM1ME9b8QA2
See the video in this article - http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate... - (@2:45)
The current arrangement is not a bus lane.* The signage is for a general prohibition on motor vehicles subject to certain exemptions.
Hence the Diagram 619 sign with a supplementary plate.
May I suggest you read this thread as it for the very same location.
Check out the links. In particular the FoIA one pages 7, 8, & 9. That relates to a different city but the issues mentioned in the adjudication are identical.
AFAIK Cardiff City Council is the only local authority outside London which has taken powers under Part 6 of the TMA 2004 to enforce moving traffic contraventions.**
* Manchester City Council are clearly attempting to enforce a bus lane PCN. It is interesting that there is no contravention code mentioned.
This in itself is dodgy because the one for a bus lane is 34 whereas that for a Diagram 619 breach is 52.
** i.e. other than a bus lane which is governed by different legislation. I reckon Manchester CC has dropped the ball here.
If you decide to contest it (to the TPT if the Council reject your appeal) let us know how you get on.
Red Devil said:
tigger1 said:
Have had a bus lane penalty in Manchester (Portland St, existing New Yk St, its badly signed - but that's a debate for another day!) a few weeks back.
If you check Google Street View you'll notice that Portland Street has changed over time.In 2015 that section did have a bus lane - https://goo.gl/maps/okXMGnX5cz72
By April 2016 it had been reconfigured - https://goo.gl/maps/YZM1ME9b8QA2
See the video in this article - http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate... - (@2:45)
The current arrangement is not a bus lane.* The signage is for a general prohibition on motor vehicles subject to certain exemptions.
Hence the Diagram 619 sign with a supplementary plate.
May I suggest you read this thread as it for the very same location.
Check out the links. In particular the FoIA one pages 7, 8, & 9. That relates to a different city but the issues mentioned in the adjudication are identical.
AFAIK Cardiff City Council is the only local authority outside London which has taken powers under Part 6 of the TMA 2004 to enforce moving traffic contraventions.**
* Manchester City Council are clearly attempting to enforce a bus lane PCN. It is interesting that there is no contravention code mentioned.
This in itself is dodgy because the one for a bus lane is 34 whereas that for a Diagram 619 breach is 52.
** i.e. other than a bus lane which is governed by different legislation. I reckon Manchester CC has dropped the ball here.
If you decide to contest it (to the TPT if the Council reject your appeal) let us know how you get on.
Glad I'm not the only person who thinks this isn't a bus lane though! It seems that Manchester CC will keep issuing these "bus lane" penalties regardless until somebody challenges it. Will have to weigh up the chances of successfully challenging it on further appeal against my free time. There's a weird principle at stake, despite me being in the wrong (argument about accidentally missing the signs until too late notwithstanding).
Loading is one of the exemptions on the sign. The way I read that thread is that the Council went 'no contest' at the TPT because there was evidence to support the defendant's claim.
"In light of the new information provided, ie that the appellant entered the restricted area for the purposes of loading within the restricted area, the Council no longer wish to contest this case."
Looks like the LA didn't check the footage properly and this was raised as an appeal point at the Tribunal. In which case none of the legislative issues I mentioned were ever tested before an adjudicator.
It's your call whether you want to take it all the way. The problem is that until somebody does the Council will continue to get away with its potentially unlawful enforcement and the imposition of corresponding penalties. If motorists are expected to observe strict compliance with rules and regulations, the least we can expect is that Councils are held to the same standard. I know someone who used to work in that field and he told me it was an open secret within the windowless room that the LA relied on the reluctance of people to give up any of their free time to take the Authority to task over its errors/omisssions.
Kerching!
If Manchester CC has, as I believe may be the case, made fundamental errors* then it should be made sort them out and cease imposing penalties via incorrect PCNs until it has done so. Goose and gander.
* i.e. unless something had changed since April this year it does not have the necessary powers under the TMA 2004 - see this Hansard report.
Not content with that it has compounded its mistake by the use of cameras. These can be used for bus lanes but not for other moving traffic violations.
The problem Manchester has is it isn't a bus lane, nor is it even signed as one! So it can't impose a penalty for that contravention. D'oh!
What would really interesting is sight of the relevant Traffic Order.
"In light of the new information provided, ie that the appellant entered the restricted area for the purposes of loading within the restricted area, the Council no longer wish to contest this case."
Looks like the LA didn't check the footage properly and this was raised as an appeal point at the Tribunal. In which case none of the legislative issues I mentioned were ever tested before an adjudicator.
It's your call whether you want to take it all the way. The problem is that until somebody does the Council will continue to get away with its potentially unlawful enforcement and the imposition of corresponding penalties. If motorists are expected to observe strict compliance with rules and regulations, the least we can expect is that Councils are held to the same standard. I know someone who used to work in that field and he told me it was an open secret within the windowless room that the LA relied on the reluctance of people to give up any of their free time to take the Authority to task over its errors/omisssions.
Kerching!
If Manchester CC has, as I believe may be the case, made fundamental errors* then it should be made sort them out and cease imposing penalties via incorrect PCNs until it has done so. Goose and gander.
* i.e. unless something had changed since April this year it does not have the necessary powers under the TMA 2004 - see this Hansard report.
Not content with that it has compounded its mistake by the use of cameras. These can be used for bus lanes but not for other moving traffic violations.
The problem Manchester has is it isn't a bus lane, nor is it even signed as one! So it can't impose a penalty for that contravention. D'oh!
What would really interesting is sight of the relevant Traffic Order.
Rejection received yesterday.
Refers to:
1) the vehicle was recorded in a "bus-gate"
2) ...this bus lane's lines and signs conform to the TSRGD 2002, therefore I'm satisfied that your bus lane ticket has been issued correctly.
Options are:
1) pay fine (30 pounds)
2) appeal to TPT (under the grounds that the alleged contravention didn't occur)
3) do nothing now and then pay lots more
I've just been reading a similar tale of a TPT appeal here:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t9...
which has the adjudicator's decision in it. They refer to the road-markings not HAVING to be there, but that they should be. It then goes on to compare signs 619 and 953, and the inter-changeable nature of the two.
So, in short, I'm out. Another case of I'd rather not waste the time on something for the sake of £30. Manchester is on my shi*list anyway.
Refers to:
1) the vehicle was recorded in a "bus-gate"
2) ...this bus lane's lines and signs conform to the TSRGD 2002, therefore I'm satisfied that your bus lane ticket has been issued correctly.
Options are:
1) pay fine (30 pounds)
2) appeal to TPT (under the grounds that the alleged contravention didn't occur)
3) do nothing now and then pay lots more
I've just been reading a similar tale of a TPT appeal here:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t9...
which has the adjudicator's decision in it. They refer to the road-markings not HAVING to be there, but that they should be. It then goes on to compare signs 619 and 953, and the inter-changeable nature of the two.
So, in short, I'm out. Another case of I'd rather not waste the time on something for the sake of £30. Manchester is on my shi*list anyway.
Rather than start a new thread ...
SWMBO has just received a bus lane penalty from Reading - dated 28/11 but the offence was early August ie over 3 months ago. Car is not leased, her name and address in V5 all correct and have been since March; the doc date on the V5.
So they are well outside the 28 days normally allowed to serve, and there's no reason for the DVLA not to have provided timely RK details to justify the 6 month extension allowed in law.
Is that in itself enough to have it cancelled? Do the council have to prove the DVLA didn't respond in time, or do we have to prove they did? (I've seen the standard letter to send to the DVLA on Pepipoo so will do that anyway ...)
She's 100% guilty, by the way.
SWMBO has just received a bus lane penalty from Reading - dated 28/11 but the offence was early August ie over 3 months ago. Car is not leased, her name and address in V5 all correct and have been since March; the doc date on the V5.
So they are well outside the 28 days normally allowed to serve, and there's no reason for the DVLA not to have provided timely RK details to justify the 6 month extension allowed in law.
Is that in itself enough to have it cancelled? Do the council have to prove the DVLA didn't respond in time, or do we have to prove they did? (I've seen the standard letter to send to the DVLA on Pepipoo so will do that anyway ...)
She's 100% guilty, by the way.
Nimby said:
Rather than start a new thread ...
SWMBO has just received a bus lane penalty from Reading - dated 28/11 but the offence was early August ie over 3 months ago. Car is not leased, her name and address in V5 all correct and have been since March; the doc date on the V5.
So they are well outside the 28 days normally allowed to serve, and there's no reason for the DVLA not to have provided timely RK details to justify the 6 month extension allowed in law.
Is that in itself enough to have it cancelled? Do the council have to prove the DVLA didn't respond in time, or do we have to prove they did? (I've seen the standard letter to send to the DVLA on Pepipoo so will do that anyway ...)
She's 100% guilty, by the way.
It's only the endorsable offences that have statutory time limits, the decriminalised penalties like parking and bus lanes have advisory terms, but not not mandatory. I did quite a bit of digging on this last year - it's quite hard to get a hirer to pay up 7 months after they returned the vehicle, and the local authority wouldn't transfer liability.SWMBO has just received a bus lane penalty from Reading - dated 28/11 but the offence was early August ie over 3 months ago. Car is not leased, her name and address in V5 all correct and have been since March; the doc date on the V5.
So they are well outside the 28 days normally allowed to serve, and there's no reason for the DVLA not to have provided timely RK details to justify the 6 month extension allowed in law.
Is that in itself enough to have it cancelled? Do the council have to prove the DVLA didn't respond in time, or do we have to prove they did? (I've seen the standard letter to send to the DVLA on Pepipoo so will do that anyway ...)
She's 100% guilty, by the way.
S11Steve said:
It's only the endorsable offences that have statutory time limits, the decriminalised penalties like parking and bus lanes have advisory terms, but not not mandatory...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=124... post #3 suggests statutory limits for bus lane infractions (28 days --> 6 months).What I'm not sure of is (a) whether the DVLA can just be lazy in replying to give the LA 6 months, or if there has to be a good reason (eg car leased, change of RK address etc) and (b) who has to provide the proof.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff