Author Topic: Bus Lane Signage - "Not Legally Compliant". Same Signage "Adequate".  (Read 1217 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nigel W

  • Guest
Two different appeals. Same restriction. Same evidence. Same Appellant (Ocado Ltd.). Two different outcomes.

2120289757

"In this case, I am not satisfied that the signage is legally compliant and find that it cannot be enforced."

2120292172

"I am satisfied that the signage was adequate to convey the restriction to the motorist."

Offline The Phoenix

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Re: Bus Lane Signage - "Not Legally Compliant". Same Signage "Adequate".
« Reply #1 on: 05 July, 2012, 11:48:07 PM »
2100299918 and 2100649871:  same adjudicator yet he failed to apprehend the wording issue in the former.

2100649871 and 2110177167:  same signage, yet two different outcomes.  Who decided EH should inspect, I wonder?

More importantly, are the Bar Stewards going to reimburse?  What a silly question!  Avanti!  Re 2100649871, same wording issue was allowed in June 2010 at the "informal stage" (which does not exist for bus lane contraventions) and they changed it.  Many thousands similarly-worded PCNs were issued.
« Last Edit: 06 July, 2012, 12:45:34 AM by The Phoenix »
The Patas Monkey has a remarkably high reproductive rate, perhaps as an evolutionary response to the high adult mortality rates associated with this strongly terrestrial lifestyle.  Not to be confused with the Patas Adjudicator - a species yet to be studied.  Use extreme caution: it's  unpredictable

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player