Old Broad Street, near Liverpool Street Station has had some restrictions imposed due to Crossrail work.
These restrictions have generated about half of all of the City of London's appeals to PaTAS.
PaTAS appear confused allowing about half and disallowing half of these appeals. Some examples below:
Christopher Raynor
09 Feb 2012
120196328
Refused
…the sign had to be in substantial compliance with the statutory specification, and not such as to mislead or fail to inform the motorist ...". I am satisfied that the City of London signs satisfy that test, and that they have demonstrated that a contravention occurred.
Carl Teper
17 May 12
2120344298
Allowed
This location appears to be attracting a disproportionate number of appeals to the Adjudicator, and whilst this of its own is not a ground of appeal, I find that it supports the Appellant's defence and my finding that the overall signage is inadequate and causing much confusion to too many motorists.
Anju Kaler
Contravention Date: 25 May 12
2120370899
Refused
I am satisfied from the evidence before me that the signs are in place and they comply with the requirements of the Traffic Signs and Regulations and General Directions 2002.
Michael Nathan
Contravention Date: 28 May 12
2120380586
Allowed
In this case, I am not satisfied that the signage is legally compliant and find that it cannot be enforced.
Michael Nathan
Contravention Date:
06 June 2012
Allowed
In this case, I am not satisfied that the signage is legally compliant and find that it cannot be enforced.
Gerald Styles
Contravention Date: 6 June 12
212036067A
Refused
I am satisfied the signage adequately notified the restrictions.
Carl Teper
Contravention Date: 12 Jun 2012
212037667A
Refused
I find that the signage at this location is clear enough to indicate the restriction on motor vehicles.
Carl Teper
Contravention Date: 25 Jun 2012
Allowed
This location appears to be attracting a disproportionate number of appeals to the Adjudicator, and whilst this of its own is not a ground of appeal, I find that it supports the Appellant's defence and my finding that the overall signage is inadequate and causing much confusion to far too many motorists.
John Lane
Contravention Date: 12 July 12
2120432839
Refused
Therefore substantial compliance with the statutory specification in the TSRGD suffices as long as the signage adequately informs the motorist and does not mislead. I am not persuaded that the signs were not there or were misleading.
Michael Nathan
Contravention Date: 13 July 12
2120430276
Allowed
The Enforcement Authority's case is dependent on the additional lower panel on the second set of signs qualifying a loading exemption, and giving a clear indication that it also disapplied a picking up and setting down exemption for taxis. It cannot possibly do so in my view.
