Challenge launched on Lendal Bridge fine ruling

Lendal Bridge

Lendal Bridge

First published in News
Last updated

AN OFFICIAL has begun considering City of York Council's challenge against a ruling that it had no power to issue fines for using Lendal Bridge and Coppergate.

A Traffic Penalty Tribunal spokesman said the council had submitted an application for a review of adjudicator Stephen Knapp's decision last month, which left the council at risk of having to refund 48,000 motorists' fines.

He said a second adjudicator from the tribunal was now conducting that review, but he could not say when his or her decision would be announced.

He said that if the reviewing adjudicator upheld Mr Knapp's decision, the council would have to accept the ruling unless it decided to apply to the High Court for a judicial review - as it was entitled to do. He was unable to disclose details of the council's arguments in its application.

Mr Knapp said in February that neither of the schemes banning cars from Coppergate and Lendal Bridge could be "sensibly" described as bus lanes, meaning the authority had no power to issue a penalty charge notice.

He said there was an "inherent ambiguity" in the signs advising drivers of the Lendal Bridge restrictions, because the direction sign did not include the times of the closure.

He also found that the signing at either end of Coppergate was not adequate to reasonably alert the driver to the terms of the restriction and the signs were poorly located.

Top traffic lawyer Nick Freeman, known as 'Mr Loophole' for his success in defending celebrity clients, said the council should reimburse all penalty charges paid by motorists.

But city leaders later said that after receiving independent legal advice from a leading legal expert in the field, the council was confident both schemes were operating within the law.

However, officials warned councillors earlier this month not to spend any of the £700,000 it earned from the Lendal Bridge closure until the legal wrangle over the trial was over and the authority was certain it would not need to refund all the fine cash. The bridge has been re-opened.

Darren Richardson, director of City and Environmental Services, said: “City of York Council has written to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal to notify them that the authority is challenging their decision on Lendal Bridge and is now awaiting the outcome of that review.”

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:53am Sat 17 May 14

ouseswimmer says...

We all know the council will lose this fight. It was illegal and the council should uphold the law and pay back the fines.
We all know the council will lose this fight. It was illegal and the council should uphold the law and pay back the fines. ouseswimmer
  • Score: 3275

12:01pm Sat 17 May 14

Meirion M says...

York council councillors who have mounted this challenge about the Lendal Bridge and Coppergate mess should pay the fines from their own pockets.
The residents of York are fed up with Alexander, Merrett, Simpson et al and their antics claiming as local government.
They are a disgrace to local government.
Roll on May 2015.
York council councillors who have mounted this challenge about the Lendal Bridge and Coppergate mess should pay the fines from their own pockets. The residents of York are fed up with Alexander, Merrett, Simpson et al and their antics claiming as local government. They are a disgrace to local government. Roll on May 2015. Meirion M
  • Score: 3219

4:20pm Sat 17 May 14

inthesticks says...

Give it up CoYC, it will just cost US more money.
Give it up CoYC, it will just cost US more money. inthesticks
  • Score: 3085

4:35pm Sat 17 May 14

Cheeky face says...

The last sentence of the above article says Darren Richardson is challenging the Lendal Bridge decision. Has the Press got it wrong because in the anti-penultimate para Darren r backs up council's stance that both schemes are lawful! I will chase Mike Laycock Mon am.

I note the council web-site states that Coppergate is prohibited from 700 to 1900hrsfor a 6 month trial.commencing August but no year given, I have already ticked them off TWICE for keeping the Lendal Br trial on the site well after they caved in. Dave Merritt is still quoted on the site as being in charge of his old job!

My questioning both these concerns and the stupidly positioned Cameron gr Bus stop are still unsnswered by the council ; and even the Ombudsman is not helping me ---yet. I will have to pursue through the Customer Service Manager of the council, but am not holding my breath!.

If Coppergate signage is poor, which has been for 50 years, then no fines should have been issued by the Police - now it is getting messy!

But what about the council accepting signs could be better placed in January 2014 - then doing nothing!

One London council gave in last year and refunded half a million!

Mark Laverack's letter in the paper this week and above comments are spot on.

But what about the cross party team being assembled. The council should get that started NOW and REFUND FINES, and save further expense.
The last sentence of the above article says Darren Richardson is challenging the Lendal Bridge decision. Has the Press got it wrong because in the anti-penultimate para Darren r backs up council's stance that both schemes are lawful! I will chase Mike Laycock Mon am. I note the council web-site states that Coppergate is prohibited from 700 to 1900hrsfor a 6 month trial.commencing August but no year given, I have already ticked them off TWICE for keeping the Lendal Br trial on the site well after they caved in. Dave Merritt is still quoted on the site as being in charge of his old job! My questioning both these concerns and the stupidly positioned Cameron gr Bus stop are still unsnswered by the council ; and even the Ombudsman is not helping me ---yet. I will have to pursue through the Customer Service Manager of the council, but am not holding my breath!. If Coppergate signage is poor, which has been for 50 years, then no fines should have been issued by the Police - now it is getting messy! But what about the council accepting signs could be better placed in January 2014 - then doing nothing! One London council gave in last year and refunded half a million! Mark Laverack's letter in the paper this week and above comments are spot on. But what about the cross party team being assembled. The council should get that started NOW and REFUND FINES, and save further expense. Cheeky face
  • Score: 3322

4:48pm Sat 17 May 14

Cheeky face says...

In thesticks. Quite right. It is the country's taxpayers that pay in different degrees towards the costs.

Anyone prepared to tell the Govt team, who gave the council the funds in the first place, how good the council has been?

If the original adjudicator sought advice/confirmation within his team then the second adjudicator's decision is obvious - but the delay may be what the council want.

The council officer Ruth Stephenson agreed that 3 transgressions on successive days on Coppergate, is two-thirds refundable regardless of the appealled decision. My ex tenant was told she could not appeal.

Are there two Shambles in York? One a street and the other...............
......

Coppergate increased restricted hours were only passed to the Press and the Radio; and very badly to their web-site controller!.
In thesticks. Quite right. It is the country's taxpayers that pay in different degrees towards the costs. Anyone prepared to tell the Govt team, who gave the council the funds in the first place, how good the council has been? If the original adjudicator sought advice/confirmation within his team then the second adjudicator's decision is obvious - but the delay may be what the council want. The council officer Ruth Stephenson agreed that 3 transgressions on successive days on Coppergate, is two-thirds refundable regardless of the appealled decision. My ex tenant was told she could not appeal. Are there two Shambles in York? One a street and the other............... ...... Coppergate increased restricted hours were only passed to the Press and the Radio; and very badly to their web-site controller!. Cheeky face
  • Score: 3276

6:02pm Sat 17 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

Cheeky face wrote:
In thesticks. Quite right. It is the country's taxpayers that pay in different degrees towards the costs.

Anyone prepared to tell the Govt team, who gave the council the funds in the first place, how good the council has been?

If the original adjudicator sought advice/confirmation within his team then the second adjudicator's decision is obvious - but the delay may be what the council want.

The council officer Ruth Stephenson agreed that 3 transgressions on successive days on Coppergate, is two-thirds refundable regardless of the appealled decision. My ex tenant was told she could not appeal.

Are there two Shambles in York? One a street and the other...............

......

Coppergate increased restricted hours were only passed to the Press and the Radio; and very badly to their web-site controller!.
Unlike everyone else - I doubt the appeals adjudicator will ignore the FOI request reply from Department for Transport regarding NO Signs Authorised since 1992 for Coppergate, Lendal Bridge and City Centre Lorry and Coach Prohibitions submitted as Highly Relevant Witness Evidence of unwillingness/Inabil
ity to obtain authorisations for non standard signs and therefore use them as legally enforceable. Obviously CYC have not told their "Specialist Legal Advisers" of that lack of Authorisation.

Freedom of Information Request F0011280



Department for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry
Street
London
SW1P 4DR
Our Ref: GT51/2/2/F0011280
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: In thesticks. Quite right. It is the country's taxpayers that pay in different degrees towards the costs. Anyone prepared to tell the Govt team, who gave the council the funds in the first place, how good the council has been? If the original adjudicator sought advice/confirmation within his team then the second adjudicator's decision is obvious - but the delay may be what the council want. The council officer Ruth Stephenson agreed that 3 transgressions on successive days on Coppergate, is two-thirds refundable regardless of the appealled decision. My ex tenant was told she could not appeal. Are there two Shambles in York? One a street and the other............... ...... Coppergate increased restricted hours were only passed to the Press and the Radio; and very badly to their web-site controller!.[/p][/quote]Unlike everyone else - I doubt the appeals adjudicator will ignore the FOI request reply from Department for Transport regarding NO Signs Authorised since 1992 for Coppergate, Lendal Bridge and City Centre Lorry and Coach Prohibitions submitted as Highly Relevant Witness Evidence of unwillingness/Inabil ity to obtain authorisations for non standard signs and therefore use them as legally enforceable. Obviously CYC have not told their "Specialist Legal Advisers" of that lack of Authorisation. Freedom of Information Request F0011280 Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Street London SW1P 4DR Our Ref: GT51/2/2/F0011280 KevinWard59
  • Score: 3016

6:06pm Sat 17 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

KevinWard59 wrote:
Cheeky face wrote:
In thesticks. Quite right. It is the country's taxpayers that pay in different degrees towards the costs.

Anyone prepared to tell the Govt team, who gave the council the funds in the first place, how good the council has been?

If the original adjudicator sought advice/confirmation within his team then the second adjudicator's decision is obvious - but the delay may be what the council want.

The council officer Ruth Stephenson agreed that 3 transgressions on successive days on Coppergate, is two-thirds refundable regardless of the appealled decision. My ex tenant was told she could not appeal.

Are there two Shambles in York? One a street and the other...............


......

Coppergate increased restricted hours were only passed to the Press and the Radio; and very badly to their web-site controller!.
Unlike everyone else - I doubt the appeals adjudicator will ignore the FOI request reply from Department for Transport regarding NO Signs Authorised since 1992 for Coppergate, Lendal Bridge and City Centre Lorry and Coach Prohibitions submitted as Highly Relevant Witness Evidence of unwillingness/Inabil

ity to obtain authorisations for non standard signs and therefore use them as legally enforceable. Obviously CYC have not told their "Specialist Legal Advisers" of that lack of Authorisation.

Freedom of Information Request F0011280



Department for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry
Street
London
SW1P 4DR
Our Ref: GT51/2/2/F0011280
https://www.dropbox.
com/s/i28d8kqpzodha0
w/140429-reply%20to%
20Kevin%20Ward.pdf
[quote][p][bold]KevinWard59[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: In thesticks. Quite right. It is the country's taxpayers that pay in different degrees towards the costs. Anyone prepared to tell the Govt team, who gave the council the funds in the first place, how good the council has been? If the original adjudicator sought advice/confirmation within his team then the second adjudicator's decision is obvious - but the delay may be what the council want. The council officer Ruth Stephenson agreed that 3 transgressions on successive days on Coppergate, is two-thirds refundable regardless of the appealled decision. My ex tenant was told she could not appeal. Are there two Shambles in York? One a street and the other............... ...... Coppergate increased restricted hours were only passed to the Press and the Radio; and very badly to their web-site controller!.[/p][/quote]Unlike everyone else - I doubt the appeals adjudicator will ignore the FOI request reply from Department for Transport regarding NO Signs Authorised since 1992 for Coppergate, Lendal Bridge and City Centre Lorry and Coach Prohibitions submitted as Highly Relevant Witness Evidence of unwillingness/Inabil ity to obtain authorisations for non standard signs and therefore use them as legally enforceable. Obviously CYC have not told their "Specialist Legal Advisers" of that lack of Authorisation. Freedom of Information Request F0011280 Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Street London SW1P 4DR Our Ref: GT51/2/2/F0011280[/p][/quote]https://www.dropbox. com/s/i28d8kqpzodha0 w/140429-reply%20to% 20Kevin%20Ward.pdf KevinWard59
  • Score: 3163

8:17pm Sat 17 May 14

Cheeky face says...

Kevin, I can't get access to that site. I have a recent computer but it says I have wrong info. I checked it twice.Still not accepting it.

Will be interesting when ombudsman contacts me. This is due Tues next week.

I still feel someone from York needs to check who in the government sent the council the funding. Any ideas.
Kevin, I can't get access to that site. I have a recent computer but it says I have wrong info. I checked it twice.Still not accepting it. Will be interesting when ombudsman contacts me. This is due Tues next week. I still feel someone from York needs to check who in the government sent the council the funding. Any ideas. Cheeky face
  • Score: 3523

8:21pm Sat 17 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

Cheeky face wrote:
Kevin, I can't get access to that site. I have a recent computer but it says I have wrong info. I checked it twice.Still not accepting it.

Will be interesting when ombudsman contacts me. This is due Tues next week.

I still feel someone from York needs to check who in the government sent the council the funding. Any ideas.
Go via links from comments (scroll down) on:-

www.sites.google.com
/site/kevinwardportf
olio
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: Kevin, I can't get access to that site. I have a recent computer but it says I have wrong info. I checked it twice.Still not accepting it. Will be interesting when ombudsman contacts me. This is due Tues next week. I still feel someone from York needs to check who in the government sent the council the funding. Any ideas.[/p][/quote]Go via links from comments (scroll down) on:- www.sites.google.com /site/kevinwardportf olio KevinWard59
  • Score: 3358

8:24pm Sat 17 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

Funding was under the a better bus and local transport grant of some kind I recall.
Funding was under the a better bus and local transport grant of some kind I recall. KevinWard59
  • Score: 3331

8:30pm Sat 17 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

KevinWard59 wrote:
Funding was under the a better bus and local transport grant of some kind I recall.
The trial will build on planned improvements to pedestrian access through the heart of York’s city centre and reduce traffic congestion from York’s railway station, through to Exhibition Square and Duncombe Place. Approximately £170k will be invested into the trial using Government funding awarded to the council through the Better Bus Area Fund (BBAF), in addition to contributions from the council’s capital programme.

The scheme will work side-by-side with Reinvigorate York and the BBAF programme supported by £3.5 million funding awarded to the council in 2012, aimed at generating an 18 per cent increase in bus passengers in York over the next two-years.

Google took me to it when I typed in the question see:-

http://www.york.gov.
uk/info/200174/plann
ing_and_building_con
trol/686/reinvigorat
e_york/3
[quote][p][bold]KevinWard59[/bold] wrote: Funding was under the a better bus and local transport grant of some kind I recall.[/p][/quote]The trial will build on planned improvements to pedestrian access through the heart of York’s city centre and reduce traffic congestion from York’s railway station, through to Exhibition Square and Duncombe Place. Approximately £170k will be invested into the trial using Government funding awarded to the council through the Better Bus Area Fund (BBAF), in addition to contributions from the council’s capital programme. The scheme will work side-by-side with Reinvigorate York and the BBAF programme supported by £3.5 million funding awarded to the council in 2012, aimed at generating an 18 per cent increase in bus passengers in York over the next two-years. Google took me to it when I typed in the question see:- http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200174/plann ing_and_building_con trol/686/reinvigorat e_york/3 KevinWard59
  • Score: 3036

8:50pm Sat 17 May 14

Cheeky face says...

Still can't the FOI info. Will try tomorrow. The government funders will not like this!

The only vehicle I have seen doing well over 20 in a 20 limit was a council vehicle.

Cheers Kevin.

John
Still can't the FOI info. Will try tomorrow. The government funders will not like this! The only vehicle I have seen doing well over 20 in a 20 limit was a council vehicle. Cheers Kevin. John Cheeky face
  • Score: 3321

10:03pm Sat 17 May 14

CRWPROJ says...

KevinWard59, well done with your FOI request.
Are you aware that you can make a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.
As I understand it they do have an office in york.
There is concern by many people regarding the traffic management in york...
Cycle lanes that transfer from road to pavement and back to road, width of remaining carriageways due to cycle lanes, traffic light sequences that leave a junction unused, (please feel free to add to the list!)
KevinWard59, well done with your FOI request. Are you aware that you can make a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. As I understand it they do have an office in york. There is concern by many people regarding the traffic management in york... Cycle lanes that transfer from road to pavement and back to road, width of remaining carriageways due to cycle lanes, traffic light sequences that leave a junction unused, (please feel free to add to the list!) CRWPROJ
  • Score: 3736

10:16pm Sat 17 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

It was said over.a week ago that you need to copy the link then paste it into word or a self addressed email and removevspaces created by press posting. When you hit return/new line link should go blue and underline and can load up automatically in your browser by either click or ctrl + click.

Any probes follow on Twitter and I'll DM Link. & phone No.
It was said over.a week ago that you need to copy the link then paste it into word or a self addressed email and removevspaces created by press posting. When you hit return/new line link should go blue and underline and can load up automatically in your browser by either click or ctrl + click. Any probes follow on Twitter and I'll DM Link. & phone No. KevinWard59
  • Score: 3451

1:48am Sun 18 May 14

Badgers Drift says...

KevinWard59 wrote:
Funding was under the a better bus and local transport grant of some kind I recall.
Only £50,000, not all of it as inferred by Coun Simpson-Laing.
[quote][p][bold]KevinWard59[/bold] wrote: Funding was under the a better bus and local transport grant of some kind I recall.[/p][/quote]Only £50,000, not all of it as inferred by Coun Simpson-Laing. Badgers Drift
  • Score: 3351

2:10am Sun 18 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
KevinWard59 wrote:
Funding was under the a better bus and local transport grant of some kind I recall.
Only £50,000, not all of it as inferred by Coun Simpson-Laing.
Info Google supplied is at City of York Council Website:-

Google took me to it when I typed in the question see:-

http://www.york.gov.
uk/info/200174/plann
ing_and_building_con
trol/686/reinvigorat
e_york/3
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KevinWard59[/bold] wrote: Funding was under the a better bus and local transport grant of some kind I recall.[/p][/quote]Only £50,000, not all of it as inferred by Coun Simpson-Laing.[/p][/quote]Info Google supplied is at City of York Council Website:- Google took me to it when I typed in the question see:- http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200174/plann ing_and_building_con trol/686/reinvigorat e_york/3 KevinWard59
  • Score: 3061

2:21am Sun 18 May 14

Magicman! says...

(Stephen Knapp) also found that the signing at either end of Coppergate was not adequate to reasonably alert the driver to the terms of the restriction and the signs were poorly located.

At either end? this including the Piccadilly end where there were signs on yellow backing plates, on standard sign posts both sides of the road entrance, illuminated, and with restriction times printed on a description plate attached to the same pole?

This bloke must be as blind as the drivers he claims to represent! The Nessgate end of Coppergate, yes the signage is a bit hard to spot due to the curve of the road - but at the Piccadilly end if you cannot see those signs then you really shouldn't be driving.
[quote](Stephen Knapp) also found that the signing at either end of Coppergate was not adequate to reasonably alert the driver to the terms of the restriction and the signs were poorly located. [/quote] At either end? this including the Piccadilly end where there were signs on yellow backing plates, on standard sign posts both sides of the road entrance, illuminated, and with restriction times printed on a description plate attached to the same pole? This bloke must be as blind as the drivers he claims to represent! The Nessgate end of Coppergate, yes the signage is a bit hard to spot due to the curve of the road - but at the Piccadilly end if you cannot see those signs then you really shouldn't be driving. Magicman!
  • Score: 3998

2:27am Sun 18 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

Magicman! wrote:
(Stephen Knapp) also found that the signing at either end of Coppergate was not adequate to reasonably alert the driver to the terms of the restriction and the signs were poorly located.

At either end? this including the Piccadilly end where there were signs on yellow backing plates, on standard sign posts both sides of the road entrance, illuminated, and with restriction times printed on a description plate attached to the same pole?

This bloke must be as blind as the drivers he claims to represent! The Nessgate end of Coppergate, yes the signage is a bit hard to spot due to the curve of the road - but at the Piccadilly end if you cannot see those signs then you really shouldn't be driving.
Doesn't matter if you can see them or not if they're NONE STANDARD - i.e. in Signs Manual and NOT AUTHORISED then they're NOT LEGAL or ENFORCABLE end of story.

Adequate signing also means in advance of the subject of the information - not at Cyclists reaction distance.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote](Stephen Knapp) also found that the signing at either end of Coppergate was not adequate to reasonably alert the driver to the terms of the restriction and the signs were poorly located. [/quote] At either end? this including the Piccadilly end where there were signs on yellow backing plates, on standard sign posts both sides of the road entrance, illuminated, and with restriction times printed on a description plate attached to the same pole? This bloke must be as blind as the drivers he claims to represent! The Nessgate end of Coppergate, yes the signage is a bit hard to spot due to the curve of the road - but at the Piccadilly end if you cannot see those signs then you really shouldn't be driving.[/p][/quote]Doesn't matter if you can see them or not if they're NONE STANDARD - i.e. in Signs Manual and NOT AUTHORISED then they're NOT LEGAL or ENFORCABLE end of story. Adequate signing also means in advance of the subject of the information - not at Cyclists reaction distance. KevinWard59
  • Score: 3617

2:34am Sun 18 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

Cheeky face wrote:
Still can't the FOI info. Will try tomorrow. The government funders will not like this!

The only vehicle I have seen doing well over 20 in a 20 limit was a council vehicle.

Cheers Kevin.

John
you need to copy the link then paste it into word or a self addressed email and remove spaces created by press posting.

Alternatively type URL manually into browser.

All Dropbox links work within the comments at the bottom on the web page I set up a few days ago:-

www.sites.google.com
/site/kevinwardportf
olio
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: Still can't the FOI info. Will try tomorrow. The government funders will not like this! The only vehicle I have seen doing well over 20 in a 20 limit was a council vehicle. Cheers Kevin. John[/p][/quote]you need to copy the link then paste it into word or a self addressed email and remove spaces created by press posting. Alternatively type URL manually into browser. All Dropbox links work within the comments at the bottom on the web page I set up a few days ago:- www.sites.google.com /site/kevinwardportf olio KevinWard59
  • Score: 3569

8:56am Sun 18 May 14

Alf Garnett says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
KevinWard59 wrote:
Funding was under the a better bus and local transport grant of some kind I recall.
Only £50,000, not all of it as inferred by Coun Simpson-Laing.
Implied, not inferred; an inference is a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KevinWard59[/bold] wrote: Funding was under the a better bus and local transport grant of some kind I recall.[/p][/quote]Only £50,000, not all of it as inferred by Coun Simpson-Laing.[/p][/quote]Implied, not inferred; an inference is a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning. Alf Garnett
  • Score: 2318

12:26pm Sun 18 May 14

Cheeky face says...

The signs at either end of Coppergate are not too bad; it is not too easy to fully explain the two restrictions. It is the signs on Nessgate, Pavement, Clifford St and Piccadilly that I referred to the council in Aug2013 - they need to be positioned far enough back to allow drivers/motorists to turn round/ seek other routes without causing inconvenienc. And if the council know the times of restriction they should be on the advance signs. The advance sign in Clifford St is skewed.

The journey planner on the Council web-site says the Coppergat restriction is for 6 months only frm 27.Aug but no year quoted.

These complaints were backed up the adjudicator. My letters to the council of august 2013 onwards are still unanswered .

I think Coppergate signage and web-site are a joke and probably always have been. So are all fines going way back in the frame for possible refunds?
The signs at either end of Coppergate are not too bad; it is not too easy to fully explain the two restrictions. It is the signs on Nessgate, Pavement, Clifford St and Piccadilly that I referred to the council in Aug2013 - they need to be positioned far enough back to allow drivers/motorists to turn round/ seek other routes without causing inconvenienc. And if the council know the times of restriction they should be on the advance signs. The advance sign in Clifford St is skewed. The journey planner on the Council web-site says the Coppergat restriction is for 6 months only frm 27.Aug but no year quoted. These complaints were backed up the adjudicator. My letters to the council of august 2013 onwards are still unanswered . I think Coppergate signage and web-site are a joke and probably always have been. So are all fines going way back in the frame for possible refunds? Cheeky face
  • Score: 1692

12:30pm Sun 18 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

Cheeky face wrote:
The signs at either end of Coppergate are not too bad; it is not too easy to fully explain the two restrictions. It is the signs on Nessgate, Pavement, Clifford St and Piccadilly that I referred to the council in Aug2013 - they need to be positioned far enough back to allow drivers/motorists to turn round/ seek other routes without causing inconvenienc. And if the council know the times of restriction they should be on the advance signs. The advance sign in Clifford St is skewed.

The journey planner on the Council web-site says the Coppergat restriction is for 6 months only frm 27.Aug but no year quoted.

These complaints were backed up the adjudicator. My letters to the council of august 2013 onwards are still unanswered .

I think Coppergate signage and web-site are a joke and probably always have been. So are all fines going way back in the frame for possible refunds?
Freedom of Information Request F0011280 of 2014-04-08
Reply to FOI Request F0011280 from Department for Transport regarding ALL City Centre and Lendal Bridge signs having NO Authorisation since 1992 & Therefore Unenforceable:-
4 all York Traffic Issues & Solutions follow links from Comments at bottom of page see:-
www sites google com site kevinwardportfolio
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: The signs at either end of Coppergate are not too bad; it is not too easy to fully explain the two restrictions. It is the signs on Nessgate, Pavement, Clifford St and Piccadilly that I referred to the council in Aug2013 - they need to be positioned far enough back to allow drivers/motorists to turn round/ seek other routes without causing inconvenienc. And if the council know the times of restriction they should be on the advance signs. The advance sign in Clifford St is skewed. The journey planner on the Council web-site says the Coppergat restriction is for 6 months only frm 27.Aug but no year quoted. These complaints were backed up the adjudicator. My letters to the council of august 2013 onwards are still unanswered . I think Coppergate signage and web-site are a joke and probably always have been. So are all fines going way back in the frame for possible refunds?[/p][/quote]Freedom of Information Request F0011280 of 2014-04-08 Reply to FOI Request F0011280 from Department for Transport regarding ALL City Centre and Lendal Bridge signs having NO Authorisation since 1992 & Therefore Unenforceable:- 4 all York Traffic Issues & Solutions follow links from Comments at bottom of page see:- www [dot] sites [dot] google [dot] com [/] site [/] kevinwardportfolio KevinWard59
  • Score: 1990

12:33pm Sun 18 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

KevinWard59 wrote:
Cheeky face wrote:
The signs at either end of Coppergate are not too bad; it is not too easy to fully explain the two restrictions. It is the signs on Nessgate, Pavement, Clifford St and Piccadilly that I referred to the council in Aug2013 - they need to be positioned far enough back to allow drivers/motorists to turn round/ seek other routes without causing inconvenienc. And if the council know the times of restriction they should be on the advance signs. The advance sign in Clifford St is skewed.

The journey planner on the Council web-site says the Coppergat restriction is for 6 months only frm 27.Aug but no year quoted.

These complaints were backed up the adjudicator. My letters to the council of august 2013 onwards are still unanswered .

I think Coppergate signage and web-site are a joke and probably always have been. So are all fines going way back in the frame for possible refunds?
Freedom of Information Request F0011280 of 2014-04-08
Reply to FOI Request F0011280 from Department for Transport regarding ALL City Centre and Lendal Bridge signs having NO Authorisation since 1992 & Therefore Unenforceable:-
4 all York Traffic Issues & Solutions follow links from Comments at bottom of page see:-
www sites google com site kevinwardportfolio
Slash before and after middle site
[quote][p][bold]KevinWard59[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: The signs at either end of Coppergate are not too bad; it is not too easy to fully explain the two restrictions. It is the signs on Nessgate, Pavement, Clifford St and Piccadilly that I referred to the council in Aug2013 - they need to be positioned far enough back to allow drivers/motorists to turn round/ seek other routes without causing inconvenienc. And if the council know the times of restriction they should be on the advance signs. The advance sign in Clifford St is skewed. The journey planner on the Council web-site says the Coppergat restriction is for 6 months only frm 27.Aug but no year quoted. These complaints were backed up the adjudicator. My letters to the council of august 2013 onwards are still unanswered . I think Coppergate signage and web-site are a joke and probably always have been. So are all fines going way back in the frame for possible refunds?[/p][/quote]Freedom of Information Request F0011280 of 2014-04-08 Reply to FOI Request F0011280 from Department for Transport regarding ALL City Centre and Lendal Bridge signs having NO Authorisation since 1992 & Therefore Unenforceable:- 4 all York Traffic Issues & Solutions follow links from Comments at bottom of page see:- www [dot] sites [dot] google [dot] com [/] site [/] kevinwardportfolio[/p][/quote]Slash before and after middle site KevinWard59
  • Score: 1689

12:40pm Sun 18 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

And dots after www and between sites and google and com

Click link in comments to either Analysis and Solutions or Public Folder
where both have a folder called ALL ABOUT SIGNS FOLDER

FOI is in there too amongst Signs Manual and other codes, rules and regulations from Secretary of State via Department for Transport and "Gov" websites.
And dots after www and between sites and google and com Click link in comments to either Analysis and Solutions or Public Folder where both have a folder called ALL ABOUT SIGNS FOLDER FOI is in there too amongst Signs Manual and other codes, rules and regulations from Secretary of State via Department for Transport and "Gov" websites. KevinWard59
  • Score: 1522

1:15pm Sun 18 May 14

Cheeky face says...

Managed it Kevin. Could the council believe that merely following the regs/manual is adequate? I believe they cannot read each with each; whether their actions need authorizing or not.

My letter of 10.12.2013 is still unanswered Is there any mileage in us swapping e-mails? John
Managed it Kevin. Could the council believe that merely following the regs/manual is adequate? I believe they cannot read each with each; whether their actions need authorizing or not. My letter of 10.12.2013 is still unanswered Is there any mileage in us swapping e-mails? John Cheeky face
  • Score: 1733

1:25pm Sun 18 May 14

KevinWard59 says...

Cheeky face wrote:
Managed it Kevin. Could the council believe that merely following the regs/manual is adequate? I believe they cannot read each with each; whether their actions need authorizing or not.

My letter of 10.12.2013 is still unanswered Is there any mileage in us swapping e-mails? John
No problem - All contact details are on web page
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: Managed it Kevin. Could the council believe that merely following the regs/manual is adequate? I believe they cannot read each with each; whether their actions need authorizing or not. My letter of 10.12.2013 is still unanswered Is there any mileage in us swapping e-mails? John[/p][/quote]No problem - All contact details are on web page KevinWard59
  • Score: -85

9:26pm Sun 18 May 14

mike.......durkin says...

thay shud never have done the cash caw do..re open itand stay that way....
thay shud never have done the cash caw do..re open itand stay that way.... mike.......durkin
  • Score: -69

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree