The driver was caught using a bus lane and issued with a fixed penalty notice. He appealed to the adjudicator. The Council now appealed against a finding that the area was not a designated bus lane allowing enforcement by civil penalty rather than being enforceable only by criminal process. It was also found that the signage was inadequate, giving drivers insufficient opportunity to avoid the lane. Other cities had adopted similar signage systems.
Held: Different Acts making up the bus lane regulation system had different definitions of what vehicles might use them. The vehicles to be allowed to use the bus lanes in Oxford were not as indicated on the prescribed signs. The council obtained the Minister’s consent to use variant signs. The adjudicator had however erred in construing the phrase ‘any other circumstances whatever’ in the 1984 Act so as not to apply to the purposes of the restriction.
Nor was the signage inadequate. It was irrational to differentiate the requirements for signage according to the mode of enforcement.
 EWHC 894 (Admin)
Transport Act 2000 144(5), Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 1 2, Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions 2002 (SI 2002 No. 3113), Bus Lane Contraventions Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 2757)
England and Wales
Cited – Herron and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parking Adjudicator CA 27-Jul-2011
The claimant appealed against refusal of judicial review of decisions of the parking adjudicator as to the correctness of 39 penalty charge notices. In each case, they said that the signage supporting the notice, in particular single and double . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.408642