Nigel Dixon, of Cullingworth, was directed down Bridge Street by marshalls

Nigel Dixon with the bus lane camera image of his car, as previously reported in the Telegraph & Argus

Nigel Dixon with the bus lane camera image of his car, as previously reported in the Telegraph & Argus

First published in News Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , Bradford Chief Reporter

A motorist who was fined for using a bus lane when diversions were in place for Bradford City Runs is celebrating a “common sense result” after successfully appealing the decision.

Nigel Dixon was one of 223 drivers slapped with a £60 Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) by Bradford Council after he was diverted by marshals on October 27 last year.

The 55-year-old appealed the charge with the Council, which refused to drop it, before contacting an independent adjudicator.

He was told by the Council that if the fine was paid within a set time, it would drop to £30, and if the appeal failed, he could still pay the reduced charge.

Mr Dixon admitted following other drivers along Bridge Street, but as diversions were in place and marshals had sent him in that direction, he assumed restrictions had been lifted.

He was one of four people who appealed the PCN with the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. His case was the second of the four to be heard this week and he was not confident of victory as the first appeal failed.

The hearing, via a conference call, involved the adjudicator, Mr Dixon and a Bradford Council officer. Mr Dixon said when the adjudicator heard there were 223 PCNs issued on that day for Bridge Street, compared to an average of ten to 15, she questioned it.

Mr Dixon, of Sunningdale Crescent, Cullingworth said: “Her first comment [to the Council officer] was, ‘don’t you think that’s rather a lot?’ ”

He said the decision was made at the end of the telephone call.

“I’m very pleased. It’s a common sense result. I was never confident because you just can’t tell – you’ve just got to hope common sense prevails.

“It was worth it, £30 isn’t going to break the bank, but there’s a principle there. It makes people realise we don’t have to just take what’s given out, we can challenge it.”

The event was organised by Bradford Council and the Bradford Athletics Network.

Bradford Council did not want to comment on Mr Dixon’s appeal.

e-mail: julie.tickner@telegraphandargus.co.uk

Comments (4)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:04am Wed 5 Feb 14

allannicho says...

You are the Lucky One old chum, I have appealed with good reason any
hundreds of others to no avail, but Hey! it makes a lot of money !
You are the Lucky One old chum, I have appealed with good reason any hundreds of others to no avail, but Hey! it makes a lot of money ! allannicho
  • Score: 1

10:13am Wed 5 Feb 14

yezboss says...

You can always appeal the decison of the Adjudicator to the Chief Adjudicator at the Traffic Penalties appeals Tribunal Office Minshull St Manchester. However they do not have to follow any precedent and in my experience the Chief Adjudicator and whilst it is not unkown for a reversal, is also very unlikey to reverse any first decision.
There is one other and final appeal and that is to a Judge in the High Court in the way of a Judical Review. That requires 'Silk' to represent you and if you fail it can be and will be expensive. If you win it is very likely the court wil award costs in your favour. I wolud be interested to know the reasons for the appeal being allowed, was it just considered unreasonable due to circumstances or was there an issue with the illegal signs? Because they are - illegal that is. viz Oxford CC v The Chief Bus Lane Adjudicator Birmingham High Court April 2004.
You can always appeal the decison of the Adjudicator to the Chief Adjudicator at the Traffic Penalties appeals Tribunal Office Minshull St Manchester. However they do not have to follow any precedent and in my experience the Chief Adjudicator and whilst it is not unkown for a reversal, is also very unlikey to reverse any first decision. There is one other and final appeal and that is to a Judge in the High Court in the way of a Judical Review. That requires 'Silk' to represent you and if you fail it can be and will be expensive. If you win it is very likely the court wil award costs in your favour. I wolud be interested to know the reasons for the appeal being allowed, was it just considered unreasonable due to circumstances or was there an issue with the illegal signs? Because they are - illegal that is. viz Oxford CC v The Chief Bus Lane Adjudicator Birmingham High Court April 2004. yezboss
  • Score: 5

12:00pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Old Peculiar says...

223 drivers were hit with the fine, which the adjudicator has now (quite rightly) deemed to be unjustified. Will Bradford Council be honourable, and cancel the remaining tickets and refund any fines that have been paid ?
Can the T&A please ask this obvious question ?
223 drivers were hit with the fine, which the adjudicator has now (quite rightly) deemed to be unjustified. Will Bradford Council be honourable, and cancel the remaining tickets and refund any fines that have been paid ? Can the T&A please ask this obvious question ? Old Peculiar
  • Score: 9

12:30pm Wed 5 Feb 14

yezboss says...

Bradford Council have no scrupals in that regard. They are dishonest, they know these signs are unlawful yet continue to unlawfully take money from registered keepers (who indeed themselves may not have been the driver at the time and consequently be quite innocent but lialble if culpable) Taking money unlawfully in any other area of law that would be at least a civil tort and therefore actionable, in criminal terms, could be considered to be obtainng money dishonestly by operating a deception. That offence carries a severe penalty for anyone found gulty. (A difficulty arises identifying the person practicing the deception but it would not be too hard to establish that criminial liabilit). And that particular bus 'gate' is a nonsense. Simply a honey pot or cash cow.

Investigate that T&A.
Bradford Council have no scrupals in that regard. They are dishonest, they know these signs are unlawful yet continue to unlawfully take money from registered keepers (who indeed themselves may not have been the driver at the time and consequently be quite innocent but lialble if culpable) Taking money unlawfully in any other area of law that would be at least a civil tort and therefore actionable, in criminal terms, could be considered to be obtainng money dishonestly by operating a deception. That offence carries a severe penalty for anyone found gulty. (A difficulty arises identifying the person practicing the deception but it would not be too hard to establish that criminial liabilit). And that particular bus 'gate' is a nonsense. Simply a honey pot or cash cow. Investigate that T&A. yezboss
  • Score: 5

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