A DRIVER has won an appeal over a penalty charge notice he was given for driving in the Church Bank bus lane.

And now he has called on other motorists to appeal their notices if they have fallen foul of the cameras in the same way.

Anthony Bryce, a York businessman, was snapped in the bus lane on Church Bank on a visit to the city to have a curry with a friend in September.

READ MORE: Residents 'extremely unhappy' at plan to convert two-plus lane into bus lane

He turned left from Peckover Street in Little Germany and had not realised he was going to go into the bus lane because of inadequate signs.

When he realised what was happening he then could not turn off Church Bank or turn around and had to carry on down the road.

The total number of penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued for that bus lane from January to December 2018 was 8,434.

Mr Bryce said: "The signage isn't adequate from Peckover Street into Church Bank. It's misleading. You can't go left or turn around.

"It's a nice little earner for the Council."

He said he appealed the £60 fine and was successful but then Bradford Council appealed to the adjudicator. However, that was dismissed.

Mr Bryce said: "They were trying to squirm out of it.

"I've asked the Council to change the signs and refund people.

"But the adjudicator hasn't got the authority to order a refund of fines."

He said that Bradford Council should refund people voluntarily who had been caught out in the same way as him and follow the lead of York Council who refunded about 47,000 fines totalling £1.3 million which were issued during a trial to restrict traffic during the day on the city's Lendal Bridge.

The money was given back to drivers after an adjudicator ruled that the council had no power to issue fines because signage and CCTV were inadequate.

A Bradford Council spokesperson said: “A decision by the Adjudicator at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal does not set a legal precedent the Council has to follow.

"In this instance, the adjudicator’s decision did not state that any Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) should be refunded nor did he instruct that the signage should be changed. However, we will always look to find ways to improve our sites and make restrictions as clear to motorists as possible.

"The Council Highways Department is currently looking at the signage at this location with a view to propose a new design with the Department for Transport.

TOP STORIES:

"We are unable to ascertain the number of PCNs issued in Church Bank bus lane via Peckover Street as it is not the main route into this particular bus lane.”

In his decision on Mr Byrne's original appeal in November, the adjudicator for the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, Mackenzie Robinson, said there was confusion over the signs at the junction.

He said: "I agree with Mr Bryce that this sign gives a misleading impression. It is quite possible to have advanced warning signs with a pictogram showing the appropriate signage for the bus gate or bus lane ahead, either using the familiar blue Sign 953 or Sign 619.

"That has not been done here, I suspect because the restriction in Church Bank changes halfway down, from allowing access, to being bus only, which makes signing the restriction more complicated."

He said that the 619 ‘flying motorcycle’ signs are positioned just a metre or two away from the junction, and turned to face oncoming traffic. They are also partially obscured by foliage for cars.

"In conclusion, I find that the bus lane restriction is not adequately signed for drivers approaching from Peckover Street, and it follows that no contravention occurred. I direct the Council to cancel the penalty charge notice."

In its appeal on that decision the Council pointed out that Adjudicator Robinson had advised it to place a sign on Peckover Street in order to give drivers an adequate warning of the presence of the bus lane but "now states the sign he advised us to install gives a misleading impression".

It said any change to the signs or a refund of fines would be at the expense of Council funds and said it had acted in good faith, making any adjustments required to ensure our bus lanes comply with all regulations.

But the adjudicator, although he accepted that his recommendation in the earlier case was incorrect, reiterated that "I still take the view that my present decision was correct, and mere disagreement with an adjudicator’s decision is not a ground for allowing a review".