Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

I've received a PCN from Hammersmith & Fulham for contravention code 52M – Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles – which allegedly took place on 09/06/2025 at 17:08 on Studdridge Street westbound, outside no. 10. The notice is dated 19/06/2025.

The issue is that the "No motor vehicles" sign is only visible just before the restriction itself, not at the junction. When turning into Studdridge Street from the A217, the only visible signage is a width restriction. The warning sign is placed further along the road, and it’s quite easy to miss, especially with cars parked along both sides. It’s also not shown on Google Maps – I’ve taken photos to support this.

I was following my sat nav to avoid peak-time traffic, and I followed other vehicles down the road without realising there was a restriction. I don’t live in the borough and wasn’t familiar with the area or any local clean air restrictions.

Do I have reasonable grounds to challenge this PCN, or is it likely to be rejected? Any advice or similar experiences would be appreciated

Edit
View PCN Evidence: https://ocmlive.xrxpsc.com/lbhf/ocm-fe/ocm/Details.aspx
PCN Number: HZ93115388
VNR: EX16YNV


Google Maps Location

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I was following my sat nav to avoid peak-time traffic,

Which, of course, the restriction is in place to prevent !
Satnavs are never up-to-date, and relying on them without looking out for signs like the ones here, (the Flying Motorbike" sign) is very unwise.

Their sole evidence is the video. The photos on the PCN are frames from this. Howevre, you've blanked out the PCN Number and your car reg, so we can't view it. So please unblank these so we can study the evidence. Only name and address require blanking out.

Having said the above, the photo shows you have passed two very prominent "Flying Motorbike" signs. At the turn into Studdridge St, there are two prominent cul-de-sac signs: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/QeWE4auCn6xAEAZ57
then as one proceeds down the street, the width restriction can be seen in the distance, plus two prominent "Flying Motorbike" signs at the T-junction with Bowerdean St, where one would have to turn into to avoid the restriction.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/2h9NZbd9c3zhJYMs6#

Google Street View latest is July 2024, so doesn't show the advance warning sign that you have shown in a photo.

Freankly, it is difficult to think of a robust argument against the PCN, but maybe others on here can suggest something. There may also possibly be a 'technical' appeal based on H & F mismanagement of the enforcement process, and there are two contributors on here who may be able to help you. However, don't miss the deadline to submit representations or pay.

I can see some good reasons to make representations and go to appeal.

For starters, the sign in IMG_5252 is not a prescribed traffic sign. H&F are notorious for inventing traffic signs. I've just sent an FoI request to them about another of these junk signs. It's complex, but the sign is based on diagram 818.4 of TSRGD 2016 but that sign can't have a flying motorcycle embedded in it. Also, the text at the top and bottom is too small.

Next, the road is so narrow between the parked vehicles that I expect you were concentrating on not hitting anything and managing the speed cushion before the junction with Bowerdean Street. The presence of the parked and oncoming vehicles inhibited your view of the flying motorcycle signs. Note the following paragraphs from Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual:

5.1.1. This section describes the decision-making process involved in choosing a location for
an upright traffic sign. The positioning of signs has to be considered very carefully to ensure that
they are legible from the approaching road user’s point of view, but also do not impede the view of other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and equestrians, particularly on side roads or in accesses. Environmental aspects need to be considered so as to minimise visual intrusion as well as the need for clear signing of legal requirements.

5.2.2. Signs are designed for the symbols and legends to be recognisable and fully legible from
defined distances depending on their type and the speed of traffic. It is essential that the whole
sign face is visible from these distances and over the entire reading range, and not obscured by intervening obstructions. Detailed advice is published in Chapters 3, 4 and 7 for regulatory, warning and directional signs respectively.

At the entrance to Studdridge Street there's a genuine diagram 818.4 giving advance notice of the width restriction. That, however, lies after the more severe restriction banning all motor vehicles except buses, taxis and permit holders. Until 2016 there were very few options for signs giving advance notice of restrictions; width restrictions were one for which there was a sign: diagram 818.4. Since 2016 authorities have been able to create many more advance notice signs with a white background. I would argue that H&F should have put such a sign at the entrance to Studdridge Street which showed the flying motorcycle 50 yards ahead and the width restriction 70 yards ahead. If they say that's too much, they should have shown the flying motorcycle alone (or a blue roundel - diagram 953 - with the permitted vehicles) as it is reached first and affects far more vehicles.

Another notable absence from the signage is a sign telling traffic which isn't allowed to pass the flying motorcycle where it should go instead, i.e. turn right along Bowerdean Street and then right and right again back to the A217. Such signs are provided where there are physical restrictions, e.g. height.

There's a well-established principle that in the absence of adequate advanced notice, no contravention occurred. This has been confirmed at the Court of Appeal (R(Neil Herron et al) v The Parking Adjudicator). That's the line I would push. Whether you will succeed is another matter. Taking it to appeal means forgoing the possibility of the "50% discount". It's your choice.