thanks, Yes the PCN is uploaded in original post.
Keeper address and name is correct on the PCN.
Please see draft response below:
"
Signage:
1) The absence of proper advance warning signs on the A4 before the Rivercourt Road junction means that adequate information about the restriction was not made available to road users. This is a fundamental legal requirement, and without it, no contravention can be established. H&F have also failed in their duty under LATOR (Local Authorities Traffic Orders Regulations) to place adequate signage, specifically clear and unequivocal signs on the A4 approach as required by Regulation 18. In the Oxfordshire case, advance warning signs were placed at 450, 180, and 20 yards before the restriction. No such advance signage exists on the A4 approaching Rivercourt Road, making this scheme legally deficient. Under the binding High Court judgment in R (Oxfordshire County Council) v. The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin), paragraph 65, Beatson J established that: "If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed".
2) Under Section 121B of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Hammersmith & Fulham cannot implement restrictions affecting Transport for London roads (including the A4) without giving proper notice to TfL and obtaining TfL's approval or allowing the statutory consultation period to expire. This is particularly concerning as H&F cannot place signs on the A4 (which is TfL's responsibility), suggesting they may have failed to properly consult on signage requirements under LATOR Regulation 6(1). I formally request evidence that H&F complied with Section 121B requirements. If these statutory procedures were not followed, the entire restriction scheme is unlawful and void.
3) The scheme appears to violate H&F's statutory duty under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to "secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic." Specific safety concerns include: Give Way markings (diagram 1003A) positioned just 8 meters from the A4, requiring vehicles to stop within 8 meters of exiting a major road, while the braking distance from 30mph is 13.5 meters (excluding thinking distance). Large vehicles (school buses, lorries) cannot physically comply with this requirement, creating a dangerous situation where vehicles may need to obstruct the A4.
4. Unreasonable Expectations on Non-Local Drivers
As an infrequent and non-local user of this route, I was unaware of any recent changes. My longstanding understanding of the road as one-way—reinforced by prominent "No Entry" signs—further contributed to the misinterpretation. The combination of unclear signage, road layout, and misleading cues made it unreasonable to expect safe and lawful navigation without error.
5) It is not clear from the PCN what are the restriction changes and neither the PCN or supporting video provides enough detail on what is the prohibition violated. The lack of advance warning to anyone, combined with inadequate signage, would create confusion on the contravention situation.
Driver Safety:
6) Once committed to the exit from the A4, reversing back onto the main carriageway would violate Highway Code Rules 200 and 201, making it both illegal and extremely dangerous. The restriction creates a dangerous situation as the kerbs and road design provide no safe means for a motorist to turn around and rejoin the A4 upon discovering the restriction.
Given these substantial legal deficiencies, I respectfully request immediate cancellation of this PCN as the restriction scheme appears to be legally flawed, unsafe, and unenforceable in its current form.
I look forward to your prompt response confirming cancellation of this charge.
Yours faithfully,
