Free Traffic Legal Advice

Copy of the PCN here https://postimg.cc/p9jSdGyc

I have already appealed which they have rejected. I now have a tribunal date set for July 15th. Any help on this much appreciated.

My proposed representation now:

1: Inadequate/no signage: No warning to driver about prohibition preventing an
otherwise perfectly legal manoeuvre.

2: Highway safety: No way of safety exiting situation.

3: Complex signage: Too many signs to read whilst vehicle is in a dangerous position to
others. Once you reach the junction of Rivercourt rd there are no less than 11 separate
signs. It is simply NOT possible to read all 11 signs whilst travelling at 40mph and coming off a
dual carriageway. Indeed from the video H and F supplied of the incident you can see
another car turning just behind me at speed. Thank goodness I did not stop to read 11
signs and cause an accident! Signs include but are not limited to:”

A Controlled Zone sign(which relates to parking). This is composite(has wording other
than just the prescribed minimum of Controlled Zone)
One-way street sign times 2
A speed limit sign;
A restricted access for vehicles over a prescribed weight sign with several very detailed
associated plates;
A no entry for vehicular traffic sign, with associated plate.
And it appears a Red Route Clearway ends sign.
A road name sign
The actual sign relating to residents access is not actually located before the turning but
rather on the other side of the road.

4: Reversing back onto A4 is prohibited by Highway Code Rule 200 and 201 On exiting
the A4 (very busy 40 mph limit three line carriageway) onto Rivercourt Road I was
immediately faced with a give way line and a barrage of signs. The “new turning bay” as
shown in the notice of rejection is farcical. I would like to use pictures that H and F have
sent in the notice of rejection as part of my evidence.

The give way lines are so close to the junction and  near the A4 main road and could
possibility block another car exiting and force it to stop on the fast moving busy A4
(please see video from H and F of vehicle movements behind me) To add complexity to
the solution I was funnelled by two solid white lines, I think to prevent a car from turning
around back on to the A4, I could reverse back onto the A4 but that is prevented by
Highway Code 200 & 201 (either actions would not be sensible). So in conclusion, once
I was committed to performing a perfectly legal everyday manoeuvre, I was compelled
by the design of the junction to continue along Rivercourt Road

Please read this and update your thread accordingly: -
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
For a start you haven't given us a clue as to where this contravention took place, (although we all suspect it is Rivercourt Road, leading off the Great West Road.

This now notorious restriction was implemented extremely badly by H & F. I suspect they broke every rule in the book on this one. However, as we all know, there are no powers to force them to amend it so they just carry on earning money from it.

The main point is the restriction applies at the entrance to the street, off a 40 mph heavily trafficked dual carriageway, with no advance warning of what lies ahead. If they moved the restriction about 20 metres into the street, there is adequate room for a motorist to see the signs, turn round and join the main road again. I am not sure if H& F have let any cases get to London Tribunals, so have a search on their Statutory Register under the street name.

Can you please post-up their rejection letter and you reps text. Better if you'd come on here earlier before submitting reps, but we are where we are.

So, I have received an email from H and F today canceling the tribunal!
https://postimg.cc/1gs6JPcF
https://postimg.cc/34Ht7PTC
https://postimg.cc/1fzJ9GLT
https://postimg.cc/jwX4T2vt

I find it quite annoying that they would decline my initial appeal and schedule a tribunal date- for me to then upload my appeal as per my initial post and then to cancel the tribunal. I was *almost* looking forward to it.  A more sceptical person might presume H and F didn't want to set a precedent at tribunal for others to follow!

Or maybe they are reading this thread and you all scared them off!

Clearly they're running scared of appearing before an adjudicator and are just collecting £65 from those who pay up because challenging it takes time and effort.

Those "advance signs" don't pass muster: neither

      RESTRICTED ACCESS TO RIVERCOURT ROAD 330 YARDS AHEAD
nor
      LOCAL ACCESS ONLY 70 YARDS AHEAD

conveys anything like the minimum appropriate signage: a 750mm-diameter No Left Turn sign (diagram 613) with the plate "Except buses, taxis, cycles and authorised vehicles"

I spent an hour and a half with the CA today re costs. Forget it: mistakes do not meet the criteria.  Decision to follow in another thread.

I agree it's press time.

H&F are just milking drivers who pay rather than take it to a tribunal (which involves forgoing the opportunity to pay £65 rather than £130). They're normally very aggressive, so conceding every appeal just before it's about to go before a tribunal is rather a giveaway. That's the story here, along with the extra-territorial TMO.

The image below may help people understand just where these alleged contraventions are taking place.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

It is a redacted version of a screenshot supplied as evidence of a contravention. It shows Rivercourt Road running across the image from south on the right to north on the left. At the right of the image can be seen the eastbound carriageway of the Great West Road.

Red Line

At the bottom right of the image there is a post which, because of the fish-eye lens, rises diagonally. On it there is a "RED ROUTE // CLEARWAY // Exit" sign which marks the end of the Red Route Clearway, i.e. the Great West Road.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
I take that as indicating the boundary between the land for which TfL is the highway authority and the land for which Hammersmith and Fulham is the highway authority.

There is no corresponding sign on the east side of Rivercourt Road indicating the boundary on that side of the road. I surmise that, as on the west side, the "waste" to the north of the dual-use footway/cycleway forms part of the highway land.

On the surface of Rivercourt Road I have marked in red what I surmise to be the boundary between the land for which TfL is the highway authority and the land for which Hammersmith and Fulham is the highway authority.

Blue Line

There is another possibility: that the boundary between the two highway authorities lies along the outside of the combined footway/cycleway of the Great West Road. I have marked this in blue. This line lies 8.3 meters south of the southern boundary wall of 17, Rivercourt Road and is used in the TMO.

Slip Road and the TMO

As can be seen, the slip-road exit from the Great West Road up to the double-dashed Give Way road marking lies entirely on land between the carriageway of the Great West Road and the red line.

The end of the south-to-north one-way restriction in the TMO lies on the blue line. If the south-to-north one-way restriction is to make sense, its southern end, which is described as "Great West Road", must lie to its south. Harrow and Fulham evidently intend the restriction to start at the edge of the carriageway of the Great West Road.

Implications

Whether the boundary between the highway authorities is the red line or the blue line, Hammersmith and Fulham's TMO only makes sense as a one-way south-to-north restriction if it lies wholly within the verge and footway/cycleway of the Great West Road. TfL is the highway authority for this. Despite this, once six weeks have elapsed from the making of the TMO without its being challenged in the High Court, its validity can no longer be challenged. H&F may have secured an extra-territorial TMO!

That does, however, depend on just what the TMO means. H&F's intention is clear. But the words of the TMO specify that it applies to Rivercourt Road from its junction with Great West Road to the point 8.30m south of 17, Rivercourt Road. If the junction lies on the blue line, the start and end of the restriction coincide and the restriction is a nullity. I doubt whether even H&F could enforce a restriction that cars have to have an H&F permit to travel across a line of zero width across the road.

If the junction between Rivercourt Road and the Great West Road lies to the north of the blue line, the restriction requires vehicles to traverse a section of Rivercourt Road in a northbound direction when travelling from a point north of the blue line to the blue line. It's impossible, of course. It probably won't stop H&F trying to enforce the TMO but will give adjudicators headaches.

One thing appears certain. The post with the "flying motorcycle" sign lies beyond the end of H&F's interpretation of the restriction. It is the sole indication that cars require a permit from Hammersmith and Fulham to use the slip road. As a regulatory sign, it is required to be placed as close as practicable to the start of the restriction, not after its end. Objecting to that, along with the absence of advance signage visible from the A4 (and the variable message signs don't explain about the permit and are now beyond their 6-month time limit) should secure a successful appeal.


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]