Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear all,

I hope you are doing well. Here is the ticketed correspondence.



The registered keeper drove into 'Rivercourt Road' which seems to be a new phobitied area unless you have a permit. GSV link here.

A couple of points:

- This seems to be a very recent addition of prohibitions (pictures available here). The registered driver drove down that road a week prior. No cameras / signage was present. This has been a common route for the registered keeper for the past ~twenty years.
- The signeage isn't outright obvious, especially when travelling 40mph down the A4. Took me a small moment to process everything from the pictures - uncertain how they expect a motorist on a busy A4 to be able to process all of the info without prior forewarning.
- The registered keeper actually stopped before the signeage, but unfortunately due to the big nature of the car - reversing onto the A4 is probably an extremely silly and unsafe idea. This simple manouver can put quite a few motorists at risk.
- Not sure how relevant this is, but Rivercourt road is also a one way road. Therefore a U-turn isn't possible as there's a 'no-entry' sign just before the road widens (where once could safely make a U-turn). Take a look here. 
- The signage seems to be quite sudden. There is no forewarning whatsoever and the only signage is hidden behind roadside trees right up until the turning. The registered keeper went back to the area to double check this. See picture below:



Does the registered keeper have any chance at an appeal considering the above?

Thank you all for your time. I really respect and appreciate your efforts.

Quote

Does the registered keeper have any chance at an appeal considering the above?

Join the queue of successful appellants !

H & F have made an enormous Pig's Ear of this restriction, creating danger where there was none present before, and providing no safe way of returning to the A4. The signage on approach (the responsibility of Transport for London), is totally inadequate, and the actual restriction signs are too close to the A4.

H & F seem to recognise their own balls-up, and have cancelled the PCNs of all who have come on this forum, but of course we know nothing about the other 90% who will have just coughed-up as soon as the PCN arrived in the post.

To make this a safe restriction, H&F should have rebuilt the kerbs at the entrance to allow a motorist to re-join the A4, and to place the restriction signs much further into Rivercourt Road so that a motorist, seeing them, would be able to turn round and rejoin the A4. It is a totally monstrous trap as it stands. H&F have totally failed in their duty under LATOR to place adequate signage of the restriction. This means clear and unequivocal signs on the A4. At the moment there is a temporary sign. (GSV is not sufficiently up-to-date at the moment so one cannot see what is there, but it is nonsence.

I suspect that H&F failed to consult with TfL on the signage requirements, (LATOR Regulation 6 (1) 1 because H&F cannot place signs on the A4, as it is a TfL responsibility. This restriction is a classic case of council stupidity when making traffic arrangements.

Great news! Thank you very much!

Therefore I'm assuming I follow the appeal process stated on the ticket summarising the above, as well as quoting the signeage requirements (LATOR Regulation 6 (1) 1?

Have a read of those before drafting your reps, then post the draft here for comment before submitting tp H&F, but do not miss deadlines.


So far H&F have backed down in every case we know of before it reaches tribunal.

Thanks for all this, John! Please take a look below:


RE: PCN HZ92691860 (A4 - Rivercourt Road)

Dear Hammersmith & Fulham Council,

I would like to formally appeal this PCN as I believe it was unfairly issued and is legally unenforceable due to the following reasons:

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) Upon exiting the A4, drivers are immediately confronted with approximately 10 different signs including speed restrictions, parking restrictions, camera warnings, one-way signs, lorry restrictions, and road names. This excessive signage density makes it impossible to safely process all information while navigating the junction.

5) As a regular user of this exit over many years, I was unaware of the recent restriction changes. The lack of advance warning to existing users, combined with inadequate signage, created an unavoidable contravention situation.

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,



Please let me know if this is good to launch. Appreciate all your time and effort! Thanks

Also Regulation 18 - adequate signage

Thanks, I have now updated and added this to the appeal

OK to go for me. H&F seem to be conceding all reps at the moment. However, as most people cough-up on receipt of a PCN, it will still be a nice little earner for them. I don't think I have ever seen such a stupid implementation of a restriction in all the time I've been giving advice on this and the old Pepipoo forums. It is an absolute disgrace and somebody in H&F should be looking for a new job, frankly.