Hammersmith & Fulham – Bus Lane – Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside

Hi all,

I’ve received an Enforcement Notice from Hammersmith & Fulham for allegedly being in the offside bus lane on Shepherds Bush Road (southbound).

Date: 22/11/2025
Time: 16:06
Penalty: £160
Notice dated: 06/02/2026

I’ve seen previous threads about this exact bus lane being confusing and possibly non-compliant in terms of signage and layout.

Before I make formal representations, can anyone advise whether this location is still worth challenging?

Are signage / DfT authorisation arguments still running here, or has that been closed down?

Happy to upload the rest if needed.

Thanks in advance.

Enforcement Notice – Page 1:

PM me your email address please and I will assist.

Sorted. Draft done.

This in pdf:



1.  I am in possession of the special DFT authorisation for this offside bus lane and it is clear that you have departed from the agreed plan of the layout of the signage, in particular the sign to diagram 958.
2.  Notwithstanding that there is the said authorisation, I refer you to this extract from a High Court decision:

R(Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010]EWHC 894 (Admin) Mr Justice Beatson confirmed that,

Para 65.  The Defendant's submission that the fact that signs are prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient for securing adequate information as to the effect of an order is made available to road users is clearly correct. If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed;

I argue, therefore, that your departure from the DFT authorised plan by placing the 958 sign AFTER the taper line substantially exacerbates your problem concerning enforcement.

3.  The placement of the said sign to diagram 958 is too late and it is a warning sign according to Chapter Three TSM. In fact, I say that  all the signage placed is contrary to their meaning according to the TSM. You should be aware of this as professionals.

4. The Enforcement Notice  conflates service with delivery. This causes me confusion. Please explain what is the last day therefore in this regard.

In light of the above, which clearly expresses this total confusion of signage, I request that you cancel the PCN and EN forthwith.

DNC. 2260349793

******

We have decided, without prejudice to our position, to cancel this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).


We will therefore not be contesting your appeal and have advised London Tribunals of our decision.


However this is not an acceptance of any of your arguments.


The PCN was correctly issued. Signage is fully compliant. This is purely a one-off discretionary gesture with advice.


There are two different bus lanes in this direction of traffic in Shepherd’s Bush Road. They are not the same bus lane.


The first one is the much longer nearside bus lane, which can be seen in the recording in the distant background. It has an ‘end of bus lane’ sign, before the second offside bus lane begins.


The second one is the shorter offside bus lane, which is the bus lane where the alleged contravention occurred.



This offside bus lane is a short one, about two or three car spaces in length.


This short second offside bus lane close to Hammersmith Broadway is clearly separated from the correct traffic lane.


There are a total of seven separate indicators for this bus lane – the surface is red tarmac, the surface has the words BUS LANE painted on it in white, it has a thick white line separating it from the correct lane, it has a directional arrow on the road surface telling motorists in advance to keep left, it has a taper leading up to it, and it has a blue and white roadside sign.


There are also two advanced warning signs before the bus lane begins, ourside the library and police station.


In addition, there is a sign warning of CCTV enforcement in place before the offside bus lane begins. This is not required by law. It is an additional feature to help drivers.



You ignored all indicators and drove through the whole of the bus lane, including over the words BUS LANE. All other vehicles remained in the correct lane. You clearly took advantage over other drivers.


I will now address your arguments here:


1. I am in possession of the special DFT authorisation for this offside bus lane and it is clear that you have departed from the agreed plan of the layout of the signage, in particular the sign to diagram 958.


The bus lane does indeed once have a DfT authorisation. Please note that bus lane authorisations have now been completely abolished. This bus lane no longer requires any authorisation to operate. Whatever you have read online about the authorisation is null, void and obsolete information.


In addition, the Council was originally permitted under the regulations a 5% tolerance away from the original map and plan. This 5% tolerance was used when the road was resurfaced and signage / markings were slightly moved from the original plan, several years ago.



2. Notwithstanding that there is the said authorisation, I refer you to this extract from a High Court decision:


R(Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010]EWHC 894 (Admin) Mr Justice Beatson confirmed that,


Para 65. The Defendant's submission that the fact that signs are prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient for securing adequate information as to the effect of an order is made available to road users is clearly correct. If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed;


I argue, therefore, that your departure from the DFT authorised plan by placing the 958 sign AFTER the taper line substantially exacerbates your problem concerning enforcement.


See above – this is irrelevant, as authorisations have been abolished in law. This is further internet AI nonsense.


3. The placement of the said sign to diagram 958 is too late and it is a warning sign according to Chapter Three TSM. In fact, I say that all the signage placed is contrary to their meaning according to the TSM. You should be aware of this as professionals.


See above, again this is also internet AI nonsense. The authorisation and map is abolished. The sign is in a compliant position.


4. The Enforcement Notice conflates service with delivery. This causes me confusion. Please explain what is the last day therefore in this regard.


Service is two days after the date on each notice.


I trust this completely addresses all of your concerns.


As you have now been fully informed, any future PCNs may not be cancelled.

S Winters

Appeals Officer

******

I do not take too kindly to my arguments being called AI nonsense.


In this case one of the most senior and most experienced adjudicators and a retired Judge found my arguments "well-founded".

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K7I8FNAG4XAoF3JN0RWcUfmq9toyd4lR/view


I said this in case: https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/motorcycle-in-bus-lane-confusing-sign/msg43105/#msg43105

They are playing the right notes but in the wrong order.

What a cretin that person is !!

What a cretin that person is !!

Shelley Winters?

Now is the winter of our discontent.

Hence this:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/enforcement-of-traffic-penalties-by-london-councils-training-of-staff-changes-in/msg125942/#msg125942

What a cretin that person is !!

Indeed.

@raja143 I look forward to your thread as discussed and well done on the DNC. 2260475109 was due to be heard in February.

I am also going to start a thread in the Flame Pit and ask @mrmustard to blog about all this alleged "AI nonsense."

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/the-shepherds-bush-bus-lane-which-raked-in-ps1m-with-confusing-signs-8498962.html

BANTER


https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/hammersmith-fulham-bus-lane-shepherds-bush-rd-southbound-offside-11587/msg126236/#msg126236

APPEAL LETTER


Request for Cancellation of PCN HZ8532699A – Shepherds Bush Road
Offside Southbound Bus Lane (SBRO)

Grounds: No breach of the bus lane order or regulations
I respectfully request the cancellation of the PCN issued at SBRO on several grounds already
outlined in my formal representations, with the following two actually demonstrating that no
breach of the bus lane order or regulations occurred:

1. Unlawful Substitution of an Indicator Sign with a Regulatory Sign Renders
Enforcement Invalid
As shown in Annex 2 of my formal representation, the Borough received permission from
the Department for Transport (DfT) to install traffic sign diagram 958 at SBRO. Instead, it
installed sign 959B, which is not a mere variation but a legally distinct regulatory sign.
Sign 958 vs. Sign 959B – Key Legal Distinctions
• Diagram 958 (TSRGD Schedule 11, Part 2, Item 37) is an indicator sign, intended to
give advance notice that a bus lane ahead permits certain vehicles (e.g., taxis, pedal
cycles) to use it.
o It is not regulatory and cannot be used as the sole legal basis for enforcement.
• Diagram 959B (Schedule 9, Part 4, Item 10) is a regulatory sign that imposes a legal
obligation on drivers, restricting the lane to certain vehicles and times.
Legal Breach
• The DfT did not authorise the use of sign 959B at this location.
• The Borough therefore exceeded its legal powers by installing an unauthorised
regulatory sign.
• Under the TSRGD, traffic authorities may only use signs precisely as drawn in the
Schedules.

Conclusion: Enforcement based on an unauthorised regulatory sign is unlawful. As such,
this PCN should be annulled, as no offence was committed at SBRO.

2. The Signage at SBRO Fails the Legal Test of Adequacy – Proven by the
Disproportionate PCNs issued at SBRO
Even if sign 959B had been authorised (which it was not), its placement and effect on road
users fail the legal test of adequacy, as established in:
• CO/4368/2009 (Justice Beatson):
R (Oxfordshire CC) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator (2010)
• James v Cavey (1967):
James v Cavey
These cases establish that “signs must be sufficient in fact, not just prescribed by law”—
in other words, adequate in practice, not merely in regulation.

Statistical Evidence of Disproportionate PCNs Issued at SBRO Among the
Borough’s 46 Bus Lanes
FOI data from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (undisputed by the
Borough, with references included in my original and additional submissions) shows:
• The Borough operates 46 bus lanes.
In 2023:
• Total PCNs issued across all 46 bus lanes: 17,338
• Of those, 12,458 (72%) were issued at SBRO, which is only 38 yards (35meters)
long
In 2024
• Total PCNs issued across all 46 bus lanes: 17,330
• Of those, 11,921 (69%) were issued at SBRO (FOI Ref: 17565238, attached):

From Nov 2022 to Jan 2023:
• Similar pattern observed, with SBRO issuing again an abnormally high number of
PCNs, again suggesting irregularities specific to this bus lane.

Comparison with the Primary Bus Lane Immediately Preceding SBRO Further Highlights the Dispropor?onate Enforcement at SBRO
• SBRO’s primary bus lane runs from Dewhurst Road to 229 Shepherds Bush Road:
o Length: 704 yards (644 metres)
o PCNs issued in 2024: 2,100
• SBRO is the secondary/continuation lane:
o Length: 38 yards (35 metres)
o PCNs issued in 2024: 11,921
If we look at PCNs per metre:
• Primary lane: ~3.2 PCNs per metre
• SBRO: ~340 PCNs per metre
Thus, SBRO generates over 106 times more PCNs per metre than the directly connected,
longer primary lane. This is illogical, as longer lanes naturally offer greater opportunity for
infractions. Moreover, the two lanes form a continuous traffic system, operating under the
same traffic and weather conditions, making such an extreme disparity even more
inconsistent

Sign Placement and Misleading Positioning
As noted in my original challenge (Section 2 – Non-Compliant Signage Placement):
• The (illegal) 959B sign is placed directly at the lead-in taper, instead of the 30
metres ahead as required by Section 9.3.4 of the Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 3.
• The Borough claims to have DfT permission for this and points to two preceding
advisory signs. However, the data above clearly proves that this signage has to be
either misleading, unclear, or unfairly placed—as data show that enforcement at
SRBO is skewed against drivers.
This makes the signage legally inadequate and unenforceable.

Regulatory Context
• Regulation 18(1) of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England
and Wales) Regulations 1996 requires that councils clearly inform road users of
restrictions imposed by traffic orders.
• The extraordinary rate of PCNs at SBRO—compared to both the primary lane and
the rest of the borough—demonstrates a failure to comply with this obligation.

Conclusion
This PCN should be annulled on both legal and practical grounds:
1. The sign used (959B) is a regulatory sign not authorised for this site, making
enforcement unlawful.
2. Even if it were authorised, the signage fails the legal test of adequacy, as
demonstrated by the grossly disproportionate PCN figures at SBRO, compared to:
o Its directly connected primary bus lane, and
o The entire set of 46 bus lanes in the Borough.

The cumulative evidence here presented demonstrates that the signage at SBRO is not fit for
purpose, creating a trap-like enforcement environment. This supports the claim that PCN
HZ8532699A is invalid and should therefore be cancelled.

I also won my appeal against Hammersmith , and they cancelled the PCN (I couldn't find the attach button so my appeal letter is ina separate message - look for it because it has all the references to the data mentioned here.

My main argument was based on the council's own Freedom of Information responses. I compared the number of PCNs issued for this bus lane with:

* all the other bus lanes in the borough (from memory, there are around 40 something); and
* the much longer bus lane immediately before it, which feeds directly into this one.

This tiny bus lane generated by far the highest number of PCNs in the borough, despite being only a fraction of the length of many others. It also generated substantially more PCNs than the much longer bus lane immediately preceding it, which as it is linked to it has the same traffic under the sam econditions so it's directly comparable. I included the length of both bus lanes to allow a like-for-like comparison (PCNs per metre).

The data I used was:

1. The annual number of PCNs issued for all the bus lanes in the borough, over several years.
2. the number of PCNs of the tinny BL same years
2. A comparison of the number of PCNs per metre between the preceding bus lane and this very short bus lane - again data per year

Taken together, these comparisons strongly suggest that the difference cannot reasonably be explained by traffic patterns alone and is consistent with this short bus lane operating as a trap.

The I used the Oxfordshire trial precedent

A few "tricks":

* Ask for **all correspondence to be sent by email**. Councils are often slow to respond and can miss statutory deadlines.
* **Never give up.** Many cases are won simply because people persist.
* **Ask the council to attend the adjudication hearing** (even remotely). Inform them on the last day they can be notified. So give them as little time as possble to prepare shwoing up. Put it on a friday, end of the day if possible. 
They often fail to appear, and in my case that was sufficient for the appeal to succeed. But the adjudicator considered that the numbers argument was pretty strong

Good luck

@Cata I know you did and I have given you credit for it on this forum!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mgCPCQCvxQD2MDmJ81xP2bawiwyvUs2a/view

Let's bygones be bygones and do something about this!  I will email you.

Hippocrates=AI my derriere!

Regarding service: your case was very fact-specific. And you used all my arguments as in this case and others.

One never informs the authority of its obligations until 7 days before the hearing or one is teaching them the lesson.

As provided at para 7(6)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/9/schedule/1/enacted