Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi. This spot seems very well known to the group. I will use the replies given from the latest reply to apply to the tribunal as this seems to have worked.

They have also only just rejected my representation (originally dates 9 Feb). So being over 90 days I believe that also falls into the being over 3 months - will the tribunal throw it out on that basis too?


London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
Penalty Charge Notice : HZ96913603
Verification Code : 81E616
Date of Contravention : 30/01/2026 at 18:57
Vehicle Registration : LM65GBY
Location : RMV Rivercourt Rd NthBnd adj nos 17 (va)
NOTICE OF REJECTION OF REPRESENTATION
Thank you for your representation.
Why the PCN was issued?
This PCN was issued because the vehicle was observed and recorded by an unattended
camera, ignoring a ‘No Motor Vehicle’ except buses, taxis, and permit holders’ sign.
Private hire vehicles are not automatically exempt. The exemption applies only to Hackney
Carriages.
Your challenge
You have stated that “I am challenging this PCN on the grounds that the contravention did
not occur due to inadequate signage.
Please send me a copy of the TMO for the junction so I can review it.
However, from what I saw driving, the 'No Motor Vehicles' sign at the junction of Rivercourt
Road is mounted at a height that sits outside a driver's natural line of sight when turning
left from the A4, and it is obscured by foliage until it's too late. Furthermore, there is a lack
of clear, legible advance warning on the A4 to allow a driver to safely adjust their route
before committing to the turn. As the signs fail to meet the visibility and placement
requirements set out in the Traffic Signs Manual, the restriction is unenforceable and the
penalty should be cancelled.”
My findings
I have considered what you have said, however I am satisfied that the restrictions at this
location are clearly and adequately sign posted and comply with all the relevant
regulations.
Access through Rivercourt Road is restricted to residents and permit holders of
Hammersmith and Fulham. The scheme was brought in to reduce the amount of traffic
using the road as a cut through. These restrictions apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
including Bank Holidays.
Motorists who are visiting residents of local roads may use Rivercourt Road if given
access by the resident, who can do so by using the RingGo app. Only residents in
Rivercourt Road, Cromwell Avenue, Weltje Road, Beavor Lane, Vencourt Place,
Ravenscourt Park, (only part -properties from junction of King Street to train bridge) and
Ravenscourt Road (only part – from junction of King Street to train bridge) are able to
provide such access.
Local shops and businesses are also able to provide free access through the new
Rivercourt Road traffic camera for staff, deliveries and customers, via the Business Visitor
Access RingGo app.
Delivery drivers, trades people, mini cabs, and other non-residents can access any
property in the area without needing to go through Rivercourt Road.
To avoid getting a PCN, non-H&F registered drivers should enter the area via
Hammersmith Broadway and King Street.
For more information on the project, please go to: Making Rivercourt Road safer | London
Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
A recording of the contravention can be viewed on-line by following the links on the
Parking pages at the Councils web site http://www.lbhf.gov.uk or directly at
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/pcn (select the link to "Challenge a Fine and View Images” and
follow the instructions) - The video can be seen below the photos.
Photos can be viewed by clicking on the different numbers below the image displayed on
screen to move between them.
My decision
I have considered what you have said and all the available evidence, but I do not agree
that we should cancel your liability for this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
What happens next
Your options are detailed below.
On this occasion only, we will allow you another opportunity to pay this PCN at the
reduced amount of £80.00. I must however advise you that we are not required to do this
by law. This offer will not be re-offered for this PCN.
Before the end of the period of 28 days (beginning with the date of service of the notice of
rejection), you should:
1. Pay the charge as described below:
- We will accept £80.00 in full and final settlement of this case provided that we receive
payment within 14 days (beginning with the date of service of this notice of rejection).
YOU MAY NOT MAKE AN APPEAL TO THE ADJUDICATOR AND TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF THIS £80.00 SETTLEMENT OFFER.
- The full penalty charge of £160.00 will be required to close the case if we receive
payment within 15-28 days (beginning with the date of service of this notice of rejection).
or;
2. Appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators:
To appeal, complete the enclosed form `Your right to appeal` and send it to it to London
Tribunals. DO NOT SEND YOUR APPEAL FORM TO THIS OFFICE. Alternatively you can
make your appeal online at the following address www.LondonTribunals.gov.uk. Please
ensure that you quote the unique appeal verification code stated on this Notice of
Rejection and follow the online instructions on how to complete your appeal.
Any appeal to London Tribunals should be made within 28 days of the date of service of
this notice. Late appeals may be considered; however, this would only be at the discretion
of the Adjudicator.
Appealing to the Adjudicator is free. Adjudicators do not normally award costs or
expenses, although they can do so if they decide that either you or we acted frivolously,
vexatiously, or wholly unreasonably in the appeal, or that our decision in this Notice of
Rejection was wholly unreasonable. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL BE LIABLE FOR
THE FULL PENALTY CHARGE IF YOUR APPEAL IS NOT SUCCESSFUL.



Can’t seem to load the evidence on my phone - I will do this when on a pc

My draft response is this based on reading previous discussions. Any help would be appreciated:

Notice of Appeal
To: London Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators)

Date: 28 May 2026
Enforcement Authority: London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
PCN Reference: HZ96913603
Contravention Code: 52M — Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (Motor Vehicles)

Location: Rivercourt Road, London

1. Introduction & Key Timeline
1.1 I wish to appeal against the Notice of Rejection (NOR) issued by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (“the Authority”) on 19 May 2026. The NOR rejects my representations against the issuance of Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) HZ96913603, which alleges a contravention of Code 52M on 30 January 2026 at Rivercourt Road.

1.2 The procedural timeline of this matter is central to my primary ground of appeal and is detailed as follows:

30 January 2026: Date of alleged contravention.

6 February 2026: Date of issuance of the PCN.

9 February 2026: Date formal representations were submitted by the Appellant (within 3 days of PCN service).

19 May 2026: Date of issuance of the Notice of Rejection by the Authority.

Total Elapsed Time: 3 months and 10 days (99 days) from receipt of representations to the issuance of the NOR.

1.3 This appeal is brought on two distinct grounds:

Primary Ground (Procedural): The Authority acted with inordinate, unjustified delay in responding to my formal representations, constituting a breach of the common law duties of fairness, due diligence, and procedural propriety.

Secondary Ground (Substantive): The alleged contravention did not occur because the signage layout fails to provide adequate advance information to motorists, creating an unavoidable safety hazard.

2. Primary Ground: Unjustified Inordinate Delay (Collateral Challenge)
2.1 I acknowledge that the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 does not prescribe a rigid statutory time limit for serving a notice of rejection in moving traffic cases, unlike the strict 56-day limit applicable to parking contraventions.

2.2 However, it is a foundational principle of public law that an enforcement authority must exercise its statutory powers within a reasonable timeframe, acting with due diligence. This Tribunal has explicitly formalized this expectation, publishing a clear guidance statement on its website: "The adjudicators have decided that an Enforcement Authority should normally respond to representations within 3 months."

2.3 In the present case, the Authority required 3 months and 10 days (99 days) to respond to representations that were submitted promptly by the Appellant. Crucially, the issued Notice of Rejection offers absolutely no acknowledgement, explanation, or mitigating justification for this delay.

2.4 This Tribunal has consistently held that exceeding the 3-month guideline without a compelling, documented justification constitutes a fatal procedural flaw. Such a delay renders subsequent enforcement unfair and unlawful, serving as a valid collateral challenge to the validity of the PCN.

2.5 I note that this specific Authority has a documented pattern of non-compliance regarding these exact timeframes. As recently as April 2026, this Tribunal allowed multiple appeals against the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham on identical grounds of inordinate delay (e.g., Lloyd Jantuah v LBHF [Case 2250654961] and Shanye Hazel-Marriott v LBHF [Case 2250663918], both cited in the Appendix).

2.6 The Authority was fully aware of its legal obligations and the explicit expectations of the Tribunal, yet failed to meet them or justify its failure. On this procedural ground alone, I respectfully submit that enforcement cannot be lawfully pursued and the PCN must be cancelled.

3. Secondary Ground: The Alleged Contravention Did Not Occur
In the event that the primary procedural ground is not upheld, I preserve the substantive defence that the layout and signage at the intersection of the A4 and Rivercourt Road are legally deficient and structurally unsafe.

A. The Legal Standard for Adequacy of Signage
3.1 The primary authority on the adequacy of traffic signage is established in R (Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin). At paragraph 65 of the judgment, Beatson J confirmed:

"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; see James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676." 

3.2 The Oxfordshire case concerned the exact same regulatory sign used here—Diagram 619 ("No motor vehicles")—but under fundamentally different structural conditions. In Oxfordshire, the local authority had successfully placed advance warning signs (Diagram 450) at intervals of 450, 180, and 20 yards before the restriction, ensuring approaching motorists had sufficient notice to safely avoid the junction.

3.3 In the present case, the Authority has failed to coordinate with Transport for London (TfL) to place any appropriate advance warning signage on the A4 dual carriageway. A motorist approaching the Rivercourt Road turning is completely blind to the restriction until they have already committed to the physical manoeuvre. To achieve the legal standard set out in Oxfordshire, a "No Left Turn" sign (Diagram 613) with a supplementary plate ("Except buses, taxis, cycles and authorised vehicles") ought to be positioned immediately prior to the junction, complemented by a map-type advance warning sign 50 meters prior. No such signs were present on the day of the alleged contravention.

B. Signage Complexity and Information Overload
3.4 Upon initiating the turn from the A4 onto Rivercourt Road, a driver is immediately confronted by an overwhelming cluster of no fewer than 11 separate traffic signs located at the immediate mouth of the junction. This exceptional density includes but not limited to:

A composite Controlled Parking Zone sign (containing complex text variations from the standard prescription);
Two separate One-Way street signs;
A Speed Limit sign;
A structural restriction sign (vehicles exceeding a prescribed weight) with highly detailed, multi-line associated plates;
A No Entry sign with an associated supplementary plate;
A Red Route Clearway termination sign; and
A local street name plate.

3.5 The actual regulatory sign relating to residents' access is highly obscured, positioned on the opposite side of the road rather than prior to the turning point.

3.6 It is a physical and cognitive impossibility for a motorist safely decelerating from a three-lane, 40 mph trunk road (the A4) to read, interpret, and process 11 distinct pieces of regulatory visual data within a matter of seconds. The sheer density of information fails the statutory requirement that restrictions must be conveyed clearly and unambiguously to an approaching driver.

C. Absence of Safe Egress and Conflict with the Highway Code
3.7 The physical infrastructure of the junction actively traps the motorist once the turn is initiated. The vehicle is immediately funneled by a give-way line and two solid white lines. These markings are positioned so close to the A4 carriageway that halting a vehicle to read the signage cluster creates an immediate risk of shunting, potentially blocking trailing traffic on a high-speed arterial road.

3.8 The "turning bay" referenced by the Authority in its Notice of Rejection is a structural farce. It provides no viable, safe option for a standard vehicle to retreat from the restriction once committed to the turn.

3.9 To avoid entering Rivercourt Road at that juncture, a driver's only alternative would be to reverse backward out of the side road directly into a live, 40 mph three-lane dual carriageway. Such an action is strictly prohibited under Rules 200 and 201 of the Highway Code, which dictate that a motorist must never reverse from a side road into a main road due to the profound danger to public safety.

3.10 Consequently, once committed to an otherwise entirely legal turning maneuver, the motorist is directly compelled by the physical geometry and markings of the junction to proceed down Rivercourt Road. Because the Authority failed to provide an advance warning, a safe method of turning around, or a lawful method of egress, the contravention cannot be said to have legally occurred.

4. Relief Sought
I respectfully request that this Tribunal:

Allow the appeal on the Primary Ground, confirming that the Authority's unmitigated 99-day delay violates procedural fairness, and direct that PCN HZ96913603 be cancelled; or

In the alternative, allow the appeal on the Secondary Ground, finding that under the standard established in R (Oxfordshire CC) v Bus Lane Adjudicator, the signage layout fails to provide adequate information, and therefore no legally enforceable offense occurred.

Yours faithfully,

Appellant
28 May 2026