Free Traffic Legal Advice

I have received two moving traffic PCNs for the same vehicle (VRM KW75 EXK) on 20/02/2026, issued by the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.
Both alleged contraventions are for Code 52M – Failing to comply with a prohibition on motor vehicles.
The key details:

PCN 1 – 15:25 – RMV Steventon Rd Eastbound junction Old Oak Rd
PCN number: HZ97617253
Date of Notice: 03/03/2026

PCN 2 – 15:27 – RMV Sawley Rd Eastbound near junction Bloemfontein Rd
PCN number: HZ9759050A
Date of Notice: 02/03/2026

Both PCNs were issued by the same camera operator (VA143) and only two minutes apart, although at different nearby locations.

I don't recall seeing any road signs on the approach on old oak road nor on sawley road (it does have a lot of trees). The only sign i can see is 90 degrees to old oak road, meaning you'd only see it once about to turn in. However I could be mistaken I am not from the London, was visiting family who live just off Bloemfontein road. Unfortunately they didn't remember the restriction nor registered me on the ringo app.

PCNs and All Pages
PCN 1 – HZ9759050A (Sawley Rd)

Date of alleged contravention: 20/02/2026 – 15:27
Date of Notice: 02/03/2026
Location: RMV Sawley Rd Eastbound near junction Bloemfontein Rd (VA)
Full penalty: £160
Discount: £80 (14 days)
Camera: VA143


PCN 2 – HZ97617253 (Steventon Rd / Old Oak Rd)

Date of alleged contravention: 20/02/2026 – 15:25
Date of Notice: 03/03/2026
Location: RMV Steventon Rd Eastbound junction Old Oak Rd (VA)
Full penalty: £160
Discount: £80
Camera: VA143


Both videos here: https://imgpile.com/p/3FO8rQ5
Actual notices: PCN1
PCN2

Old Oak Rd → Steventon Rd Eastbound
Sawley Rd Eastbound → Bloemfontein Rd

Thank you based on that, here are my representations for the 2 pcns based on the comments above and this older thread Old Oak Rd:

PCN HZ97617253 – 15:25 Steventon Road / Old Oak Road

I challenge the PCN on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur because the restriction was not adequately indicated, supported by video evidence.

1. No advance warning of the restriction
There is no advance sign on the approach to the junction. The restriction only becomes apparent at the moment the manoeuvre has already been committed. A driver cannot comply with a restriction that is not indicated before reaching the decision point.
2. The sign is not visible to approaching traffic
Video evidence shows that the sign is positioned almost edge on at ninety degrees to the driver’s approach. It is not facing traffic and is not readable as a prohibitory sign until it is too late to comply. A sign that does not face the oncoming driver does not fulfil the authority’s duty under Regulation 18 to adequately convey the restriction.
3. Compliance would require an unsafe manoeuvre
By the time the sign becomes visible, it is not possible to stop or turn safely without causing danger to other road users. Enforcement cannot rely on signage that requires a sudden stop or hazardous reversing movement. The heigh of the sign combined with the already tight turn, would be unfair to expect driver to absorb all of this in a split second.
For these reasons the signage does not meet statutory requirements and the alleged contravention did not occur. I request that the PCN is cancelled.

If the authority does not agree, please provide:

the Traffic Management Order covering this location
the signage placement plan
the latest inspection and maintenance records
confirmation that the sign orientation was checked on the date in question

I will rely on my video evidence at adjudication if required.


HZ9759050A (15:27 Sawley Road Eastbound / Bloemfontein Road)
To: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
Regarding: PCN HZ9759050A
Vehicle: KW75 EXK
Date of alleged contravention: 20 February 2026 at 15:27
Location: RMV Sawley Road Eastbound near junction with Bloemfontein Road
Grounds: No contravention. Signage relates to the opposite direction of travel.

I challenge this PCN on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. My video evidence clearly shows that the restriction signs apply only to vehicles entering Sawley Road from Bloemfontein Road.
At the material time, my vehicle was exiting Sawley Road, travelling in the opposite direction, away from the signs. The prohibitory signs face oncoming traffic entering the road. They do not face nor apply to vehicles leaving the restricted area.
A vehicle cannot contravene a restriction that is:

not facing the driver
not visible to exiting traffic
not intended to regulate motorists travelling in that direction

This is confirmed by my video, which shows the signs positioned solely for inbound traffic. No contravention can occur when a driver is travelling away from a restriction, because the Traffic Management Order and signage only regulate the inbound movement.
Since the restriction does not apply to vehicles exiting, the alleged contravention did not occur.
I request that the PCN be cancelled.
If the authority does not agree, please provide:

the Traffic Management Order including direction of travel for the restriction
the signage plan showing sign orientation
inspection records confirming sign positioning on the date in question
justification for enforcing a restriction against a movement it does not regulate

I will rely on my video evidence at adjudication if necessary.
Is this acceptable? Is it worth mentioning the 2 minute window for repeated fine from the same operator for same contravention?, something along the lines of:

Another PCN was issued two minutes earlier/later in the Wormholt Neighbourhood improvement location by the same camera operator. This indicates that the overall signage layout in the area is not providing clear or timely information to motorists. A properly conveyed restriction does not result in two alleged contraventions in such a short window.

I suppose I am trying to see if it will helpful or detrimental to my case. I had a 52m last year slightly different circumstances, but was cancelled by H&F themselves on first ask (thanks to this forum), no tribunal or rejections.

Got a video of the area not sure if this sign was up when it happened to me. Nonetheless , the driver did say even though, the dashcam doesnt show it properly, it was obscured by tree branches but not that much



@cmmanage something for you too?