Based on all the suggestions from the forum and Bustagate, I’ve decided to appeal. I’ve rewritten my initial representation to prepare it for submission to the London Tribunals. I’d appreciate any feedback—do you have any other suggestions or improvements?
1. Location of the Alleged ContraventionThe alleged contravention occurred on the slip road exiting the Great West Road (A4), before I reached the "RED ROUTE // CLEARWAY // Exit" sign, which marks the boundary between TfL’s slip road and Hammersmith and Fulham’s Rivercourt Road. The signage marking the restriction boundary appears after the point at which I exited, placing the alleged contravention outside the effective enforcement zone.
2. Inadequate, Misplaced, and Non-Compliant SignageThe only sign indicating that a permit is required to use the exit is located after the point of restriction as specified in the relevant Traffic Management Order (TMO). This undermines the enforceability of the restriction, as drivers are not given sufficient advance warning.
Furthermore, the sign in question does not conform to the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD). In particular:
The sign is a dot matrix display, and
It is positioned facing due west, meaning that whenever the sun is shining, direct sunlight directly hits the sign, overpowering the lights forming the display and making it extremely difficult to read.
This is especially relevant to the conditions at the time of the alleged contravention. Sunset on 25th April was at 8:14 PM, and the Council’s own video footage shows that lighting conditions were already fading. If the sun had been out, it would have been low in the sky and directly behind the driver, shining straight into the sign’s face, significantly diminishing visibility and legibility.
These lighting and compliance issues, combined with the lack of advance warning signage on the A4, meant I had no reasonable opportunity to see, interpret, and respond to the restriction in time. This falls far short of the standard required for proper and enforceable traffic control.
3. Overloaded and Unsafe Signage at JunctionUpon exiting the A4, I was presented with an excessive number of signs at a junction where drivers are expected to make rapid decisions while travelling at 40 mph. It is simply not possible to read and safely process the information from 11 different signs in such a short space. These included:
- A composite Controlled Zone sign with extra text,
- Two one-way street signs,
- A speed limit sign,
- A restricted access for HGVs sign with detailed plates,
- A no entry for vehicular traffic sign with an additional plate,
- A Red Route Clearway ends sign,
- A road name sign,
and
Crucially, the sign restricting access to permit holders — which was not placed before the turn, but on the opposite side of the road.
To add to this, the lighting conditions at the time were poor. Sunset on 25th April was at 8:14 PM. The Council’s own footage clearly shows the level of dimming light at the time. If the sun had been shining at a low angle, it would have been directly facing the signs, further reducing visibility and legibility. This is an important factor that affected my ability to interpret the signage in time.
Moreover, the Council’s video footage illustrates the confusion caused at this junction: another vehicle, shortly after mine, attempted to reverse or turn around upon seeing the restriction. This led the car behind it to brake sharply and stop suddenly — creating a clear road safety hazard. In my own case, I had only a few seconds to interpret the signage while navigating a turn and with vehicles closely behind. Any sudden stop or reversal would have been unsafe. Proceeding was the only safe and responsible course of action.
4. No Safe Alternative RouteOnce committed to the slip road, I had no legal or safe way to reverse or turn around:
Reversing back onto the A4 — a fast, three-lane carriageway — would have violated Highway Code Rules 200 and 201 and posed a serious safety risk.
The “new turning bay,” referenced in the Notice of Rejection, is not viable in real-world driving conditions. The photos included by the Council actually support this: the layout makes reversing or turning impractical and hazardous.
The give way lines are extremely close to the junction and could result in a vehicle being stranded partially on the A4 — another clear safety hazard.
Solid white lines funnel exiting traffic forward and physically discourage any turning back, clearly indicating that the road is designed to force vehicles forward.
The junction’s layout left me no safe, legal alternative but to continue onto Rivercourt Road. The manoeuvre I performed was an ordinary, lawful one — made hazardous only by poor signage, confusing road layout, and environmental conditions.
5. Legal Precedent – Insufficient SignageAs established in
James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676, the fact that signage is prescribed or authorised does not guarantee that it sufficiently communicates the effect of a traffic order. If signage fails to provide clear and adequate information to the road user, no offence is committed. That principle applies directly in this case.
6. Request for Cancellation and ReviewIn light of the above, I respectfully request that
this appeal be allowed and the PCN be cancelled. The combination of:
unclear and poorly positioned signage,
complex and overwhelming sign clutter,
diminished visibility due to lighting and sunset conditions,
the absence of advance warning,
and the lack of a safe alternative route,
meant that compliance with the restriction was not reasonably possible under the circumstances. I
would also
respectfully ask the Adjudicator to urge the Council to review the signage layout and placement at this junction in the interest of fairness and public safety.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this representation. I look forward to your response.