Free Traffic Legal Advice

Apologies for dragging Rivercourt Road back up to the top of the pile, but I’ve received two PCNs (52M - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (m) motor vehicles) within a week. The first was received and challenged before the second arrived last week.

Basically, the first I saw of any newly implemented restriction was among the flurry of confusing signage upon entering the second time, but I drove along the A4 yesterday and only saw two very temporary, minuscule and pretty unclear signs on the roadside, and two programmable electronic boards. Also pretty temporary in appearance, difficult to read, and more like the kind of thing you’d expect for events or roadworks.

This is clearly quite a hot topic in The Flame Pit, but I was wondering whether anyone had any recent experience of having these sorts of PCNs cancelled?

Thanks in advance for any help with this!

Thanks for the reply. So is the general consensus still to contest? As you say, the whole thing seems entirely ludicrous.

Thank you, John.

First challenge:

Good evening,

I’ve just returned from my holidays, and am mortified to have found a PCN (HZ93433791) relating to a ‘52M’ on 01/07/2025.

My parents used to live in the area, and Rivercourt Road is one I’ve driven down endlessly over the years, albeit less so recently. Obviously every previous time, I’ve never received anything like this. I was completely unaware of what must be a new(ish?) restriction, or else there is no way I would’ve taken this particular route. Indeed, I only noticed the change once I’d made the turning and was overwhelmed with signage, but without any option to reverse back out into the 40mph A4 for reasons self-explanatory. I think the road is one-way (or used to be?) anyway…

Of course, this was the last time I’ll be deviating from the A4 in order to get to Shepherd’s Bush, but also the first I’ve ever heard of this restriction. A lesson definitively learned. But I’m unsure as to what else I could’ve done, aside from doing something extremely dangerous, and potentially lethal? With no prior warning either.

Any response to what is very evidently a totally honest mistake would be gratefully received.

Thank you in advance,
[NAME REDACTED].

Second draft challenge:

Having since received a second PCN (HZ93517337), I realise the first time I noticed the new signage was on 06/07 rather than 01/07, hence my driving down Rivercourt Road twice in the same week – something that I of course would not have done otherwise.

I drove down the A4 on 20/07 and for the first time, I noticed both variable message signs (pretty difficult to read in daylight) and two very temporary, inadequately sized, and decidedly unclear portable signs on the roadside. I was, as goes without saying, consciously looking out for any indication of this new restriction, and don’t recall seeing any of this on either prior occasion but obviously the A4 requires complete attention at all times given how busy it is, taking into account the many vehicles merging from Weltje Road and the BP petrol station, and so on.

In addition, the branches of a nearby tree are currently obfuscating the signs on Rivercourt Road itself, making it practically impossible to see them without having already made the turning. As I’ve previously suggested, to then reverse is entirely out of the question. Again, and to reiterate, I’m really unsure as to what else I could’ve done here.

Any further guidance would obviously be hugely appreciated!

Thanks again, John.

My only thinking was that I would need to get back in contact with them regarding the second PCN before the 14 days from 14/07 had elapsed. Is that correct, or does it not matter here?

And regarding the second challenge, I’m assuming it’s best to reformat much like the PDF attached to that previous thread?

Thank you.

Thanks again.

I emailed enquiries@lbhfparking.com on 13/07 regarding the first PCN. There is a link to the first page of the second — dated 14/07 — in an earlier post.

I will redraft the reps for the second and post here prior to sending.

Thank you.

To be clear, this is a representation to the Council against the PCN, and not an appeal to the Adjudicator.

I am not sure about the penultimate paragraph. Perhaps @Bustagate will review it for you.

I have copied your draft here for ease of suggesting edits.

(You need a heading)

Re: PCN HZ93517337 Reg.Mark HN21XOH

I make these representations against the above PCN and also ask they be caonsidered as supplementary representations against PCN HZ93433791

Having since received a second PCN (HZ93517337), I realise the first time I noticed the new signage was on 06/07 rather than 01/07, hence my driving down Rivercourt Road twice in the same week – something that I of course would not have done otherwise. (I don't feel this para helps)

These PCNs relate to alleged contraventions on 1st and 6th July respectively, the latter being before the first PCN was received.

I drove down along the A4 again on 20/07 and for the first time, I noticed both two advance variable message signs – pretty difficult to read in daylight – and three inadequately sized, decidedly unclear portable signs on the roadside. I do not believe These portable signs were even not there at the time of the alleged contravention. Their being a recent addition shows the Council recognise the earlier signage arrangements were inadequate.

I was, as goes without saying, consciously looking out for any indication of this new restriction on 20/07, and don’t recall seeing any of this the dot matrix signs on either prior occasion, but obviously the A4 requires complete attention at all times given how busy it is, especially taking into account the many vehicles merging from Weltje Road and the BP petrol station, and so on.

The 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 variable message signs currently in place do not conform to the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) as they are dot-matrix displays. Additionally, on closer inspection, they read: ‘NO THROUGH ROUTE TO KING STREET VIA RIVERCOURT RD’. Again, no mention of the need for a permit, plus this requires a degree of local knowledge which many will not possess and is thus misleading.


In addition, a tree is was obscuring the many signs and road markings on the entrance to Rivercourt Road itself (a composite ‘Controlled Zone’ sign with extra text; two one-way street signs; a speed limit sign; a cycle and pedestrian sign; a road name sign; the signs restricting access to permit holders, mentioned for the first time -see attached image), (use the image from Reply #2 on this thread) .making it practically impossible to see them without having already made the turning. Having been travelling at 40mph, this signage is absolutely excessive, and very difficult to read and safely process in such a short space of time. As I’ve previously suggested in my reps against the 1st PCN (?), to then reverse is also entirely out of the question as it would create a clear road safety hazard. Again, and to reiterate, I’m really unsure as to what else I could’ve done here as proceeding was the only safe and responsible course of action, and I do not believe that I had reasonable opportunity to see, interpret, and respond to the new restriction in time.

Once committed to the slip road, I had no legal or safe way to reverse or turn around: reversing back onto the A4 – a 40mph, 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, as 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; solid white lines funnel exiting traffic forward and physically discourage any turning back, clearly indicating that the road is designed to force vehicles forward. All of this falls far short of the standard required for proper and enforceable traffic control.
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. As 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.

Finally, the alleged contravention occurred on the slip road exiting the Great West Road (A4), before I reached the ‘RED ROUTE // CLEARWAY // Exit’ sign marking 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.

In light of the above, I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed my representations be accepted and both PCNs be cancelled. The combination of unclear and poorly positioned signage, complex and overwhelming sign clutter, 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 further review the signage layout and placement at this junction in the interest of fairness and public safety

re Reply#1: I've had confirmation from TfL that H&F did not serve notice on them about the proposed changes to Rivercourt Road. It's here.

The relevant passage is:

You asked
...
3. details of notice and correspondence between H&F and TfL relating to their TMO 2037, in particular under section 121B of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;

Our Streets Asset Operations team did not receive any notice or correspondence from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham relating to their TMO 2037.

Note that s.121B of RTRA 1984 is far stronger than r.6 LATOR 1996:

(1) No London borough council shall exercise any power under this Act in a way which will affect, or be likely to affect,—
(a) a GLA road, or
. . .
unless the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) below have been satisfied.

(2) The first requirement is that the council has given notice of the proposal to exercise the power in the way in question—
(a) to Transport for London; and
. . .

(3)The second requirement is that—

(a) the proposal has been approved

(i) in the case of a GLA road, by Transport for London;
. . .

(b) the period of one month beginning with the date on which Transport for London and, where applicable, the council received notice of the proposal has expired without Transport for London or the council having objected to the proposal; or
(c) any objection made by Transport for London or the council has been withdrawn; or
(d) where an objection has been made by Transport for London or a London borough council and not withdrawn, the Greater London Authority has given its consent to the proposal after consideration of the objection.

(4) Before deciding whether to give any consent for the purposes of subsection (3)(d) above, the Greater London Authority may cause a public inquiry to be held.

(5) If Transport for London has reason to believe—

(a) that a London borough council is proposing to exercise a power under this Act in a way which will affect, or be likely to affect,

(i) a GLA road,

. .
(b) that notice of the proposal is required to be, but has not been, given in accordance with subsection (2) above,

Transport for London may give a direction to the council requiring it not to proceed with the proposal until the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) above have been satisfied.

(6) If a London borough council exercises any power in contravention of this section, Transport for London may take such steps as it considers appropriate to reverse or modify the effect of the exercise of that power.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) above, Transport for London shall have power to exercise any power of the London borough council on behalf of that council.

(8 ) Any reasonable expenses incurred by Transport for London in taking any steps under subsection (6) above shall be recoverable by Transport for London from the London borough council concerned as a civil debt.

After repeated prodding, TfL came up with a plan from their Property Asset Register which shows which land TfL controls and which it owns. This shows that the "RED ROUTE // CLEARWAY // End" sign is actually on H&F's land and that the boundary of the TfL-controlled land is just a straight line along the northern edge of the combined cycle/footway.

TfL don't actually own the land of the former Rivercourt Road where the A4 crosses it. I surmise that neither does H&F. This is because compulsory purchase powers can only be exercised against the owners of a plot of land. The householders on either side of Rivercourt Road had their land acquired, but it will be lost in the mists of time who actually possessed title to the land which formed the roads. As councils have powers to make and maintain highways, they don't need ownership of the land to do what they want. The same appears to have happened with Weltje Road and part of Hampshire Hog Lane (the curious dog-leg in the A4 to the east of Rivercourt Road).

With regard to the sandwich-board signs, H&F's plans for these showed them 2.4m tall, which would have made them readable by passing motorists. The signs themselves (inevitably) don't comply with TSRGD 2016; but then H&F's highway engineers seem to have great difficulty understanding that they can't just produce signs as they see fit.

I don't think it makes any difference to you. It's just something which people such as @Incandescent have been wondering about and which (somewhat to my surprise) TfL were actually prepared to state: that H&F did not follow the law when they made the changes to Rivercourt Road. TfL could take action against H&F but don't appear to be interested in doing so.

The problem is that while an action for judicial review of H&F's actions might well succeed, that costs much  more than any number of PCN fines AND there's the risk that you don't succeed and then have to pay H&F's costs in defending the action. Hence it's only for people with really deep pockets, such as businesses which risk going bankrupt because they've lost so much trade (as happened with the West Dulwich LTN).