Apologies for the size of images. Linked images appear not to re-scale on the forum.
Anyway, yes, here is a defence I submitted to H&F which I fully expect to get rejected:
I have been issued with a PCN for an alleged contravention – 52 M – Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles at Peterborough Rd SeBND o/s side of 90 Clancarty Rd (VA).
I believe there are mitigating circumstances and would like to request that you consider the following and please cancel the PCN.
We unwittingly entered the South Fulham Clean Air Neighbourhood trial and had no prior knowledge of its presence. I fully appreciate the need for the scheme and wholeheartedly support clean air and traffic congestion initiatives such as this, however as out-of-borough visitors we were unprepared and failed to recognise the restrictions in place.
Peterborough Rd southbound that we were traveling on is a single lane with a warning sign positioned just at the point of the access prohibition and situated alongside a width restriction barrier and a central Bus Lane. I do accept that we made a mistake traveling along this road given what we’ve since learned about the scheme, however, the concentration that was required by the driver to negotiate the width restriction, combined with simultaneously attempting to read the detailed text on the warning sign which is positioned relatively high up above the line of sight from the vehicle meant that we failed to adequately process its message. Given that the central lane is a Bus lane at that point we believed that the restricted access sign was prohibiting motorists from entering the Bus lane, and instead directing them to use the adjacent lane as prescribed. Once we’d arrived at this sign there was also no place to safely pull over, stop, turn around or manoeuvre away. Since we were in a single lane of moving traffic, we had no recourse other than to proceed, since we could not reverse.
I understand that for the first two months of the trial (1 December to 31 January) out-of-borough motorists who went through the cameras received warning letters. This is a valuable provision for alerting any non-Hammersmith & Fulham driver about a scheme that they would otherwise be unaware of. This journey through South Fulham for us was an isolated trip. We are not regular visitors and may not be back in the area, so feel that the criterion for receiving a warning letter is not effective in reaching out to motorists such as us. For this reason, would you please consider cancelling the Penalty Charge Notice and instead issuing a warning notice so that we may be sufficiently alerted for the future?
Kind regards,
