[TaaSeenMeem]

Given the amount of similar threads (and for the same council and contravention!), I am inclined to keep it brief. I have an idea what I should do next. The purpose of this thread is twofold - a) to seek an independent opinion if I should do anything differently (see below) and b) to contribute to the forum on what I learn from my imminent dealings with H&F council.

Here is what happened:
Like many others, got caught off-guard by new restriction on turning left from A4 onto Rivercourt Road in Hammersmith.


PCN image
https://imgur.com/a/71xaLvt


Location
https://maps.app.goo.gl/sjESeuxt5dVYPFk98

Here is my plan (with thanks to various contributors on other similar threads):
Appeal the PCN online - Grounds: Contravention did not occur
Letter to send to H&F as below:

I must respond by 3 July so will linger around this thread until 2 July and then send the below to H&F Council. Any suggestions, tips and/or guidance in the interim is thankfully received.

1. Inadequate and Confusing Signage (Regulatory Breach)
The absence of proper advance warning signs on the A4 before the Rivercourt Road junction means that adequate information about the restriction was not made available to road users. This is a fundamental legal requirement, and without it, no contravention can be established. H&F have also failed in their duty under LATOR (Local Authorities Traffic Orders Regulations) to place adequate signage, specifically clear and unequivocal signs on the A4 approach as required by Regulation 18. In the Oxfordshire case, advance warning signs were placed at 450, 180, and 20 yards before the restriction. No such advance signage exists on the A4 approaching Rivercourt Road, making this scheme legally deficient. Under the binding High Court judgment in R (Oxfordshire County Council) v. The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin), paragraph 65, Beatson J established that: "If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed"

Under Section 121B of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Hammersmith & Fulham cannot implement restrictions affecting Transport for London roads (including the A4) without giving proper notice to TfL and obtaining TfL's approval or allowing the statutory consultation period to expire. This is particularly concerning as H&F cannot place signs on the A4 (which is TfL's responsibility), suggesting they may have failed to properly consult on signage requirements under LATOR Regulation 6(1). I formally request evidence that H&F complied with Section 121B requirements. If these statutory procedures were not followed, the entire restriction scheme is unlawful and void.

2. Unsafe Road Layout and Lack of Alternatives
The current layout forces vehicles to stop within 8 metres of the junction, despite the Highway Code indicating a braking distance of 13.5 metres at 30mph. Larger vehicles may be forced to obstruct the A4 to comply. Once committed, given the distance of infringement start point is so small, there is no safe or legal way to reverse or turn around, making it impossible to avoid the restriction without breaching Highway Code Rules 200 and 201. This design contradicts the Council’s duty under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow.

3. Unreasonable Expectations on Non-Local Drivers
As an infrequent and non-local user of this route, I was unaware of any recent changes. My longstanding understanding of the road as one-way—reinforced by prominent "No Entry" signs—further contributed to the misinterpretation. The combination of unclear signage, road layout, and misleading cues made it unreasonable to expect safe and lawful navigation without error.

Given these substantial legal and safety concerns, I respectfully request that this PCN be cancelled. The restriction, as currently implemented, is neither lawful nor safe.

I look forward to your confirmation that this charge has been withdrawn.

[Incandescent]

They seem to be starting to play hardball now, by refusing reps but re-offering the discount. Most people then cough up, but this means this appalling scheme never gets examined by an adjudicator at London Tribunals. However, the plain fact is that they have not improved the signage on the main A4 road so it remains as dangerous as ever. Of course, they cannot erect traffic signs on the A4 because it comes under National Highways, I think, but could be Transport for London.  I also suspect they have not consulted properly with the authority controlling the A4 which they should have done, and arranged for a proper traffic sign to be placed giving warning of the restriction. Just to note that the previous street off the A4 is a complete No Entry with the relevant signs, but if you look on GSV, you'll see these are easily visible, plus the road layout has been altered to make a turn left there very difficult. Nothing whatever has been done for Rivercourt Road.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zXn2RkUabcMnD3Ey6

Yes, your presentations look OK, so ram it up them !

[Bustagate]

There's some monkey business with the plans for the scheme. H&F have now disgorged plans showing the road markings but these are dated December 2024 and approved January 2025.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

They have also sent me this as the Advance Signage, which manifestly isn't there yet
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

The scheme was implemented at the end of November 2024, so clearly these plans weren't used. The December/January plans show the Give Way road markings about 1 meter further north than they were originally, as shown in the images in the Hammersmith Society's article.

Despite this, H&F are claiming that they moved the Give Way markings because the contractor didn't put them in the correct place. Apparently the contractor wasn't much good in November at predicting what the plans would look like in January.

One possible explanation is that TfL found out about the scheme and demanded that the Give Way signs be moved further north. If they'd thought about it and really were concerned for cyclists, they would have realised that the road markings at the edges of the exit from the carriageway of Great West Road (marked as being diagram 1040.4 but actually drawn and implemented as diagram 1040.3) prohibit all vehicles from crossing the solid white lines at their edges. When I say "all" I mean all: that restriction applies just as much to bicycles as it does to motor vehicles. So cyclists on the combined cycleway/footway must dismount and carry their bicycles over the hatched areas (sorry, wheeling doesn't cut it; only carrying will do) before continuing on the other side.

TfL might also have considered the implications of making Rivercourt Road two-way. While drivers exiting Great West Road northbound get a PCN, those existing southbound do not. They can only be prosecuted and get points on their licence. This isn't just theory: take a look at this PCN video.

It's also possible that TfL didn't find out about the scheme until much later and that H&F realised the danger - perhaps there was a smash in the first few days - and redrew the plans to reduce the risks. If so, they don't seem to have stopped the smashes, see this recent Hammersmith Society article. I hope H&F residents realise they're on the line when a victim sues the Council for causing crashes by creating a grossly unsafe road scheme.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Incandescent]

One possible explanation is that TfL found out about the scheme

Yet they have a unescapable duty in Regulation 6 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996,  to consult with other parties according to the table in Reg 6 (1) and in particular Item 1 : -
"Where the order relates to, or appears to the order making authority to be likely to affect traffic on, a road for which another authority is the highway authority or the traffic authority"

So if they consulted, there should be a record of this consultation.

[Bustagate]

Yes, but that obligation is rather less onerous than that under s.121B of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984:

(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,

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;

(3) The second requirement is that—

(a)  the proposal has been approved

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

(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.

(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.[/indent]

Within London, Great West Road is a GLA road, so is controlled by TfL.

In an FoI request I asked TfL to supply:

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;

4. any authorisation provided to H&F which allows them to place road markings and erect traffic signs within the curtilage of Great West Road in the vicinity of Rivercourt Road;

5. any safety assessment carried out into the possible consequences of TMO 2037 (vehicles turning into Rivercourt Road reach Give Way road markings 8m after leaving the carriageway of the A4 and would not be able to see vehicles using the turning bay until they had started making the turn;

6. any correspondence or assessment of the need for advance signage of the restrictions which apply to vehicles turning left onto Rivercourt Road (as an absolute minimum I would have expected a 750mm-diameter diagram 613 with the plate "Except buses, taxis, cycles and authorised vehicles")

TfL have asked for more time to answer my questions. I have agreed to this.

[TaaSeenMeem]

I sent the representations last night. It seems you're slightly ahead in the process and already received a response from H&F. What is your next step?

I gather that H&F will initially reject the representations, fix a date for tribunal hearing and then a few days before the hearing they'd concede on no prejudice basis. At least this is the picture that has been painted by other posts elsewhere on this forum.

There's some monkey business with the plans for the scheme. H&F have now disgorged plans showing the road markings but these are dated December 2024 and approved January 2025.
(Attachment Link)

They have also sent me this as the Advance Signage, which manifestly isn't there yet
(Attachment Link)

The scheme was implemented at the end of November 2024, so clearly these plans weren't used. The December/January plans show the Give Way road markings about 1 meter further north than they were originally, as shown in the images in the Hammersmith Society's article.

Despite this, H&F are claiming that they moved the Give Way markings because the contractor didn't put them in the correct place. Apparently the contractor wasn't much good in November at predicting what the plans would look like in January.

One possible explanation is that TfL found out about the scheme and demanded that the Give Way signs be moved further north. If they'd thought about it and really were concerned for cyclists, they would have realised that the road markings at the edges of the exit from the carriageway of Great West Road (marked as being diagram 1040.4 but actually drawn and implemented as diagram 1040.3) prohibit all vehicles from crossing the solid white lines at their edges. When I say "all" I mean all: that restriction applies just as much to bicycles as it does to motor vehicles. So cyclists on the combined cycleway/footway must dismount and carry their bicycles over the hatched areas (sorry, wheeling doesn't cut it; only carrying will do) before continuing on the other side.

TfL might also have considered the implications of making Rivercourt Road two-way. While drivers exiting Great West Road northbound get a PCN, those existing southbound do not. They can only be prosecuted and get points on their licence. This isn't just theory: take a look at this PCN video.

It's also possible that TfL didn't find out about the scheme until much later and that H&F realised the danger - perhaps there was a smash in the first few days - and redrew the plans to reduce the risks. If so, they don't seem to have stopped the smashes, see this recent Hammersmith Society article. I hope H&F residents realise they're on the line when a victim sues the Council for causing crashes by creating a grossly unsafe road scheme.

[Bustagate]

Sorry if my post wasn't clear. I was commenting on this continuing saga. My correspondence with H&F over Rivercourt Road is not about a specific PCN: I have been putting FoI requests to them to elucidate just what the TMO is and whether they have been complying with the law.

One feature of TMOs is that, 6 weeks after they have been made, the law deems them valid unless they have been challenged in the High Court before that (which only other local authorities would do). While their validity cannot be challenged, their enforceability can be. In this case I smelled a very dead rat: the presence of new road markings on what had been the exit slip road from Great West Road. As it crosses the verge and footway of Great West Road, this slip road forms part of TfL's highway and is controlled by TfL. That prompted a series of questions to H&F and TfL which are still playing out.

I surmise that when H&F wrote the TMO, they thought that the exit slip road was theirs, hence their painting their own road markings on it (and erasing TfL's edge-of-carriageway road marking). The signage plan in my previous post shows that in December they recognised that the exit slip road is part of TfL's highway and they have stated this in answer to my questions.

Unfortunately for H&F, their TMO was signed in  September and defines the one-way south-to-north restriction as running from the junction between Great West  Road and H&F's Rivercourt Road to "a point 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road". This would have made sense if the junction between Great West  Road and H&F's Rivercourt Road had lain at the edge-of-carriageway markings. Then the end of the south-to-north restriction would have lain to the north of its start.

Perhaps there wasn't a smash in late November to force a rethink and what actually happened was that someone at H&F realised where the boundary lay between TfL's land and H&F's. That means that,  by my reckoning, the end of the south-to-north restriction  actually lies south of its start. That would make at least this part of the TMO unenforceable. I rather think that the rest of it is also unenforceable, but for different reasons.

[TaaSeenMeem]

Ah I see, so you're fighting for the little man. That's very noble indeed.

I hope you do realise the amount of confidence somebody like you give to the rest of us as we are not acquainted with the finer details of how all of this works. If we don't have people like you around us, we'd feel helpless - and that is a terrible feeling.

For now, I look forward to what H&F might come back with (likely a rejection of the representations) but it would be interesting to see if they provide any further details to actually address the points made in the representations.

Sorry if my post wasn't clear. I was commenting on this continuing saga. My correspondence with H&F over Rivercourt Road is not about a specific PCN: I have been putting FoI requests to them to elucidate just what the TMO is and whether they have been complying with the law.

One feature of TMOs is that, 6 weeks after they have been made, the law deems them valid unless they have been challenged in the High Court before that (which only other local authorities would do). While their validity cannot be challenged, their enforceability can be. In this case I smelled a very dead rat: the presence of new road markings on what had been the exit slip road from Great West Road. As it crosses the verge and footway of Great West Road, this slip road forms part of TfL's highway and is controlled by TfL. That prompted a series of questions to H&F and TfL which are still playing out.

I surmise that when H&F wrote the TMO, they thought that the exit slip road was theirs, hence their painting their own road markings on it (and erasing TfL's edge-of-carriageway road marking). The signage plan in my previous post shows that in December they recognised that the exit slip road is part of TfL's highway and they have stated this in answer to my questions.

Unfortunately for H&F, their TMO was signed in  September and defines the one-way south-to-north restriction as running from the junction between Great West  Road and H&F's Rivercourt Road to "a point 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road". This would have made sense if the junction between Great West  Road and H&F's Rivercourt Road had lain at the edge-of-carriageway markings. Then the end of the south-to-north restriction would have lain to the north of its start.

Perhaps there wasn't a smash in late November to force a rethink and what actually happened was that someone at H&F realised where the boundary lay between TfL's land and H&F's. That means that,  by my reckoning, the end of the south-to-north restriction  actually lies south of its start. That would make at least this part of the TMO unenforceable. I rather think that the rest of it is also unenforceable, but for different reasons.

[John U.K.]

@TaaSeenMeem

Any update on this?

[TaaSeenMeem]

@TaaSeenMeem

Any update on this?

Nope, not heard back yet. Only correspondence has been an automated email dated 01.07.25 (reproduced below)

Thank you for your submission.  Your case will be placed on hold until we respond to you, UNLESS the case has been passed to the enforcement agents for collection.

If you have challenged within the initial 14-day discount period (following the issue of the PCN), and if we do not agree to cancel, we will allow 14 days (from the date of our reply) for payment to be made at the discounted rate.

All cases are dealt with in chronological order. Therefore, unless you are supplying further information or evidence, please do not write to us again as this may delay our response to you.

If you have any further information/comments to make regarding this PCN, please email them to us at enquiries@lbhfparking.com , making sure that you quote both your PCN number(s) and vehicle registration number.

Please note the information in this email may contain confidential/sensitive information and is intended for the named recipient(s) only.  Please ensure you keep this information confidential and think carefully before forwarding on to other parties, printing or making any copies.
 
If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately and delete this email from your system.

[John U.K.]

Thank you for keeping us updated

[TaaSeenMeem]

There is an update. H&F Council have finally responded by email, attaching a PDF letter dated 24.09.2025. It states the following:

"London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
Notice of Acceptance of Representation
 
Thank you for writing to us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
 
After carefully considering your case, and without prejudice to our position, I have decided
to use our discretion to cancel this PCN.
 
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.
 
The restrictions are clearly signposted and are placed at different points prior to entering
and within the restricted area.
 
Drivers have a responsibility to comply with all signs and markings relating to road traffic
restrictions and directions. "

The letter goes on to reiterate the prohibition and includes photos of some signage around the area.

This is a fantastic result and I am thankful for this forum and all the helpful people here. Keep up the good work!