Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Berkshire_Yorkie on January 28, 2025, 02:14:07 pm
-
Hi All,
Got a pcn also for entering Riverside road last week. I used all the time to cut through as my daughter school is just at the end of the road. But I did drive there for quite a while and didn't really noticed the sign at the entrance. Anyone has successfully challenged their penalty?
Lot of people have successfully challenged PCNs at this location, but rules of this forum is one Original Poster per thread, so please start your own if you want advice, and please read this and enter the information needed: -
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
Please also note that the signage at this location has come under heavy criticism, so we would need to see if it's still the same as this last thread.
-
Hi All,
Got a pcn also for entering Riverside road last week. I used all the time to cut through as my daughter school is just at the end of the road. But I did drive there for quite a while and didn't really noticed the sign at the entrance. Anyone has successfully challenged their penalty?
-
A belated update (but made as soon as I was able to!).
Just returned to the UK after being away since mid-February. And, lo & behold my post includes a letter from LBHF cancelling the charge "at [our] discretion". I did explain that I'd be away for a while & asked them to update me by email which of course they didn't but hey ho, can't have everything!
A big thank you for your help.
-
Appeal sent, as per the attached.
Thanks everyone for the help & I'll keep you posted when I hear how it's gone.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Don't understand the comment "limits to 1 ground"
If you look on the PCN section for submitting representations, there will be a list of the statutory grounds for representations. If one of these is confirmed, the PCN is void. The regulations allow more than one of these to be selected when submitting representations.
Just re-read your comment & I now understand your point.
Apologies for being a bit slow on the uptake :-[
-
Grounds are as per the attached.
I'd say that none of these are confirmed but the second is contentious which is why I'm asking for the fine to be waived.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Don't understand the comment "limits to 1 ground"
If you look on the PCN section for submitting representations, there will be a list of the statutory grounds for representations. If one of these is confirmed, the PCN is void. The regulations allow more than one of these to be selected when submitting representations.
-
Don't understand the comment "limits to 1 ground"
-
I would also add that the PCN is invalid because it limits to one ground. Let's see how they respond.
-
*going through all my mail
-
Thanks, the bold sub-headings seems a good idea. I'll give it another couple of days to see what other responses come through.
I have got a friend coming round to check my house regularly but I don't want them going through all their mail & it's an imposition asking them to anyway so I re-word to say I understand they have to reply by post but request that the cc: via e-mail.
-
I think it is OK, but wait and see what others may say (PCN dated 20th Jan, so I make it that H&F must receive by 17th Feb).
Perhaps stress points by inserting subtitles in bold
Lack of advanced warning signs
Impossibility of reversing back on to A4 once committed to turn
Request for e-mail response.
The Council must respond by post, so amend this para to
Finally, please note I'm going to be ex-UK for 3 months from 17th Feb so I won't be able to respond to any postal correspondence after that & I therefore request any further communication with me should be via the email address shown on this letter as well as by post.
(AS belt & braces, is anyone able to check yr post whilst you are away?)
-
Sorry I thought someone was going to comment back on whether this draft was ok to proceed so I was awaiting feedback & therefore haven't yet sent it.
My apologies if I've misunderstood, shall I go ahead & reply as per my draft then??
-
Did you get a reply?
-
Thank you for the very helpful replies & apologies that I've not been able to respond earlier.
I'm not local (live in Maidenhead) & I don't drive here regularly; it's unlikely that I'll be going along here again before 17th Feb but I will take a photo of it if I do.
A draft reply is attached, & thank you for reading & considering it.
________________
To Whom It May Concern,
PCN HZ901934987
This PCN refers to an infringement made on 13th Jan. I request that this PCN be reviewed & cancelled for the reasons given below.
I've been using Rivercourt Road occasionally for several years on the rare times that I drive into London (perhaps 6-8 times per year) & I drove through it on 13th Jan, unaware of any new restrictions. If there was any signage about the new restrictions, I didn't notice it & I'd contend that it wasn't close to adequate.
After receiving the PCN I’ve checked Google & found information about the scheme: https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/news/2024/11/making-rivercourt-road-safer I have absolutely no argument that the scheme is well merited & I'd support it if I lived locally. The start date of the scheme isn't given in this leaflet, nor have I been able to find this information elsewhere, therefore it’s impossible to know when the 3 weeks warning period expires. Further, the scheme leaflet itself states that nearly 80% of people going through Rivercourt Road aren't local residents & that warnings will be issued for only 3 weeks (start & end dates not mentioned). Given that LBHF know nearly 80% of drivers using Rivercourt Road aren't local, LBHF must also know that many will not go through Rivercourt Road within the 3-week warning period & so graduate immediately onto a PCN without prior warning.
I drove down this stretch of the A4 again on 25th January (avoiding Rivercourt Road!) & the only signage on the A4 prior to turning into Rivercourt Road was a single temporary sign which states (I think) that there is a new restriction 70 yards ahead. It was one of those yellow-surround temporary signs mounted on a trailer with light-bulb type lettering that you usually find for a few days when there's roadworks (there's probably a name for these types of signs but I don't know what it is). Even travelling at just under the 40 mph speed limit, having deliberately positioned myself in the nearside lane, & being consciously on the look-out for signage I still found it very hard to read what was on the sign in the time available to see it. I can't say if this sign was in place when I drove there on 13th January, but it's far too close to Rivercourt Road, not prominent enough & I'm sure it would be close to illegible after dusk or in poor visibility such as fog & rain (i.e. common winter driving conditions).
I did see one further sign at the entrance to Rivercourt Road – which I didn’t notice on 13th Jan - but any car close enough to read it would be causing a danger to themselves & others by trying to obey it & reverse back out onto the A4.
As stated I have absolutely no argument with the new scheme, but given the poor signage & an insufficient warning period I feel this has been implemented in a way that's designed to entrap motorists rather than educate them about new changes. I would therefore like to appeal against this charge & ask LBHF to amend the way they're managing this scheme so they educate motorists rather than seek to maximise the number they penalise.
Finally, please note I'm going to be ex-UK for 3 months from 17th Feb so I won't be able to respond to any postal correspondence after that & I therefore request any further communication with me should be via the email address shown on this letter
Thank you for your kind consideration of my request to waive the PCN charge given the circumstances I’ve outlined.
________________
-
H&F were still being sympathetic this month - there are a couple of threads on here - see
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-rivercourt-road-52m/15/
Please work up draft along the lines of
I believe this PCN should be cancelled because -
1....
2....
3...
Use the points you made in yr opening post and also in these threads
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-hammersith-london-rivercourt-rd/
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/hammersmith-and-fulham-52m-prohibition-on-certain-types-of-vehicle-down-road-rav/
and post yr draft here for comment.
Most Councils will re-offer the discount if reps made in discount period if they reject, but well-crafted reps should see it cancelled.
-
Hopefully you will join the queue of appellants at London Tribunals if H&F prove obdurate. Thanks for confirming the nature of the temporary sign on the A40 which seems a load of tosh. Best of you are local and can get a photo of it to support everybody's reps.
-
New user & first time poster so apologies in advance for any unwitting breach of forum rules or etiquette.
A bit of research on Google soon tells me I'm not the first victim of recent changes which now bar access to Rivercourt Road except for London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (LBHF) residents. I've been using Rivercourt Road for many years on the half dozen or so times per year that I drive into London & I drove through it on 13th Jan, unaware of any new restrictions. If there was any signage I didn't notice it & I'd contend that it wasn't close to adequate.
I drove down this stretch of the A4 again on 25th January (avoiding Rivercourt Road!) & the only signage on the A4 prior to turning into Rivercourt Road was a single temporary sign which states (I think) that there is a new restriction in 70 yards. It was one of those yellow-surround temporary signs mounted on a trailer with light-bulb type lettering that you usually find for a few days when there's roadworks (there's probably a name for these type of signs but I don't know what it is). Even travelling at just under the 40 mph speed limit, having deliberately positioned myself in the nearside lane, & being consciously on the look-out for signage I still found it very hard to read what was on the sign in the time available to see it. I can't say if this sign was in place when I drove there on 13th January, but it's far too close to Rivercourt Road, not prominent enough & I'm sure it would be close to illegible after dusk or in poor visibility such as fog & rain (i.e. common winter driving conditions). It certainly bears all the hallmarks of having been put there in a hurry & as an attempt to stave off allegations that the changes aren't adequately signposted.
There is one further sign at the entrance to Rivercourt Road but any car close enough to read it would be causing a danger to themselves & others by trying to obey it & reverse out onto the A4.
Information about the scheme is here: https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/news/2024/11/making-rivercourt-road-safer I have absolute no argument that the scheme is well merited. It'll cause me some minor inconvenience a few times a year but that's all & I'd support it if I lived locally. However the scheme leaflet itself states that nearly 80% of people cutting through Rivercourt Road aren't local residents & that warnings will be issued for only 3 weeks. The start date of the scheme isn't given but is perhaps implied as being 20th November. This also means that the warning period will be terminate in early December when people who would normally have received a warning within the 3 week period will be winding down for Xmas & New Year. Given that they know nearly 80% of drivers using Rivercourt Road aren't local, LBHF must also know that most will not go through Rivercourt Road within their 3 week warning period & so graduate immediately onto a PCN without prior warning.
I have absolutely no argument with the changes, but given the poor signage & a warning period that's way too short I feel this has been implemented in a way that's designed to entrap motorists rather than educate them about new changes. I would therefore like to appeal against this charge & ask LBHF to amend the way they're managing this scheme so they educate motorists rather than seek to maximise the number they penalise.
A couple of other points - the PCN is dated 20th January but I've only just received it so the 14 days notice for a reduced penalty is effectively 6 days which isn't good enough. Anyone going for a standard 2 week holiday wouldn't become aware of the PCN until the 14 days notice had expired.
Secondly I'm going to be ex-UK for 3 months from 17th Feb so I won't be able to respond to any postal correspondence after that - should I notify LBHF of this & inform them that all communication needs to be via email?
And finally a question. I know you said not to communicate with LBHF before receiving advice but I'm wondering about the timing. I doubt that you'll be able to advise me prior to expiry of the 14 day notice, which is understandable, but I'm sure that you'll be able to within the 28 days period given to lodge an appeal. Will I be penalised if I don't respond to LBHF within 14 days (awaiting your advice) but before the 28 days needed to appeal. Or should I respond with a brief holding statement saying nothing more than "I'm awaiting legal advice & will respond as soon as I'm able"? I don't want to go past the 14 days then find out that I'll have to suck it & pay the PCN only to be hit with the full charge because I didn't pay within 14 days!
Some documents & stuff -
Upload of the PCN: https://imgur.com/a/dzC0J8m
Google Maps Street View image https://maps.app.goo.gl/LgBD14K8vax9KZ5L6
LBHF Images: https://imgur.com/a/aUWxIlC
LBHF Video: https://imgur.com/a/rPLi8J1
Thank you