Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: tonychess on May 20, 2025, 09:18:19 pm
-
I have now received a reply from H&F to my FoI request about the experimental TMO on Rivercourt Road (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rivercourt_road_experimental_tmo). It includes a plan from January 2025 of the revised scheme of signage (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rivercourt_road_experimental_tmo/response/3055381/attach/3/Rivercourt%20Road%20A4%20Junction%20Layout%20Plan.pdf) after they moved the Give Way lines about 1m north. This shows with pink shading what H&F assert is their land and blue shading what H&F assert is TfL's land. I cannot confirm the accuracy of the boundaries shown as TfL have not yet supplied their own plans (and have said that it will take them 40 days to reply as it is such a difficult question to answer).
H&F's response to specific questions (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rivercourt_road_experimental_tmo/response/3055381/attach/4/Response%20all%20information%20to%20be%20supplied.pdf) contains the following items:
the location to which the TMO refers when it references the junction between Great West Road and Rivercourt Road – The specified location 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road is where the boundary lines of the A4 land and Rivercourt Road land meet.
the specified location 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road – Road markings and sign positions shown on provided drawing.
I also found a plan of the TfL Road Network showing its boundaries (https://tfl.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=99bc8bbbe8c94af291f5a5bfc77a00dd) which confirms that TfL's Great West Road does include the verges and combined footway/cycleway to the north of the eastbound carriageway.
What these documents establish is that
- H&F assert that the restrictions on Rivercourt Road start at the junction between Great West Road and Rivercourt Road
- H&F agree with TfL that the strip of land joining the combined footway/cycleway on each side of the exit from Great West Road to Rivercourt Road is part of Great West Road and that the junction between the two lies to the north of this
- H&F assert that the restrictions on Rivercourt Road end "8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road
- H&F assert that "8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road" is where the boundary lines of the A4 land and Rivercourt Road land meet
It follows that, on H&F's own assertions, the one-way restrictions apply across the boundary line between TfL's Great West Road and H&F's northern fragment of Rivercourt Road. This is a section of highway of zero length.
This might be true if Great West Road were perpendicular to Rivercourt Road. It is not. It is 6° off perpendicular. H&F's plan also exhibits some wish-fulfilment: where the eastern footway of Rivercourt Road widens by 1.4m south of the southern boundary of No. 17, Rivercourt Road, H&F show the boundary as running exactly E–W while the rest of the southern boundary of No. 17 Rivercourt Road runs 4°S of W – 4°N of E. At this point the northern edge of Great West Road runs 2°N of W – 2°S of E.
This means that if one takes a line E–W from a point where the boundary of Great West Road meets Rivercourt Road in the eastern footway of Rivercourt Road, that line will lie wholly within TfL land across the entire width of the carriageway of Rivercourt Road. In other words, the end of H&F's one-way south-to-north restriction lies wholly to the south of its start! The same is true if one takes the line from the specified point perpendicular to the kerbs of the carriageway, i.e. "across" the road.
As the section of road to which the TMO applies does not exist, it is hard to see how the TMO can be enforceable. H&F also have the problem that paragraph 4 of the TMO (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/freedom_of_information_request_r_419/response/2866782/attach/3/2 Rivercourt Road TMO.pdf), which defines the section of road to which the additional restrictions on vehicles applies, stops in mid-sentence after "and".
This may be why H&F are so reluctant to let any appeals go before an adjudicator. The changes made to the road markings on what used to be the exit slip road from Great West Road suggest strongly that whoever drew up the scheme intended the one-way restriction to apply from the carriageway of Great West Road. Wiser heads have recognised that that is not so and that the one-way restriction applies, at best, across the boundary between TfL's land and H&F's.
Meanwhile H&F rake in the money.
-
The image below may help people understand just where these alleged contraventions are taking place.
[attachimg=1]
It is a redacted version of a screenshot supplied as evidence of a contravention. It shows Rivercourt Road running across the image from south on the right to north on the left. At the right of the image can be seen the eastbound carriageway of the Great West Road.
Red Line
At the bottom right of the image there is a post which, because of the fish-eye lens, rises diagonally. On it there is a "RED ROUTE // CLEARWAY // Exit" sign which marks the end of the Red Route Clearway, i.e. the Great West Road.
[attach=2]
I take that as indicating the boundary between the land for which TfL is the highway authority and the land for which Hammersmith and Fulham is the highway authority.
There is no corresponding sign on the east side of Rivercourt Road indicating the boundary on that side of the road. I surmise that, as on the west side, the "waste" to the north of the dual-use footway/cycleway forms part of the highway land.
On the surface of Rivercourt Road I have marked in red what I surmise to be the boundary between the land for which TfL is the highway authority and the land for which Hammersmith and Fulham is the highway authority.
Blue Line
There is another possibility: that the boundary between the two highway authorities lies along the outside of the combined footway/cycleway of the Great West Road. I have marked this in blue. This line lies 8.3 meters south of the southern boundary wall of 17, Rivercourt Road and is used in the TMO.
Slip Road and the TMO
As can be seen, the slip-road exit from the Great West Road up to the double-dashed Give Way road marking lies entirely on land between the carriageway of the Great West Road and the red line.
The end of the south-to-north one-way restriction in the TMO lies on the blue line. If the south-to-north one-way restriction is to make sense, its southern end, which is described as "Great West Road", must lie to its south. Harrow and Fulham evidently intend the restriction to start at the edge of the carriageway of the Great West Road.
Implications
Whether the boundary between the highway authorities is the red line or the blue line, Hammersmith and Fulham's TMO only makes sense as a one-way south-to-north restriction if it lies wholly within the verge and footway/cycleway of the Great West Road. TfL is the highway authority for this. Despite this, once six weeks have elapsed from the making of the TMO without its being challenged in the High Court, its validity can no longer be challenged. H&F may have secured an extra-territorial TMO!
That does, however, depend on just what the TMO means. H&F's intention is clear. But the words of the TMO specify that it applies to Rivercourt Road from its junction with Great West Road to the point 8.30m south of 17, Rivercourt Road. If the junction lies on the blue line, the start and end of the restriction coincide and the restriction is a nullity. I doubt whether even H&F could enforce a restriction that cars have to have an H&F permit to travel across a line of zero width across the road.
If the junction between Rivercourt Road and the Great West Road lies to the north of the blue line, the restriction requires vehicles to traverse a section of Rivercourt Road in a northbound direction when travelling from a point north of the blue line to the blue line. It's impossible, of course. It probably won't stop H&F trying to enforce the TMO but will give adjudicators headaches.
One thing appears certain. The post with the "flying motorcycle" sign lies beyond the end of H&F's interpretation of the restriction. It is the sole indication that cars require a permit from Hammersmith and Fulham to use the slip road. As a regulatory sign, it is required to be placed as close as practicable to the start of the restriction, not after its end. Objecting to that, along with the absence of advance signage visible from the A4 (and the variable message signs don't explain about the permit and are now beyond their 6-month time limit) should secure a successful appeal.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I suggest the following representations for future cases:
1. The alleged contravention occurred on the slip road exit from the Great West Road before I reached the "RED ROUTE // CLEARWAY // Exit" sign which marks the junction between TfL's slip road and Hammersmith and Fulham's Rivercourt Road.
2. The only sign indicating that cars need a permit from the Council to use the exit from the Great West Road has been placed after the end of the restriction specified in the TMO.
Note that 1. isn't bomb-proof: it is possible for TfL to consent to a TMO made by H&F on TfL's highway. It is also possible that, even if TfL didn't know what H&F was doing, the order is valid because nobody applied to the High Court in the six weeks after the TMO had been made to object that it lay outside H&F's powers.
-
I agree it's press time.
H&F are just milking drivers who pay rather than take it to a tribunal (which involves forgoing the opportunity to pay £65 rather than £130). They're normally very aggressive, so conceding every appeal just before it's about to go before a tribunal is rather a giveaway. That's the story here, along with the extra-territorial TMO.
-
So, I have received an email from H and F today canceling the tribunal!
https://postimg.cc/1gs6JPcF
https://postimg.cc/34Ht7PTC
https://postimg.cc/1fzJ9GLT
https://postimg.cc/jwX4T2vt
I find it quite annoying that they would decline my initial appeal and schedule a tribunal date- for me to then upload my appeal as per my initial post and then to cancel the tribunal. I was *almost* looking forward to it. A more sceptical person might presume H and F didn't want to set a precedent at tribunal for others to follow!
Or maybe they are reading this thread and you all scared them off!
This is total bolleaux: without prejudice to our position. Press time I say.
One down, one to go!
-
I spent an hour and a half with the CA today re costs. Forget it: mistakes do not meet the criteria. Decision to follow in another thread.
-
I have looked into the TMO (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/freedom_of_information_request_r_419/response/2866782/attach/3/2%20Rivercourt%20Road%20TMO.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1). It's interesting. The critical element is the Schedule, which is attached below. It defines the section of Rivercourt Road which is restricted as
between Great West Road and a point and a point 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No.17 Rivercourt Road
A Question
Where is the junction between Great West Road and Rivercourt Road?
If you're a diehard motorist, the answer will be the dashed lines where the side road splits from the carriageway of the A4.
That's not my answer, and I don't think it's TfL's answer. A highway extends from the curtilage on one side of the highway to the curtilage on the other side. Between those curtilages there may be a carriageway (two for the Great West Road, none for a footpath or bridleway), one or more footways and verges, and also "waste", which is land outside all those already named. All of those are highway land and the highway encompasses them all.
Attached are Google Street View images looking westwards of the junction between Great West Road and Rivercourt Road. Note the sign ringed in yellow on RivercourtRoadClearway1.jpg, which can be read more clearly on RivercourtRoadClearway2.jpg. That sign and post have been placed close to the boundary wall of what used to be 20, Rivercourt Road (see the map RivercourtRoad1957red.jpg) but which is now part of the campus of Latymer Upper School.
The sign reads "RED ROUTE // CLEARWAY // End". It marks the boundary of the curtilage of the Red Route which, in this case is the Great West Road. There is no corresponding sign on the east side of Rivercourt Road, so it's impossible to tell where TfL consider the curtilage lies there. I have marked in red on the map RivercourtRoad1957red.jpg where I surmise the curtilage to lie.
What can be said with confidence is that the Great West Road includes the verge and the footway (which is also a cycleway), and that east of Rivercourt Road these abut railings about 8.3m south of the boundary wall of 17, Rivercourt Road. The complexity of the boundary between Great West Road and Rivercourt Road would explain why previous TMOs for Rivercourt Road have defined their southern boundary by reference to some supposedly well-defined point on Rivercourt Road.
Analysis of the Schedule
Now let's return to the Schedule of the TMO. Leaving aside the repetition of "and a point", the section of Rivercourt Road on which it defines a south-to-north one-way restriction is from the Great West Road to a point 8.30m south of the southern building wall of 17, Rivercourt Road.
The "RED ROUTE // CLEARWAY // End" sign appears to lie about 5m south of the southern boundary wall of number 17. This must be the boundary where Great West Road meets Rivercourt Road. It is the southern end of the south-to-north restriction on Rivercourt Road. That makes sense as Hammersmith & Fulham's jurisdiction runs north from here. So far, so good.
Now for the end of the restriction: this lies "8.30m south of the southern building wall of 17, Rivercourt Road". While it's not clear what "southern building wall" means, Give Way road markings (diagram 1003A) have been placed about 3m south of the "RED ROUTE // CLEARWAY // End" sign, i.e. 8m south of the southern boundary wall of number 17. These road markings are clearly intended to mark the end of the one-way northbound section of Rivercourt Road.
We can infer that Hammersmith & Fulham's intention was to impose a one-way northbound restriction on that element of carriageway which leads from the carriageway of the Great West Road towards Rivercourt Road. What they have actually done has been to pass a resolution to impose a TMO which defines a one-way south-to-north restriction that actually runs north-to-south across part of an east-west highway in another authority (TfL)'s jurisdiction. It follows that the TMO is ultra vires and therefore void.
Perhaps this is the reason why H&F are so reluctant to let any appeal reach an adjudicator. They know that the whole thing is a complete nonsense and are just collecting as many £65's as they can.
I've made some FoI requests to H&F and TfL and shall be interested to see their replies.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Clearly they're running scared of appearing before an adjudicator and are just collecting £65 from those who pay up because challenging it takes time and effort.
Those "advance signs" don't pass muster: neither
RESTRICTED ACCESS TO RIVERCOURT ROAD 330 YARDS AHEAD
nor
LOCAL ACCESS ONLY 70 YARDS AHEAD
conveys anything like the minimum appropriate signage: a 750mm-diameter No Left Turn sign (diagram 613) with the plate "Except buses, taxis, cycles and authorised vehicles"
-
How many appeals regarding this junction must H&F decline to contest at the last minute before the Cost clause ( see below) of the Schedule to
The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/576/schedule/1)
is invoked?
Costs
13.—(1) An adjudicator must not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses.
(2) But, subject to sub-paragraph (3), an adjudicator may make an order awarding costs and expenses—
(a)against a party (including an appellant who has withdrawn an appeal or an enforcement authority which has consented to an appeal being allowed), if the adjudicator considers that—
(i)the party has acted frivolously or vexatiously, or
(ii)the party’s conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable;
(b)against an enforcement authority, where the adjudicator considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable.
(3) An order must not be made against a party unless that party has been given an opportunity to make representations against the making of the order.
(4) An order must require the party against whom it is made to pay to the other party a specified sum in respect of the costs and expenses incurred by that other party in connection with the proceedings.
I also seem to recall reading that where an EA had DNC'd the appellant had a rght to insist that an appeal sill be heard, but it may have been my dreaming or wishful thinking.
-
So, I have received an email from H and F today canceling the tribunal!
https://postimg.cc/1gs6JPcF
https://postimg.cc/34Ht7PTC
https://postimg.cc/1fzJ9GLT
https://postimg.cc/jwX4T2vt
I find it quite annoying that they would decline my initial appeal and schedule a tribunal date- for me to then upload my appeal as per my initial post and then to cancel the tribunal. I was *almost* looking forward to it. A more sceptical person might presume H and F didn't want to set a precedent at tribunal for others to follow!
Or maybe they are reading this thread and you all scared them off!
-
Advance Signage and the Beatson Judgment
I suggest that your main line of argument should be from paragraph 65 of Beatson J's judgment in R (Oxfordshire County Council) v. The Bus Lane Adjudicator (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/894.html) [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin):
65. The Defendant's submission that the fact that signs are prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient for securing adequate information as to the effect of an order is made available to road users is clearly correct. If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed; see James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676.
That judgment was in the High Court, so is binding on lower tribunals. It was for the same road sign: diagram 619 ("flying motorcycle") but with different associated plates. In that case there were advance warning signs 450, 180 and 20 yards before the diagram 619. Beatson J assessed those signs as providing sufficient notice, having established that they could be seen by a motorist approaching them (i.e. they weren't obscured).
In this case it appears that Hammersmith and Fulham have not got TfL to place appropriate advance signage on the A4. That would be a No Left Turn (diagram 613) immediately before the junction with the plate "Except buses taxis cycles and authorised vehicles". In order to ensure that traffic flow on the A4 isn't disrupted, a further map-type sign might be placed 50m before this.
Relationship between H&F and TfL
It's worth noting that s.121B of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/121B) provides:
121B London borough council exercising powers so as to affect another traffic authority’s roads.
(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
(aa) a strategic 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;
(ii) in the case of a strategic 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.
It would be worth finding out whether H&F have complied with this. If they haven't, the entire scheme is probably unlawful.
Requirement to Give Way 8m after leaving A4
As the supposed contravention occurs when you pass the "flying motorcycle" signs, their distance from the A4 is largely irrelevant. What I find disturbing, however, is that at the same point as those signs there are Give Way road markings (diagram 1003A). This is a mere 8m from the A4. That road marking requires you to give way to any vehicle which is on Rivercourt Road beyond it. That could very well be a vehicle which is using the "turning bay" to turn round, having come south along Rivercourt Road from King Street and now needs to return north because exit onto the A4 is prohibited (thanks to TfL).
What this means is that any vehicle turning off the A4 onto Rivercourt Road has a mere 8m to come to a halt. I'd like to see a school bus for Latymer Upper do that: they're more than 8m long, so would need to stop with their rear ends obstructing the A4. That doesn't sound a great idea. It's why I rather suspect that H&F haven't notified TfL and obtained their consent to this scheme. Cars which had been slowing down to turn left might just be able to stop, but it would be a hard-on emergency stop: the braking distance from 30 mph (i.e. allowing for having slowed to take the corner and then excluding thinking distance) is 13.5m.
Duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of ... traffic
I do wonder whether H&F carried out a safety analysis of this scheme. The scheme looks to me to be a violation of H&F's duty under s.122 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/122):
It shall be the duty of every ... local authority upon whom functions are conferred by or under this Act, ... to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway....
If H&F are in breach of this duty, they may have been acting ultra vires in implementing it. That would mean that the scheme was void, i.e. legally does not exist and therefore cannot be enforced. While adjudicators start from a presumption of regularity, i.e. that official acts have been undertaken properly, it is possible to rebut that presumption if the evidence is strong enough. In this case that distance of 8m looks strong enough as the stopping and braking distances are well-known formulae which have been in The Highway Code for decades. I shall be making FoI requests to H&F and TfL to try to elicit further evidence.
-
Can you please post-up their rejection letter and you reps text. Better if you'd come on here earlier before submitting reps, but we are where we are.
-
Thank you. I have edited the Subject title to indeed include Rivercourt Road. Well, I have a date for the tribunal so looks like I might be the guinea pig on this one!
-
Please read this and update your thread accordingly: -
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/
For a start you haven't given us a clue as to where this contravention took place, (although we all suspect it is Rivercourt Road, leading off the Great West Road.
This now notorious restriction was implemented extremely badly by H & F. I suspect they broke every rule in the book on this one. However, as we all know, there are no powers to force them to amend it so they just carry on earning money from it.
The main point is the restriction applies at the entrance to the street, off a 40 mph heavily trafficked dual carriageway, with no advance warning of what lies ahead. If they moved the restriction about 20 metres into the street, there is adequate room for a motorist to see the signs, turn round and join the main road again. I am not sure if H& F have let any cases get to London Tribunals, so have a search on their Statutory Register under the street name.
-
And two images hammersmith and Fulham sent me... https://postimg.cc/9RvC0m53 and https://postimg.cc/4n9XM9VX which I feel show a great representation of the number of signs at the junction as well as the ridiculous turning circle to try and get back onto the dual carriageway.
-
Copy of the PCN here https://postimg.cc/p9jSdGyc
I have already appealed which they have rejected. I now have a tribunal date set for July 15th. Any help on this much appreciated.
My proposed representation now:
1: Inadequate/no signage: No warning to driver about prohibition preventing an
otherwise perfectly legal manoeuvre.
2: Highway safety: No way of safety exiting situation.
3: Complex signage: Too many signs to read whilst vehicle is in a dangerous position to
others. Once you reach the junction of Rivercourt rd there are no less than 11 separate
signs. It is simply NOT possible to read all 11 signs whilst travelling at 40mph and coming off a
dual carriageway. Indeed from the video H and F supplied of the incident you can see
another car turning just behind me at speed. Thank goodness I did not stop to read 11
signs and cause an accident! Signs include but are not limited to:”
A Controlled Zone sign(which relates to parking). This is composite(has wording other
than just the prescribed minimum of Controlled Zone)
One-way street sign times 2
A speed limit sign;
A restricted access for vehicles over a prescribed weight sign with several very detailed
associated plates;
A no entry for vehicular traffic sign, with associated plate.
And it appears a Red Route Clearway ends sign.
A road name sign
The actual sign relating to residents access is not actually located before the turning but
rather on the other side of the road.
4: Reversing back onto A4 is prohibited by Highway Code Rule 200 and 201 On exiting
the A4 (very busy 40 mph limit three line carriageway) onto Rivercourt Road I was
immediately faced with a give way line and a barrage of signs. The “new turning bay” as
shown in the notice of rejection is farcical. I would like to use pictures that H and F have
sent in the notice of rejection as part of my evidence.
The give way lines are so close to the junction and near the A4 main road and could
possibility block another car exiting and force it to stop on the fast moving busy A4
(please see video from H and F of vehicle movements behind me) To add complexity to
the solution I was funnelled by two solid white lines, I think to prevent a car from turning
around back on to the A4, I could reverse back onto the A4 but that is prevented by
Highway Code 200 & 201 (either actions would not be sensible). So in conclusion, once
I was committed to performing a perfectly legal everyday manoeuvre, I was compelled
by the design of the junction to continue along Rivercourt Road