Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi, bumping this just to know whether the appeal draft is good to send. Thanks!

Have a read of those before drafting your reps, then post the draft here for comment before submitting tp H&F, but do not miss deadlines.


So far H&F have backed down in every case we know of before it reaches tribunal.

Thanks for all this, John! Please take a look below:


RE: PCN HZ92691860 (A4 - Rivercourt Road)

Dear Hammersmith & Fulham Council,

I would like to formally appeal this PCN as I believe it was unfairly issued and is legally unenforceable due to the following reasons:

1) 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".

2) 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.

3) The scheme appears to violate H&F's statutory duty under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to "secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic." Specific safety concerns include: Give Way markings (diagram 1003A) positioned just 8 meters from the A4, requiring vehicles to stop within 8 meters of exiting a major road, while the braking distance from 30mph is 13.5 meters (excluding thinking distance). Large vehicles (school buses, lorries) cannot physically comply with this requirement, creating a dangerous situation where vehicles may need to obstruct the A4.

4) Upon exiting the A4, drivers are immediately confronted with approximately 10 different signs including speed restrictions, parking restrictions, camera warnings, one-way signs, lorry restrictions, and road names. This excessive signage density makes it impossible to safely process all information while navigating the junction.

5) As a regular user of this exit over many years, I was unaware of the recent restriction changes. The lack of advance warning to existing users, combined with inadequate signage, created an unavoidable contravention situation.

6) Once committed to the exit from the A4, reversing back onto the main carriageway would violate Highway Code Rules 200 and 201, making it both illegal and extremely dangerous. The restriction creates a dangerous situation as the kerbs and road design provide no safe means for a motorist to turn around and rejoin the A4 upon discovering the restriction.

Given these substantial legal deficiencies, I respectfully request immediate cancellation of this PCN as the restriction scheme appears to be legally flawed, unsafe, and unenforceable in its current form.

I look forward to your prompt response confirming cancellation of this charge.

Yours faithfully,



Please let me know if this is good to launch. Appreciate all your time and effort! Thanks

Dear all,

I hope you are doing well. Here is the ticketed correspondence.



The registered keeper drove into 'Rivercourt Road' which seems to be a new phobitied area unless you have a permit. GSV link here.

A couple of points:

- This seems to be a very recent addition of prohibitions (pictures available here). The registered driver drove down that road a week prior. No cameras / signage was present. This has been a common route for the registered keeper for the past ~twenty years.
- The signeage isn't outright obvious, especially when travelling 40mph down the A4. Took me a small moment to process everything from the pictures - uncertain how they expect a motorist on a busy A4 to be able to process all of the info without prior forewarning.
- The registered keeper actually stopped before the signeage, but unfortunately due to the big nature of the car - reversing onto the A4 is probably an extremely silly and unsafe idea. This simple manouver can put quite a few motorists at risk.
- Not sure how relevant this is, but Rivercourt road is also a one way road. Therefore a U-turn isn't possible as there's a 'no-entry' sign just before the road widens (where once could safely make a U-turn). Take a look here. 
- The signage seems to be quite sudden. There is no forewarning whatsoever and the only signage is hidden behind roadside trees right up until the turning. The registered keeper went back to the area to double check this. See picture below:



Does the registered keeper have any chance at an appeal considering the above?

Thank you all for your time. I really respect and appreciate your efforts.

Hi, here are the first two pages, though if you need me to send through complete scans of everything, I can do that too when i get back.

Yes the keeper was originally registered at his parent's adress and is now visiting them from abroad. These letters were sent to this adress.

Thanks!

Hello all. Just updating to say that unfortunately my father lost the case and will need to pay I will update you with the actual reasonings when I receive them from my parents - though they said something along the lines that 'parking in the assigned bays was a requirement that wasn't adhered to'... I suppose it can be argued that the tiles on the car park flooring where my father parked could be mistaken for a bay space. Though take this with a pinch of salt.. I'll wait until I receive the actual wording as my parents memory isn't the best. Thank you all for your support thus far... I know it's not easy and quite time intensive!

Wow this is phenomenal! Thank you so much!

Just a small discrepancy that I've noticed, The Trial header on page 9 says 'In the County Court at Guildford' yet the documents state that the trial will take place at 'the County Court at Staines'. Should I adjust the witness statement + email accordingly, or leave the location + country court as Guildford?

I personally will be out of the country then, but I will run everything past my mother to make sure she understands from top to bottom. I think she will act as the lay representative on my fathers behalf. 

On a side note... I'm shocked by the amount of discrepancies from the claimants side! Keeping my fingers crossed, and will be back to update! Your work is incredible

Thanks for your reply!

What has be submitted as the defendants Witness Statement? Why have you redacted the Particulars of Claim (PoC)?

I will get back to you about the Witness Statement when I get my hands on it. Didn't realise I redacted important parts of POC, here is an updated version. I've only redacted the address and VRN, though if they are necessary, I'm happy to supply those as well.

It is a real pity that you had not come here before any response to the claim was made. The defence is incredibly weak.

Agreed. I only found out about it recently unfortunately.

What does your father's lease/tenancy agreement say about parking? What it doesn't say is equally important. For example, is there anything in the lease about requiring a permit to be displayed in a vehicle? Is there any mention of a third party being able to issue invoices for parking?

I will check and get back to you about this ASAP

Thank you very much to all!

I've decided to pay the charge, as my family will still be living in this house even after I go abroad - so would want to avoid any problems for them. Otherwise I would have taken this to the tribunals.

Thank you all for the help and support - hopefully this thread can help someone in the future