Show Posts - LB117

Just to add, my fine was cancelled and Tusker will be refunded.

Interestingly, when I spoke to H&F, they told me I could still appeal. They also appeared to have my name and details which can only have come from the leasing company. Appeal sent on 3 June and waiting to hear. Won't hold my breath, but thought it couldn't do any harm!

Thanks for the reply. So no point in even writing to H&F Council? The leasing company won't do anything, I'm sure, so I guess it's just bad luck. As if the fine isn't bad enough, there's an admin charge for the privilege and had they not been as slow, I'd have received the PCN before driving down the same road again.

Thank you for the reply. Attached is what Tusker emailed me stating I can appeal within 28 days.The agreement with Tusker states "Understand that parking or congestion charges and any other fines are their responsibility and if incurred will berecharged to them along with an administration fee." [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

So having read what is on here, it looks like there are many people who have suffered the same experience as me. My car is leased, and annoyingly it took 12 days from the PCN being issued to me receiving it (via email, leasing company had already paid the fine). I received the notification of the PCN 24 hours after having driven down Rivercourt Road again. As the PCN has been settled, I am no longer able to see the photos or view the footage online. However, I still intend to appeal. Can I please get some guidance on the below representations, which I have based around those posted by another user on here.I am writing in relation to a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 15 May 2025 in relation to an alleged contravention on 26 April 2025. The PCN was paid by Tusker, the leasing company from which I have my vehicle on a long-term lease, and they provided me notification of the alleged contravention via email on 27 May 2025. I have enclosed a Third Party Authorisation Letter from the leasing company.I believe the PCN was unfairly issued due to the following reasons:1. Inadequate and Insufficient SignageThere were no clear and visible advance warnings on the A4 before reaching the exit to indicate the prohibition. As an occasional user of this exit (five/six times per year), who does not live in the local area, I was wholly unaware that recent restrictions had been put in place. Had I been aware, I would not have turned down this road. Given that this exit has been unrestricted for years, the council should have ensured clear and proper noticeable advance warnings before the junction to allow drivers to safely take an alternative route. This signage should clearly indicate that road access is prohibited at a safe distance to give drivers to understand the signage and allow them to adjust their route accordingly. There was no signage on the A4 approach that stated that Rivercourt Road access is prohibited with fines levied for alleged contraventions. The ‘MobileVMS’ signage which I gather has been placed along the A4 is non-standard and does not resemble signage as depicted in the Highway Code as giving orders to motorists.2. Recent and Unexpected Changes to RestrictionsI now understand that the prohibition was implemented during the Christmas period when I did not use this exit. This was my first time using it since the change, and I was unaware of the new restriction. The lack of prior warning to regular users of this route caused confusion and led to an inadvertent contravention. I would not intrepret the variable signage message stating “LOCAL ACCESS ONLY 70 YARDS AHEAD” to mean that this road now forms part of a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN).3. Highway Safety ConcernsUpon exiting the A4, where three lanes of traffic flow at 40 mph, I was immediately presented with multiple signs at a location where it was unsafe to stop and read them properly. Having reviewed photos of the location since, there are about 10 signs at that exit, speed restriction, parking restriction, two camera signs, two one way signs, lorry sign, lorry entry times and dates, road name.  The complexity of signage at the junction made it difficult to process the restriction in real time, particularly while navigating a busy exit from flowing traffic.4. Alternative Actions Were UnsafeAs previously stated, having committed to turn onto Rivercourt Road, I was not aware of the signage prohibiting access. However, had I seen it, my only option would have been to continue along Rivercourt Road, unless I were to put myself or others at risk of harm. Once committed to the exit, reversing back onto the A4 is neither a lawful nor safe option due to Highway Code Rules 200 and 201. As I am sure you will be well aware, reversing from a side road onto a main road is strictly prohibited. Hammersmith & Fulham Council’s restriction forces drivers into a situation where they must proceed, making enforcement in such cases unfair and unreasonable.5. Request for ConsiderationIn light of the above, I respectfully request that this PCN be reviewed and cancelled. The lack of advance proper and clear signage on the A4, the unexpected nature of the restriction, the complexity and volume of signage at the exit, and the inability to take any safe action once a has driver committed to turning onto Rivercourt Road are all important factors here, which I strongly feel should be considered.<BR><BR>As I mentioned above, I did not receive the PCN until 27 May 2025, at which point it had been settled by the leasing company already. It is particularly unfortunate that I had, for the reasons I have outlined above, also driven the same route on Sunday 25 May 2025 and anticipate receiving a further PCN. I would appreciate if the council could exercise discretion and consider either cancelling the charge for this PCN and for that I yet to expect to receive, or providing further guidance on improving signage to prevent similar incidents in the future. Clearly, I am now aware that Rivercourt Road is restricted in its use, and I will no longer take this route in future. [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]