Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Contravention did not occur.
IMO, your draft is unnecessarily long and introduces secondary and worse issues which do not bear upon the key point: the number, type, scope, location and method of display of the traffic signs, both regulatory and for information, at the point at which the restriction in question applies - the restriction not being accompanied by any prior warnings on approach - makes a relevant motorist's ability to see, read and act upon the regulatory sign in question impossible. The authority have therefore failed to meet their mandatory obligation under Regulation 18 (Traffic Signs) of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and thereby may not demand a penalty for the alleged contravention.
As regards s121B RTRA, since when would a failure by a council remove a traffic authority's power to demand a penalty from a motorist? And IMO it's not relevant anyway and who's to say that the GLA(not TfL) road has been (adversely) affected?
1. Inadequate and Confusing Signage (Regulatory Breach)
There were no clear advance warning signs on the A4 prior to the Rivercourt Road junction, in breach of Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The absence of staged signage (e.g., at 450, 180, and 20 yards) fails to provide adequate notice. Furthermore, upon exiting the A4, drivers are immediately confronted with a dense cluster of signs—speed limits, parking rules, camera enforcement, and directional indicators—creating cognitive overload at a critical decision point. This undermines both safety and compliance, particularly for unfamiliar drivers.
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. On this occasion, a vehicle ahead appeared to be travelling in the wrong direction, adding to the confusion. 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.
☐ I was not the owner of the vehicle at the time.
If you sold the vehicle before the date of the contravention or bought it after the date, you must tell us the name and address of the person who bought it from or sold it to you, if you know it, and please supply whatever evidence of the sale you may have (e.g. a sales receipt).
☐ There was no contravention of an order or failure to comply with an indication on a sign.
Please explain why you think there was no contravention of a traffic order or why there was no failure to drive the vehicle in the way shown on the sign.
☐ The vehicle was being used without your consent.
If the vehicle had been stolen, please provide details of the police crime reference or insurance claim.
☐ We are a hire firm and the person hiring the vehicle had signed a statement accepting liability.
Please supply a copy of signed agreement including name and address of hirer.
☐ The penalty exceeded amount applicable in circumstances case.
If think being asked pay more than should legally pay.
Dear Hammersmith & Fulham Council,
I am writing to formally challenge the issuance of PCN HZxx on the grounds based on the following key points:
1. Inadequate Advance Signage on the A4
There were no clear advance warning signs on the A4 prior to the Rivercourt Road junction to alert drivers of the restriction. This omission fails to meet the legal requirements under Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR). In contrast, the Oxfordshire County Council case (R v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin)) established that without adequate signage, no contravention occurs. The absence of staged warning signs (e.g., at 450, 180, and 20 yards) renders the restriction unenforceable.
2. Lack of Statutory Compliance with TfL Oversight
The A4 is a Transport for London (TfL) road. Under Section 121B of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, H&F Council must consult TfL and obtain approval before implementing any restrictions affecting TfL-managed roads. If such consultation did not occur, or if signage was placed without TfL’s consent, the restriction is procedurally invalid. I request formal evidence that these statutory obligations were fulfilled.
3. Safety Hazards Created by Road Layout
The current road layout poses a significant safety risk. Vehicles exiting the A4 must stop within 8 metres of the junction, despite the Highway Code indicating a braking distance of 13.5 metres at 30mph. This is particularly hazardous for larger vehicles, which may be forced to obstruct the A4 to comply. This contradicts the Council’s duty under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow.
4. Excessive and Confusing Signage at the Junction
Upon exiting the A4, drivers are immediately confronted with a cluster of signs—speed limits, parking rules, camera enforcement, one-way indicators, and more. This overload of information at a critical decision point compromises driver safety and comprehension, especially for unfamiliar road users.
5. Lack of Notice and Confusing Circumstances for a Non-Local, Habitual User
As someone who regularly visits family in the area but does not reside in London, I am a habitual user of this route. I was unaware of any recent changes to the road layout or restrictions. On this occasion, the situation was further complicated by the presence of a vehicle in front of me that appeared to be travelling in the wrong direction. This added to the confusion, especially as I have always understood this street to be one-way—an understanding reinforced by the prominent "No Entry" signs visible to traffic exiting onto the A4. Combined with the overwhelming number of signs at the junction and preceding, it was not reasonably possible to process all the information and safely navigate the turn without inadvertently committing a contravention.
6. No Safe or Legal Way to Avoid the Restriction Once Committed
Once a vehicle has exited the A4, there is no safe or legal way to reverse or turn around. Doing so would breach Highway Code Rules 200 and 201 and endanger both the driver and other road users. The design of the junction leaves no viable alternative once the turn is made.
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.
