Free Traffic Legal Advice

Yes I am

For what its worth, I challenged this contravention and h&f cancelled it without admission. It didnt go to tribunal or court. So would definitely say appeal.

I suppose I am trying to see if it will helpful or detrimental to my case. I had a 52m last year slightly different circumstances, but was cancelled by H&F themselves on first ask (thanks to this forum), no tribunal or rejections.

I have received two moving traffic PCNs for the same vehicle (VRM KW75 EXK) on 20/02/2026, issued by the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.
Both alleged contraventions are for Code 52M – Failing to comply with a prohibition on motor vehicles.
The key details:

PCN 1 – 15:25 – RMV Steventon Rd Eastbound junction Old Oak Rd
PCN number: HZ97617253
Date of Notice: 03/03/2026

PCN 2 – 15:27 – RMV Sawley Rd Eastbound near junction Bloemfontein Rd
PCN number: HZ9759050A
Date of Notice: 02/03/2026

Both PCNs were issued by the same camera operator (VA143) and only two minutes apart, although at different nearby locations.

I don't recall seeing any road signs on the approach on old oak road nor on sawley road (it does have a lot of trees). The only sign i can see is 90 degrees to old oak road, meaning you'd only see it once about to turn in. However I could be mistaken I am not from the London, was visiting family who live just off Bloemfontein road. Unfortunately they didn't remember the restriction nor registered me on the ringo app.

PCNs and All Pages
PCN 1 – HZ9759050A (Sawley Rd)

Date of alleged contravention: 20/02/2026 – 15:27
Date of Notice: 02/03/2026
Location: RMV Sawley Rd Eastbound near junction Bloemfontein Rd (VA)
Full penalty: £160
Discount: £80 (14 days)
Camera: VA143


PCN 2 – HZ97617253 (Steventon Rd / Old Oak Rd)

Date of alleged contravention: 20/02/2026 – 15:25
Date of Notice: 03/03/2026
Location: RMV Steventon Rd Eastbound junction Old Oak Rd (VA)
Full penalty: £160
Discount: £80
Camera: VA143


Both videos here: https://imgpile.com/p/3FO8rQ5
Actual notices: PCN1
PCN2

Old Oak Rd → Steventon Rd Eastbound https://maps.app.goo.gl/o8zroZnqsmU2R3YS7
Sawley Rd Eastbound → Bloemfontein Rd https://maps.app.goo.gl/TzLzLgG3URMaMbhx9

Just wanted to feedback that I was successful in my representation, without tribunal.

Submitted, let's see what they come back with

They have not provided an email, and representations can be made via post or online only.

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?

I see your points and have revised my draft:

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.

Sorry I wasn't clear i meant point number 2:

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.

I was questioning if it is worth mentioning this point as part of the appeal.