Free Traffic Legal Advice

There is an update. H&F Council have finally responded by email, attaching a PDF letter dated 24.09.2025. It states the following:

"London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
Notice of Acceptance of Representation
 
Thank you for writing to us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
 
After carefully considering your case, and without prejudice to our position, I have decided
to use our discretion to cancel this PCN.
 
This PCN was issued because the vehicle was observed and recorded by an unattended
camera,  ignoring  a  ‘No  Motor  Vehicle’  except  buses,  taxis,  and  permit  holders’  sign.
Private hire vehicles are not automatically exempt. The exemption applies only to Hackney
Carriages.
 
The restrictions are clearly signposted and are placed at different points prior to entering
and within the restricted area.
 
Drivers have a responsibility to comply with all signs and markings relating to road traffic
restrictions and directions. "

The letter goes on to reiterate the prohibition and includes photos of some signage around the area.

This is a fantastic result and I am thankful for this forum and all the helpful people here. Keep up the good work!

Ah I see, so you're fighting for the little man. That's very noble indeed.

I hope you do realise the amount of confidence somebody like you give to the rest of us as we are not acquainted with the finer details of how all of this works. If we don't have people like you around us, we'd feel helpless - and that is a terrible feeling.

For now, I look forward to what H&F might come back with (likely a rejection of the representations) but it would be interesting to see if they provide any further details to actually address the points made in the representations.

Sorry if my post wasn't clear. I was commenting on this continuing saga. My correspondence with H&F over Rivercourt Road is not about a specific PCN: I have been putting FoI requests to them to elucidate just what the TMO is and whether they have been complying with the law.

One feature of TMOs is that, 6 weeks after they have been made, the law deems them valid unless they have been challenged in the High Court before that (which only other local authorities would do). While their validity cannot be challenged, their enforceability can be. In this case I smelled a very dead rat: the presence of new road markings on what had been the exit slip road from Great West Road. As it crosses the verge and footway of Great West Road, this slip road forms part of TfL's highway and is controlled by TfL. That prompted a series of questions to H&F and TfL which are still playing out.

I surmise that when H&F wrote the TMO, they thought that the exit slip road was theirs, hence their painting their own road markings on it (and erasing TfL's edge-of-carriageway road marking). The signage plan in my previous post shows that in December they recognised that the exit slip road is part of TfL's highway and they have stated this in answer to my questions.

Unfortunately for H&F, their TMO was signed in  September and defines the one-way south-to-north restriction as running from the junction between Great West  Road and H&F's Rivercourt Road to "a point 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road". This would have made sense if the junction between Great West  Road and H&F's Rivercourt Road had lain at the edge-of-carriageway markings. Then the end of the south-to-north restriction would have lain to the north of its start.

Perhaps there wasn't a smash in late November to force a rethink and what actually happened was that someone at H&F realised where the boundary lay between TfL's land and H&F's. That means that,  by my reckoning, the end of the south-to-north restriction  actually lies south of its start. That would make at least this part of the TMO unenforceable. I rather think that the rest of it is also unenforceable, but for different reasons.

Given the amount of similar threads (and for the same council and contravention!), I am inclined to keep it brief. I have an idea what I should do next. The purpose of this thread is twofold - a) to seek an independent opinion if I should do anything differently (see below) and b) to contribute to the forum on what I learn from my imminent dealings with H&F council.

Here is what happened:
Like many others, got caught off-guard by new restriction on turning left from A4 onto Rivercourt Road in Hammersmith.


PCN image
https://imgur.com/a/71xaLvt


Location
https://maps.app.goo.gl/sjESeuxt5dVYPFk98

Here is my plan (with thanks to various contributors on other similar threads):
Appeal the PCN online - Grounds: Contravention did not occur
Letter to send to H&F as below:

I must respond by 3 July so will linger around this thread until 2 July and then send the below to H&F Council. Any suggestions, tips and/or guidance in the interim is thankfully received.

1. Inadequate and Confusing Signage (Regulatory Breach)
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"

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.

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. 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.