Free Traffic Legal Advice

I have now received a reply from H&F to my FoI request about the experimental TMO on Rivercourt Road. It includes a plan from January 2025 of the revised scheme of signage after they moved the Give Way lines about 1m north. This shows with pink shading what H&F assert is their land and blue shading what H&F assert is TfL's land. I cannot confirm the accuracy of the boundaries shown as TfL have not yet supplied their own plans (and have said that it will take them 40 days to reply as it is such a difficult question to answer).

H&F's response to specific questions contains the following items:

the location to which the TMO refers when it references the junction between Great West Road and Rivercourt Road – The specified location 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road is where the boundary lines of the A4 land and Rivercourt Road land meet.

the specified location 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road – Road markings and sign positions shown on provided drawing.

I also found a plan of the TfL Road Network showing its boundaries which confirms that TfL's Great West Road does include the verges and combined footway/cycleway to the north of the eastbound carriageway.

What these documents establish is that

• H&F assert that the restrictions on Rivercourt Road start at the junction between Great West Road and Rivercourt Road
• H&F agree with TfL that the strip of land joining the combined footway/cycleway on each side of the exit from Great West Road to Rivercourt Road is part of Great West Road and that the junction between the two lies to the north of this
• H&F assert that the restrictions on Rivercourt Road end "8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road
• H&F assert that "8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road" is where the boundary lines of the A4 land and Rivercourt Road land meet

It follows that, on H&F's own assertions, the one-way restrictions apply across the boundary line between TfL's Great West Road and H&F's northern fragment of Rivercourt Road. This is a section of highway of zero length.

This might be true if Great West Road were perpendicular to Rivercourt Road. It is not. It is 6° off perpendicular. H&F's plan also exhibits some wish-fulfilment: where the eastern footway of Rivercourt Road widens by 1.4m south of the southern boundary of No. 17, Rivercourt Road, H&F show the boundary as running exactly E–W while the rest of the southern boundary of No. 17 Rivercourt Road runs 4°S of W – 4°N of E. At this point the northern edge of Great West Road runs 2°N of W – 2°S of E.

This means that if one takes a line E–W from a point where the boundary of Great West Road meets Rivercourt Road in the eastern footway of Rivercourt Road, that line will lie wholly within TfL land across the entire width of the carriageway of Rivercourt Road. In other words, the end of H&F's one-way south-to-north restriction lies wholly to the south of its start! The same is true if one takes the line from the specified point perpendicular to the kerbs of the carriageway, i.e. "across" the road.

As the section of road to which the TMO applies does not exist, it is hard to see how the TMO can be enforceable. H&F also have the problem that paragraph 4 of the TMO, which defines the section of road to which the additional restrictions on vehicles applies, stops in mid-sentence after "and".

This may be why H&F are so reluctant to let any appeals go before an adjudicator. The changes made to the road markings on what used to be the exit slip road from Great West Road suggest strongly that whoever drew up the scheme intended the one-way restriction to apply from the carriageway of Great West Road. Wiser heads have recognised that that is not so and that the one-way restriction applies, at best, across the boundary between TfL's land and H&F's.

Meanwhile H&F rake in the money.

Hope your all well, here is the latest screen shoot on amounts outstanding

Next image

Can I use this template too as I have posted almost the same claim during this week?

If it is in response to a Letter of Claim (LoC) from the incompetents at Moorside Legal, then it really doesn't matter what you put in it, as they are going to issue a clam anyway.

If it is a defence, then forget all that and show us the Particulars of Claim (PoC) and we will provide a defence that covers their failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and an order for a strike out.

I don't believe it. This is the third one this week that I have seen with this gross error by the CNCB.

Please confirm that what you received is a single A4 page with a Claim Form cover letter printed on one side and the N30 Judgment for Claimant (in default) printed on the reverse.

I am dealing with an official complaint to the CNBC and HMCTS as they are advising defendants in these cases to apply for a set aside with an N244 application that costs £313 and would be unrecoverable by the defendant as the claimant has not erred.

I expect the CNCB to use their administrative powers to get the CCJ set aside under CPR 13.2 at no cost to the defendant. Please PM with your details so I can add you to the list. (assuming I am correct in that what you have shown us are both sides of a single A4 page).