Free Traffic Legal Advice

I don't think the comma is an issue. I don't like the H&F logo being used as a permit identifier but consider that it falls within the class of trivial defects which do not mislead the road user (see Neil Herron) and so does not invalidate the PCN.

Having said that, it's part of what I consider to be a thoroughly disreputable scheme to balkanise the road system and restrict roads not just to true locals (who are the only ones who can get permits for visitors to the Rivercourt Road LTN) but to anyone who lives in the local authority. Just consider the effect of removing that H&F logo: people who live in H&F but nowhere near Rivercourt Road would fear using the road because they might receive a PCN. The H&F logo is a nod and a wink that they'll be OK.

As it happens, I included the non-prescribed permit identifier in a recent FoI to H&F about some much more serious non-compliant signage, see:

• Directional form of "flying motorcycle" traffic sign
• Advance notice traffic signs with a blue background
• No idling and other unofficial signs

For completeness, here are links to other FoIs to H&F about Rivercourt Road (the first is not mine and has the TMO)

• Rivercourt Road W6 - dangerous sightlines - includes TMO 2037
• Rivercourt Road Experimental TMO - includes consolidated TMO and January 2025 plan of proposed signage
• Change of Position of Give Way Road Markings from Great West Road onto Rivercourt Road
• Road traffic collisions and offences on footage from CCTV on Rivercourt Road
• Internal correspondence about intended restrictions on exit from Great West Road to Rivercourt Road

and to FoIs to TfL about Rivercourt Road:

• Junction of Great West Road with Rivercourt Road
• Transfer of Land adjoining Great West Road to Hammersmith & Fulham Council

Apart from all the other defects with this scheme, one thing which H&F haven't done has been to remove the now-superfluous signs relating to the HGV restriction. By their location and angle to the Great West Road (roughly perpendicular), these are the first signs which motorists see. They command drivers' attention when it should be on other signs, notably the flying motorcycle. Yet the flying motorcycle means that HGVs must have a permit to enter Rivercourt Road, so the HGV restriction is redundant. While the Council might argue that it is required by Regulation 18 of LATOR 1996, the fact that it has zero effect means that no signs are required.

Section 9 of Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual is concerned with Removing Signs. Paragraph 9.1.1. advises:

Redundant signs and their supports should be removed when installing new signs. Before new signs are installed designers should undertake a review to determine whether any sign information could be rationalised or removed to reduce sign clutter.

You are, of course, aware of adjudications in Merton about sign clutter, of which 2240246685 on Cambridge Road is particularly pithy:

The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this vehicle failed to comply with a pedestrian zone restriction.

Upon the appellant raising the issue of signage in accordance with his written submissions supported by the evidence he provided.

A multiplicity of signage is posted at this junction.

It amounts to my mind to signage overload.

I was satisfied for the reasons given by [Mr S] that the council's regulatory signage was not compliant with the TSRGD 2016 it in any event being unclear the restriction being difficult to assimilate given the plethora of information shown on it.

I was not satisfied against this background that this contravention had been proved and I allowed the appeal.

How interesting! That's a definite improvement. I presume they still haven't installed the advance notice signs on A4 which they proposed in their January 2025 drawings:

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

This is a Schedule 12 advance direction sign which incorporates Schedule 12 Part 20 Item 23 (aka No Motor Vehicles). Schedule 12 Part 20 makes explicit provision with Item 22 (aka No Vehicles) for plates such as "Play Street". Otherwise, the permitted plates are Items 44 and 45. Item 44 is the distance to where the embedded sign applies. Item 45 is "Except buses", which can be varied to "Except buses taxis and permit holders".

H&F may have thought that this meant that the sign would be valid (if TfL allowed them to install it). But the description of the Item is

Optional symbol representing a supplementary plate for use with circular symbols from this table (except items 23, 37 and 38)

In other words, it cannot be used with the No Motor Vehicles sign. I surmise that this is because DfT consider that you should be using whichever blue roundel is appropriate, e.g. diagram 953. This means that, even if H&F apply for special permission, they'll be turned down.

I still think that the sign which they should be putting on the A4 is No Left Turn (diagram 613) with the plate "Except buses taxis cycles and authorised vehicles. In support of that I'd refer to the judgment in James v Cavey

The short answer in my view which requires that this appeal should be allowed is that the local authority here did not take such steps as they were required to take under that regulation [equivalent to Regulation 18 of LATOR 1996]. They did not take steps which clearly could have been taken and which clearly would have been practicable to cause adequate information to be given to persons using the road by the signs which they erected.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I realise this isn't the main purpose of the thread but as it's the Flame Pit... The amount of signage in such a small area there is ridiculous. Aside from the difficulty one might experience trying to read it all from a moving vehicle, it just makes the street look unsightly.

To answer @John_S's question in Reply #2, the new signage went up during June; see this response to FoI 17688117:

An additional 'Motor Vehicle Prohibition' sign was installed of the western arm of the junction in June 2025.

The question posed was precise and yielded precise answers:

Q: Please also provide a plan of the siting of any traffic signs that have been erected to ensure that motorists are aware of the effects of the Order. Please identify which signs have been erected to warn motorists BEFORE they enter the junction of any restrictions, and also indicate which signs have been erected and which motorists will see AFTER they enter the junction.

A: Please see the attached Traffic Management Order, drawing and image of Rivercourt Road junction layout.

Two digital variable message signs were installed on the A4 330 yards and 70 yards west of the Rivercourt Road junction to provide advanced warning of the traffic access restriction on Rivercourt Road.

After entering the junction, a 'Motor Vehicle Prohibition' sign (diagram 52M) is located on the eastern arm of the junction. An additional 'Motor Vehicle Prohibition' sign was installed of the western arm of the junction in June 2025.

H&F therefore acknowledge that:

• the advance signage consists of the variable message signs
• the upright signs at the restriction are only seen after entering the junction

As the presence of the diagram 1040.3 road markings on the exit slip road make it an offence to cross the continuous white line at the outside of the marking, once your vehicle has crossed where the edge-of-carriageway markings used to be, there is no way out: either you commit an offence by crossing the diagram 1040.3, or you incur a PCN.

The variable message signs are hopeless at providing information:
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

and the 6-month period for which they are permitted to remain on the public highway ended on 20th May 2025.

A further image shows the effect of foliage on the visibility of signage at the junction until you get there:
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I'm gob-smacked. It's a portable sign. I expected them to erect a post.

In response to another FoI, H&F supplied the following details of the signs they proposed to replace the variable message signs:

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

The sign which you have photographed is meant to be 1778mm wide and 2488mm high with an X-height of 200mm. That's 6' wide x 8' high. It's nothing like that.

The absence of any distance to the junction renders it of very little use. In my view, they're barking up the wrong tree with a diagram 619. That forces the ridiculously large Except plate. They should be using a diagram 953. Then they could put the distance to the junction beneath it.

I expect they don't like diagram 953 because the plate they would have to use is "and authorised vehicles", which doesn't give them the opportunity to add their nod-and-wink to H&F residents that they're OK.

As for the previous junction with a No Entry sign, if that's Weltje road, they could just have the side bar for the road which is joining running at 45° upwards. That would remove the need for the No Entry sign and make it clear that the distance specified was that to the junction with the diagram 953.

In any case, for a Schedule 12 sign, any exceptions are details which are usually omitted. It's only when you get to the junction that the final sign tells you about exceptions. That final sign should be a diagram 613 (No Left Turn). H&F won't like the list of exceptions for this, as it is "Except buses cycles taxis and authorised vehicles". No nods and winks to H&F residents.

I had thought that they might be able to claim that, as the restriction isn't actually at the junction, they can't put a diagram 613 there. But given H&F's placement of diagram 1040.3 road markings from the edge of the carriageway of the A4, it's impossible to rejoin the A4 once you've started to turn left. That means they cannot sustain an argument that diagram 613 is inappropriate.

Failure to place such a sign puts H&F in breach of Winn LJ's judgment in the appeal by case stated from James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676

The short answer in my view which requires that this appeal should be allowed is that the local authority here did not take such steps as they were required to take under that regulation [the equivalent of regulation 18 of LATOR 1996]. They did not take steps which clearly could have been taken and which clearly would have been practicable to cause adequate information to be given to persons using the road by the signs which they erected.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

@John_S Thanks. What a joke!

Another error which a colleague has pointed out to me is that the diagram 619 roundel should be the end of the arm: there shouldn't be a stub projecting beyond it. The bar leading to the roundel should have a curved end.

Paragraph 5.17.7 of Chapter 7 of TSM states:


It strikes me that the absence of a stub beyond the diagram 619 does help suggest that the turn is a restricted one. Including the stub beyond the roundel misleads motorists who subconsciously pick up what the absence of a projecting stub means. That could be useful in other challenges against PCNs.