URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 112538--------------------------------------------------
       Hammersmith & Fulham – Two PCNs – Code 52M – Prohibition on
       motor vehicles – Sawley Rd & Steventon Rd
   DIR By: mfaiz
       Date: March 9, 2026, 7:35 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       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:
  HTML https://imgpile.com/p/3FO8rQ5
       Actual notices: PCN1
  HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/18OLIopTnHinpp2_XaUYefN_85l9e3ZQ2/view?usp=drive_link
       PCN2
  HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f2-Qz-GAauFugCJ1Rz-NScUwyrk_tsNs/view?usp=drive_link
       Old Oak Rd → Steventon Rd Eastbound
  HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/o8zroZnqsmU2R3YS7
       Sawley Rd Eastbound → Bloemfontein Rd
  HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/TzLzLgG3URMaMbhx9
       #Post#: 112587--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Two PCNs – Code 52M – Prohibition
       on motor vehicles – Sawley Rd & Steventon Rd
   DIR By: fraser.mitchell
       Date: March 9, 2026, 3:39 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I am very surprised your friends you were visiting forgot about
       this new LTN scheme, unless they don't own and use a car. Yours
       is the second thread we've had on this scheme, no doubt put in
       for the penalties cash like the one in Croydon recently declared
       unlawful by a High Court judge. However, this doesn't get you
       off your two PCN
       s unfortunately !
       The previous thread was for the Old Oak Road restriction signs,
       and lack of advance warning signs for those making a LH turn was
       the main appeal point as I recall.
       For the other PCN, their video does not show you passing the
       restriction sign, the camera only shows the signs for the
       opposite direction, so that is your main point.
       It has now become quite plain that councils couldn't care less
       about lower traffic, the main purpose of these LTNs is to get
       PCN penalty money flowing in. This is, of course, an illegal
       purpose, so everything is dressed up to claim it is all about
       the local residents blah, blah, who mainly oppose them !
       #Post#: 112792--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Two PCNs – Code 52M – Prohibition
       on motor vehicles – Sawley Rd & Steventon Rd
   DIR By: mfaiz
       Date: March 11, 2026, 5:08 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you based on that, here are my representations for the 2
       pcns based on the comments above and this older thread Old Oak
       Rd
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/52m-failing-to-comply-with-a-prohibition-on-certain-types-of-vehicle-m-motor-veh/:
       --- Code ---
       PCN HZ97617253 – 15:25 Steventon Road / Old Oak Road
       
       I challenge the PCN on the ground that the alleged
       contravention did not occur because the restriction was not
       adequately indicated, supported by video evidence.
       
       1. No advance warning of the restriction
       There is no advance sign on the approach to the junction. The
       restriction only becomes apparent at the moment the manoeuvre
       has already been committed. A driver cannot comply with a
       restriction that is not indicated before reaching the decision
       point.
       2. The sign is not visible to approaching traffic
       Video evidence shows that the sign is positioned almost edge
       on at ninety degrees to the driver’s approach. It is not facing
       traffic and is not readable as a prohibitory sign until it is
       too late to comply. A sign that does not face the oncoming
       driver does not fulfil the authority’s duty under Regulation 18
       to adequately convey the restriction.
       3. Compliance would require an unsafe manoeuvre
       By the time the sign becomes visible, it is not possible to
       stop or turn safely without causing danger to other road users.
       Enforcement cannot rely on signage that requires a sudden stop
       or hazardous reversing movement. The heigh of the sign combined
       with the already tight turn, would be unfair to expect driver to
       absorb all of this in a split second.
       For these reasons the signage does not meet statutory
       requirements and the alleged contravention did not occur. I
       request that the PCN is cancelled.
       
       If the authority does not agree, please provide:
       
       the Traffic Management Order covering this location
       the signage placement plan
       the latest inspection and maintenance records
       confirmation that the sign orientation was checked on the date
       in question
       
       I will rely on my video evidence at adjudication if required.
       --- End Code ---
       --- Code ---
       HZ9759050A (15:27 Sawley Road Eastbound / Bloemfontein Road)
       To: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
       Regarding: PCN HZ9759050A
       Vehicle: KW75 EXK
       Date of alleged contravention: 20 February 2026 at 15:27
       Location: RMV Sawley Road Eastbound near junction with
       Bloemfontein Road
       Grounds: No contravention. Signage relates to the opposite
       direction of travel.
       
       I challenge this PCN on the ground that the alleged
       contravention did not occur. My video evidence clearly shows
       that the restriction signs apply only to vehicles entering
       Sawley Road from Bloemfontein Road.
       At the material time, my vehicle was exiting Sawley Road,
       travelling in the opposite direction, away from the signs. The
       prohibitory signs face oncoming traffic entering the road. They
       do not face nor apply to vehicles leaving the restricted area.
       A vehicle cannot contravene a restriction that is:
       
       not facing the driver
       not visible to exiting traffic
       not intended to regulate motorists travelling in that
       direction
       
       This is confirmed by my video, which shows the signs
       positioned solely for inbound traffic. No contravention can
       occur when a driver is travelling away from a restriction,
       because the Traffic Management Order and signage only regulate
       the inbound movement.
       Since the restriction does not apply to vehicles exiting, the
       alleged contravention did not occur.
       I request that the PCN be cancelled.
       If the authority does not agree, please provide:
       
       the Traffic Management Order including direction of travel for
       the restriction
       the signage plan showing sign orientation
       inspection records confirming sign positioning on the date in
       question
       justification for enforcing a restriction against a movement
       it does not regulate
       
       I will rely on my video evidence at adjudication if necessary.
       --- End Code ---
       Is this acceptable? Is it worth mentioning the 2 minute window
       for repeated fine from the same operator for same
       contravention?, something along the lines of:
       Another PCN was issued two minutes earlier/later in the Wormholt
       Neighbourhood improvement location by the same camera operator.
       This indicates that the overall signage layout in the area is
       not providing clear or timely information to motorists. A
       properly conveyed restriction does not result in two alleged
       contraventions in such a short window.
       #Post#: 112802--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Two PCNs – Code 52M – Prohibition
       on motor vehicles – Sawley Rd & Steventon Rd
   DIR By: fraser.mitchell
       Date: March 11, 2026, 6:25 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote ---
       > Another PCN was issued two minutes earlier/later in the
       Wormholt Neighbourhood improvement location by the same camera
       operator. This indicates that the overall signage layout in the
       area is not providing clear or timely information to motorists.
       A properly conveyed restriction does not result in two alleged
       contraventions in such a short window.
       --- End Quote ---
       You can put it in, but the two locations are completely separate
       albeit part of the same zone. The council will reject whatever
       you say anyway; they want your cash !
       #Post#: 112841--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Two PCNs – Code 52M – Prohibition
       on motor vehicles – Sawley Rd & Steventon Rd
   DIR By: mfaiz
       Date: March 11, 2026, 9:59 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       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.
       #Post#: 112845--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Two PCNs – Code 52M – Prohibition
       on motor vehicles – Sawley Rd & Steventon Rd
   DIR By: stamfordman
       Date: March 11, 2026, 10:08 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       This council can be forgiving of first time contraventions in
       new LTN schemes, and especially so if you were going to a local
       address rather than a cut-through.
       So you could lead on this and add your other points but less
       confrontationally.
       Another approach is to pay the first and ask for discretion on
       the second.
       #Post#: 113899--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Two PCNs – Code 52M – Prohibition
       on motor vehicles – Sawley Rd & Steventon Rd
   DIR By: mfaiz
       Date: March 20, 2026, 6:43 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Got a video of the area not sure if this sign was up when it
       happened to me. Nonetheless , the driver did say even though,
       the dashcam doesnt show it properly, it was obscured by tree
       branches but not that much
  HTML https://limewire.com/d/bavtr#wYWZdLuLlT
       [member=8228]cmmanage[/member] something for you too?
       #Post#: 113925--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Two PCNs – Code 52M – Prohibition
       on motor vehicles – Sawley Rd & Steventon Rd
   DIR By: fraser.mitchell
       Date: March 21, 2026, 6:29 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The advance warning sign seems clear enough. The actual
       restriction signs are quite high up but would satisfy an
       adjudicator, I think.
       #Post#: 113964--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Two PCNs – Code 52M – Prohibition
       on motor vehicles – Sawley Rd & Steventon Rd
   DIR By: mfaiz
       Date: March 21, 2026, 1:50 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I agree, the sign is there and clear. Im struggling to think id
       have missed that (not saying i didnt) , unless it wasnt there in
       the first place, as someone else in the forum said they didnt
       see it either last month. Makes me think that this could be new.
       #Post#: 113966--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Two PCNs – Code 52M – Prohibition
       on motor vehicles – Sawley Rd & Steventon Rd
   DIR By: tincombe
       Date: March 21, 2026, 2:56 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Are you the registered keeper of the vehicle?
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 2
   DIR Next Page