DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 72458--------------------------------------------------
Hammersmith and Fulham. Code 52M failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: tonychess
Date: May 20, 2025, 3:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Copy of the PCN here
HTML https://postimg.cc/p9jSdGyc
I have already appealed which they have rejected. I now have a
tribunal date set for July 15th. Any help on this much
appreciated.
My proposed representation now:
1: Inadequate/no signage: No warning to driver about prohibition
preventing an
otherwise perfectly legal manoeuvre.
2: Highway safety: No way of safety exiting situation.
3: Complex signage: Too many signs to read whilst vehicle is in
a dangerous position to
others. Once you reach the junction of Rivercourt rd there are
no less than 11 separate
signs. It is simply NOT possible to read all 11 signs whilst
travelling at 40mph and coming off a
dual carriageway. Indeed from the video H and F supplied of the
incident you can see
another car turning just behind me at speed. Thank goodness I
did not stop to read 11
signs and cause an accident! Signs include but are not limited
to:”
A Controlled Zone sign(which relates to parking). This is
composite(has wording other
than just the prescribed minimum of Controlled Zone)
One-way street sign times 2
A speed limit sign;
A restricted access for vehicles over a prescribed weight sign
with several very detailed
associated plates;
A no entry for vehicular traffic sign, with associated plate.
And it appears a Red Route Clearway ends sign.
A road name sign
The actual sign relating to residents access is not actually
located before the turning but
rather on the other side of the road.
4: Reversing back onto A4 is prohibited by Highway Code Rule 200
and 201 On exiting
the A4 (very busy 40 mph limit three line carriageway) onto
Rivercourt Road I was
immediately faced with a give way line and a barrage of signs.
The “new turning bay” as
shown in the notice of rejection is farcical. I would like to
use pictures that H and F have
sent in the notice of rejection as part of my evidence.
The give way lines are so close to the junction and near the A4
main road and could
possibility block another car exiting and force it to stop on
the fast moving busy A4
(please see video from H and F of vehicle movements behind me)
To add complexity to
the solution I was funnelled by two solid white lines, I think
to prevent a car from turning
around back on to the A4, I could reverse back onto the A4 but
that is prevented by
Highway Code 200 & 201 (either actions would not be sensible).
So in conclusion, once
I was committed to performing a perfectly legal everyday
manoeuvre, I was compelled
by the design of the junction to continue along Rivercourt Road
#Post#: 72461--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith and Fulham. Code 52M failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicles
DIR By: tonychess
Date: May 20, 2025, 3:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
And two images hammersmith and Fulham sent me...
HTML https://postimg.cc/9RvC0m53
and
HTML https://postimg.cc/4n9XM9VX<br
/>which I feel show a great representation of the number of
signs
at the junction as well as the ridiculous turning circle to try
and get back onto the dual carriageway.
#Post#: 72465--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith and Fulham. Code 52M failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicles
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 20, 2025, 4:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please read this and update your thread accordingly: -
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
For a start you haven't given us a clue as to where this
contravention took place, (although we all suspect it is
Rivercourt Road, leading off the Great West Road.
This now notorious restriction was implemented extremely badly
by H & F. I suspect they broke every rule in the book on this
one. However, as we all know, there are no powers to force them
to amend it so they just carry on earning money from it.
The main point is the restriction applies at the entrance to the
street, off a 40 mph heavily trafficked dual carriageway, with
no advance warning of what lies ahead. If they moved the
restriction about 20 metres into the street, there is adequate
room for a motorist to see the signs, turn round and join the
main road again. I am not sure if H& F have let any cases get to
London Tribunals, so have a search on their Statutory Register
under the street name.
#Post#: 72468--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith and Fulham. Rivercourt Road Code 52M failing to
comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles
DIR By: tonychess
Date: May 20, 2025, 4:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. I have edited the Subject title to indeed include
Rivercourt Road. Well, I have a date for the tribunal so looks
like I might be the guinea pig on this one!
#Post#: 72469--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith and Fulham. Code 52M failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 20, 2025, 4:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you please post-up their rejection letter and you reps text.
Better if you'd come on here earlier before submitting reps, but
we are where we are.
#Post#: 72539--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith and Fulham. Code 52M failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 21, 2025, 7:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Advance Signage and the Beatson Judgment
I suggest that your main line of argument should be from
paragraph 65 of Beatson J's judgment in R (Oxfordshire County
Council) v. The Bus Lane Adjudicator
HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/894.html
[2010]
EWHC 894 (Admin):
--- Quote ---
>
> 65. The Defendant's submission that the fact that signs are
prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient for
securing adequate information as to the effect of an order is
made available to road users is clearly correct. If the signs do
not in fact provide adequate information no offence is
committed; see James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676.
>
--- End Quote ---
That judgment was in the High Court, so is binding on lower
tribunals. It was for the same road sign: diagram 619 ("flying
motorcycle") but with different associated plates. In that case
there were advance warning signs 450, 180 and 20 yards before
the diagram 619. Beatson J assessed those signs as providing
sufficient notice, having established that they could be seen by
a motorist approaching them (i.e. they weren't obscured).
In this case it appears that Hammersmith and Fulham have not got
TfL to place appropriate advance signage on the A4. That would
be a No Left Turn (diagram 613) immediately before the junction
with the plate "Except buses taxis cycles and authorised
vehicles". In order to ensure that traffic flow on the A4 isn't
disrupted, a further map-type sign might be placed 50m before
this.
Relationship between H&F and TfL
It's worth noting that s.121B of Road Traffic Regulation Act
1984
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/121B<br
/>provides:
--- Quote ---
>
> 121B London borough council exercising powers so as to affect
another traffic authority’s roads.
>
> (1) No London borough council shall exercise any power under
this Act in a way which will affect, or be likely to affect,—
> (a) a GLA road, or
> (aa) a strategic road ...
> unless the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) below have
been satisfied.
>
> (2) The first requirement is that the council has given notice
of the proposal to exercise the power in the way in question—
> (a) to Transport for London...
>
> (3) The second requirement is that—
> (a) the proposal has been approved
> (i) in the case of a GLA road, by Transport for London;
> (ii) in the case of a strategic road, by Transport for London
...
> (b) the period of one month beginning with the date on which
Transport for London and, where applicable, the council received
notice of the proposal has expired without Transport for London
or the council having objected to the proposal; or
> (c) any objection made by Transport for London or the council
has been withdrawn; or
> (d) where an objection has been made by Transport for London
or a London borough council and not withdrawn, the Greater
London Authority has given its consent to the proposal after
consideration of the objection.
>
--- End Quote ---
It would be worth finding out whether H&F have complied with
this. If they haven't, the entire scheme is probably unlawful.
Requirement to Give Way 8m after leaving A4
As the supposed contravention occurs when you pass the "flying
motorcycle" signs, their distance from the A4 is largely
irrelevant. What I find disturbing, however, is that at the same
point as those signs there are Give Way road markings (diagram
1003A). This is a mere 8m from the A4. That road marking
requires you to give way to any vehicle which is on Rivercourt
Road beyond it. That could very well be a vehicle which is using
the "turning bay" to turn round, having come south along
Rivercourt Road from King Street and now needs to return north
because exit onto the A4 is prohibited (thanks to TfL).
What this means is that any vehicle turning off the A4 onto
Rivercourt Road has a mere 8m to come to a halt. I'd like to see
a school bus for Latymer Upper do that: they're more than 8m
long, so would need to stop with their rear ends obstructing the
A4. That doesn't sound a great idea. It's why I rather suspect
that H&F haven't notified TfL and obtained their consent to this
scheme. Cars which had been slowing down to turn left might just
be able to stop, but it would be a hard-on emergency stop: the
braking distance from 30 mph (i.e. allowing for having slowed to
take the corner and then excluding thinking distance) is 13.5m.
Duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of
... traffic
I do wonder whether H&F carried out a safety analysis of this
scheme. The scheme looks to me to be a violation of H&F's duty
under s.122 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/122:
--- Quote ---
>
> It shall be the duty of every ... local authority upon whom
functions are conferred by or under this Act, ... to secure the
expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other
traffic (including pedestrians) and the provision of suitable
and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway....
>
--- End Quote ---
If H&F are in breach of this duty, they may have been acting
ultra vires in implementing it. That would mean that the scheme
was void, i.e. legally does not exist and therefore cannot be
enforced. While adjudicators start from a presumption of
regularity, i.e. that official acts have been undertaken
properly, it is possible to rebut that presumption if the
evidence is strong enough. In this case that distance of 8m
looks strong enough as the stopping and braking distances are
well-known formulae which have been in The Highway Code for
decades. I shall be making FoI requests to H&F and TfL to try to
elicit further evidence.
#Post#: 72757--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith and Fulham. Code 52M failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: tonychess
Date: May 22, 2025, 8:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, I have received an email from H and F today canceling the
tribunal!
HTML https://postimg.cc/1gs6JPcF
HTML https://postimg.cc/34Ht7PTC
HTML https://postimg.cc/1fzJ9GLT
HTML https://postimg.cc/jwX4T2vt
I find it quite annoying that they would decline my initial
appeal and schedule a tribunal date- for me to then upload my
appeal as per my initial post and then to cancel the tribunal. I
was *almost* looking forward to it. A more sceptical person
might presume H and F didn't want to set a precedent at tribunal
for others to follow!
Or maybe they are reading this thread and you all scared them
off!
#Post#: 72778--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith and Fulham. Code 52M failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: May 22, 2025, 9:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How many appeals regarding this junction must H&F decline to
contest at the last minute before the Cost clause ( see below)
of the Schedule to
The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions
(Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/576/schedule/1
is invoked?
--- Quote ---
>
> Costs
>
> 13.—(1) An adjudicator must not normally make an order
awarding costs and expenses.
>
> (2) But, subject to sub-paragraph (3), an adjudicator may make
an order awarding costs and expenses—
>
> (a)against a party (including an appellant who has withdrawn
an appeal or an enforcement authority which has consented to an
appeal being allowed), if the adjudicator considers that—
>
> (i)the party has acted frivolously or vexatiously, or
>
> (ii)the party’s conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an
appeal was wholly unreasonable;
>
> (b)against an enforcement authority, where the adjudicator
considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable.
>
> (3) An order must not be made against a party unless that
party has been given an opportunity to make representations
against the making of the order.
>
> (4) An order must require the party against whom it is made to
pay to the other party a specified sum in respect of the costs
and expenses incurred by that other party in connection with the
proceedings.
--- End Quote ---
I also seem to recall reading that where an EA had DNC'd the
appellant had a rght to insist that an appeal sill be heard, but
it may have been my dreaming or wishful thinking.
#Post#: 72811--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith and Fulham. Code 52M failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 22, 2025, 11:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Clearly they're running scared of appearing before an
adjudicator and are just collecting £65 from those who pay up
because challenging it takes time and effort.
Those "advance signs" don't pass muster: neither
RESTRICTED ACCESS TO RIVERCOURT ROAD 330 YARDS AHEAD
nor
LOCAL ACCESS ONLY 70 YARDS AHEAD
conveys anything like the minimum appropriate signage: a
750mm-diameter No Left Turn sign (diagram 613) with the plate
"Except buses, taxis, cycles and authorised vehicles"
#Post#: 72819--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith and Fulham. Code 52M failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 22, 2025, 12:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have looked into the TMO
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/freedom_of_information_request_r_419/response/2866782/attach/3/2%20Rivercourt%20Road%20TMO.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1.<br
/>It's interesting. The critical element is the Schedule, which
is
attached below. It defines the section of Rivercourt Road which
is restricted as
--- Quote ---
>
> between Great West Road and a point and a point 8.30 meters
south of the southern building wall of No.17 Rivercourt Road
>
--- End Quote ---
A Question
Where is the junction between Great West Road and Rivercourt
Road?
If you're a diehard motorist, the answer will be the dashed
lines where the side road splits from the carriageway of the A4.
That's not my answer, and I don't think it's TfL's answer. A
highway extends from the curtilage on one side of the highway to
the curtilage on the other side. Between those curtilages there
may be a carriageway (two for the Great West Road, none for a
footpath or bridleway), one or more footways and verges, and
also "waste", which is land outside all those already named. All
of those are highway land and the highway encompasses them all.
Attached are Google Street View images looking westwards of the
junction between Great West Road and Rivercourt Road. Note the
sign ringed in yellow on RivercourtRoadClearway1.jpg, which can
be read more clearly on RivercourtRoadClearway2.jpg. That sign
and post have been placed close to the boundary wall of what
used to be 20, Rivercourt Road (see the map
RivercourtRoad1957red.jpg) but which is now part of the campus
of Latymer Upper School.
The sign reads "RED ROUTE // CLEARWAY // End". It marks the
boundary of the curtilage of the Red Route which, in this case
is the Great West Road. There is no corresponding sign on the
east side of Rivercourt Road, so it's impossible to tell where
TfL consider the curtilage lies there. I have marked in red on
the map RivercourtRoad1957red.jpg where I surmise the curtilage
to lie.
What can be said with confidence is that the Great West Road
includes the verge and the footway (which is also a cycleway),
and that east of Rivercourt Road these abut railings about 8.3m
south of the boundary wall of 17, Rivercourt Road. The
complexity of the boundary between Great West Road and
Rivercourt Road would explain why previous TMOs for Rivercourt
Road have defined their southern boundary by reference to some
supposedly well-defined point on Rivercourt Road.
Analysis of the Schedule
Now let's return to the Schedule of the TMO. Leaving aside the
repetition of "and a point", the section of Rivercourt Road on
which it defines a south-to-north one-way restriction is from
the Great West Road to a point 8.30m south of the southern
building wall of 17, Rivercourt Road.
The "RED ROUTE // CLEARWAY // End" sign appears to lie about 5m
south of the southern boundary wall of number 17. This must be
the boundary where Great West Road meets Rivercourt Road. It is
the southern end of the south-to-north restriction on Rivercourt
Road. That makes sense as Hammersmith & Fulham's jurisdiction
runs north from here. So far, so good.
Now for the end of the restriction: this lies "8.30m south of
the southern building wall of 17, Rivercourt Road". While it's
not clear what "southern building wall" means, Give Way road
markings (diagram 1003A) have been placed about 3m south of the
"RED ROUTE // CLEARWAY // End" sign, i.e. 8m south of the
southern boundary wall of number 17. These road markings are
clearly intended to mark the end of the one-way northbound
section of Rivercourt Road.
We can infer that Hammersmith & Fulham's intention was to impose
a one-way northbound restriction on that element of carriageway
which leads from the carriageway of the Great West Road towards
Rivercourt Road. What they have actually done has been to pass a
resolution to impose a TMO which defines a one-way
south-to-north restriction that actually runs north-to-south
across part of an east-west highway in another authority (TfL)'s
jurisdiction. It follows that the TMO is ultra vires and
therefore void.
Perhaps this is the reason why H&F are so reluctant to let any
appeal reach an adjudicator. They know that the whole thing is a
complete nonsense and are just collecting as many £65's as they
can.
I've made some FoI requests to H&F and TfL and shall be
interested to see their replies.
[attachment deleted by admin]
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page