DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 72851--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith and Fulham. Code 52M failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 22, 2025, 2:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I spent an hour and a half with the CA today re costs. Forget
it: mistakes do not meet the criteria. Decision to follow in
another thread.
#Post#: 72852--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith and Fulham. Code 52M failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 22, 2025, 2:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tonychess link ---
>
> 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!
>
--- End Quote ---
This is total bolleaux: without prejudice to our position. Press
time I say.
One down, one to go!
#Post#: 72871--------------------------------------------------
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, 4:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree it's press time.
H&F are just milking drivers who pay rather than take it to a
tribunal (which involves forgoing the opportunity to pay £65
rather than £130). They're normally very aggressive, so
conceding every appeal just before it's about to go before a
tribunal is rather a giveaway. That's the story here, along with
the extra-territorial TMO.
#Post#: 72888--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith and Fulham. Code 52M failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 23, 2025, 3:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I suggest the following representations for future cases:
--- Quote ---
>
> 1. The alleged contravention occurred on the slip road exit
from the Great West Road before I reached the "RED ROUTE //
CLEARWAY // Exit" sign which marks the junction between TfL's
slip road and Hammersmith and Fulham's Rivercourt Road.
>
> 2. The only sign indicating that cars need a permit from the
Council to use the exit from the Great West Road has been placed
after the end of the restriction specified in the TMO.
--- End Quote ---
Note that 1. isn't bomb-proof: it is possible for TfL to consent
to a TMO made by H&F on TfL's highway. It is also possible that,
even if TfL didn't know what H&F was doing, the order is valid
because nobody applied to the High Court in the six weeks after
the TMO had been made to object that it lay outside H&F's
powers.
#Post#: 72892--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith and Fulham. Code 52M failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 23, 2025, 4:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The image below may help people understand just where these
alleged contraventions are taking place.
[attachimg=1]
It is a redacted version of a screenshot supplied as evidence of
a contravention. It shows Rivercourt Road running across the
image from south on the right to north on the left. At the right
of the image can be seen the eastbound carriageway of the Great
West Road.
Red Line
At the bottom right of the image there is a post which, because
of the fish-eye lens, rises diagonally. On it there is a "RED
ROUTE // CLEARWAY // Exit" sign which marks the end of the Red
Route Clearway, i.e. the Great West Road.
[attach=2]
I take that as indicating the boundary between the land for
which TfL is the highway authority and the land for which
Hammersmith and Fulham is the highway authority.
There is no corresponding sign on the east side of Rivercourt
Road indicating the boundary on that side of the road. I surmise
that, as on the west side, the "waste" to the north of the
dual-use footway/cycleway forms part of the highway land.
On the surface of Rivercourt Road I have marked in red what I
surmise to be the boundary between the land for which TfL is the
highway authority and the land for which Hammersmith and Fulham
is the highway authority.
Blue Line
There is another possibility: that the boundary between the two
highway authorities lies along the outside of the combined
footway/cycleway of the Great West Road. I have marked this in
blue. This line lies 8.3 meters south of the southern boundary
wall of 17, Rivercourt Road and is used in the TMO.
Slip Road and the TMO
As can be seen, the slip-road exit from the Great West Road up
to the double-dashed Give Way road marking lies entirely on land
between the carriageway of the Great West Road and the red line.
The end of the south-to-north one-way restriction in the TMO
lies on the blue line. If the south-to-north one-way restriction
is to make sense, its southern end, which is described as "Great
West Road", must lie to its south. Harrow and Fulham evidently
intend the restriction to start at the edge of the carriageway
of the Great West Road.
Implications
Whether the boundary between the highway authorities is the red
line or the blue line, Hammersmith and Fulham's TMO only makes
sense as a one-way south-to-north restriction if it lies wholly
within the verge and footway/cycleway of the Great West Road.
TfL is the highway authority for this. Despite this, once six
weeks have elapsed from the making of the TMO without its being
challenged in the High Court, its validity can no longer be
challenged. H&F may have secured an extra-territorial TMO!
That does, however, depend on just what the TMO means. H&F's
intention is clear. But the words of the TMO specify that it
applies to Rivercourt Road from its junction with Great West
Road to the point 8.30m south of 17, Rivercourt Road. If the
junction lies on the blue line, the start and end of the
restriction coincide and the restriction is a nullity. I doubt
whether even H&F could enforce a restriction that cars have to
have an H&F permit to travel across a line of zero width across
the road.
If the junction between Rivercourt Road and the Great West Road
lies to the north of the blue line, the restriction requires
vehicles to traverse a section of Rivercourt Road in a
northbound direction when travelling from a point north of the
blue line to the blue line. It's impossible, of course. It
probably won't stop H&F trying to enforce the TMO but will give
adjudicators headaches.
One thing appears certain. The post with the "flying motorcycle"
sign lies beyond the end of H&F's interpretation of the
restriction. It is the sole indication that cars require a
permit from Hammersmith and Fulham to use the slip road. As a
regulatory sign, it is required to be placed as close as
practicable to the start of the restriction, not after its end.
Objecting to that, along with the absence of advance signage
visible from the A4 (and the variable message signs don't
explain about the permit and are now beyond their 6-month time
limit) should secure a successful appeal.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 77388--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith and Fulham. Code 52M failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: June 20, 2025, 8:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have now received a reply from H&F to my FoI request about the
experimental TMO on Rivercourt Road
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rivercourt_road_experimental_tmo.<br
/>It includes a plan from January 2025 of the revised scheme of
signage
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rivercourt_road_experimental_tmo/response/3055381/attach/3/Rivercourt%20Road%20A4%20Junction%20Layout%20Plan.pdf<br
/>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
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rivercourt_road_experimental_tmo/response/3055381/attach/4/Response%20all%20information%20to%20be%20supplied.pdf<br
/>contains the following items:
--- Quote ---
>
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
I also found a plan of the TfL Road Network showing its
boundaries
HTML https://tfl.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=99bc8bbbe8c94af291f5a5bfc77a00dd<br
/>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
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/freedom_of_information_request_r_419/response/2866782/attach/3/2<br
/>Rivercourt Road TMO.pdf, 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.
#Post#: 117765--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith and Fulham. Code 52M failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: Mike B
Date: May 4, 2026, 4:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I received a penalty notice in January. I appealed and it was
not until the end of April that I was advised that my appeal was
unsuccessful. I intend to appeal to the Adjudicator and my
appeal is listed below taking on board experiences and comments
from others.
I would welcome any input/comment before I submit my appeal and
also does anyone know when the temporary signs on the A4 giving
advance notice of the restriction were put up and is there just
the one not long before you reach Rivercourt Road?
Appeal
My grounds of appeal are set out below.
The signage referred to in my rejection letter appears to bear
no resemblance to the restriction signs on display at the time
of my alleged offence. Please compare video and picture of my
car entering Rivercourt Road to the picture sent to me by the
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.
In my case it is evident that there is inadequate signage of the
restriction, but in any event H & F had a duty under Regulation
6 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England
and Wales) Regulations 1996 to consult with other highway
authorities, before implementing the traffic order, but I
believe failed to do so
The signage at the junction of the A4 and Rivercourt Road is
wholly inadequate and fails the test of "reasonable clarity"
required by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
(TSRGD).
Approach from A4: The advance warning signs on the A4 are small,
poorly positioned, and frequently obscured by high-volume
traffic on this 40mph dual carriageway. A motorist focused on
safe lane positioning cannot reasonably be expected to see,
read, and comprehend these signs.
Point of No Return: The restriction signs at the entrance to
Rivercourt Road itself are positioned such that they only become
visible after a driver has already committed to the turn.
Because Rivercourt Road is narrow and lacks a safe turning point
(the new turning bay referred to in my notice of rejection was
not in place in January 2026) a driver is forced to pass the
signs once they have seen them. Attempting to reverse back onto
the busy A4 would be a dangerous and illegal manoeuvre.
I further contend that the Traffic Management Order (TMO)
underpinning this restriction may be invalid. Under Regulation 6
of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England
and Wales) Regulations 1996, the Council has a statutory duty to
consult with other highway authorities (in this case, Transport
for London, as the authority for the A4) before implementing
such an order. There is strong evidence to suggest that the
Council failed to adequately consult or coordinate with TfL
regarding the impact of this scheme on the A4 trunk road.
#Post#: 117776--------------------------------------------------
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 5, 2026, 12:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to FTLA!
For meaningful advice please to have a read of
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/
and start your own thread (forum rule - one case per thread)
posting there
a brief account of the circumstances,
copies of all corresponndence from and to the Council (redact
only yr name & address - leave all else in),
any council photos/video.
your draft,
and a GSV link to the location.
Do not miss any deadlines - have you a date for the hearing?.
You will have seen from other threads that one is likely to
succeed with Rivercourt Road cases, but that H&F tende to fold
at the very last minute.
(Why do we ask to see everything? -- Because to give good advice
the experts here need to see everything the Adjudicator will see
- the council will submit copies in their Evidence Pack.)
#Post#: 127152--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith and Fulham. Code 52M failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: saml
Date: August 7, 2026, 7:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just thought I'd come back and update everyone, as I know it's
always useful to hear how these cases end.
Firstly, a huge thank you to everyone here who took the time to
give advice and pointed me in the right direction. It really
helped.
My case was also the 52M "No Motor Vehicles" restriction at
Rivercourt Road (northbound), turning in from the A4.
I was driving there for the first time, coming down from the
Midlands and following Google Maps. I genuinely didn't see any
advance warning on the A4 before making the turn. By the time
I'd turned left and saw the yellow restriction signs at the
mouth of Rivercourt Road, I didn't think there was enough time
to read the exemption plate properly, and there certainly wasn't
a safe place to stop, reverse or turn around.
My first challenge was rejected(for sure!), so I took some time
to study from all the advices available here and decided to
register an appeal with London Tribunals on 27/7.
With the help of the advice here, I put together an appeal
bundle including:
a concise written submission;
annotated Google Street View images showing the driver's
approach;
annotated CCTV screenshots showing the point where the vehicle
had already committed to the turn;
an explanation of why reversing back towards the A4 wasn't a
realistic or safe option;
the council's 95-day delay in responding after I'd chased them
for an update.
The appeal was accepted by London Tribunals and listed for a
personal video hearing.
Yesterday I received a letter from LBHF saying they had decided
not to contest the appeal and had cancelled the PCN.
Interestingly, the letter also says this is "without prejudice
to our position" and that they do not accept my arguments,
maintaining that the signage is compliant. So there won't be an
adjudicator's decision on the issues I raised.
Although I'm obviously pleased with the outcome, I still think
the approach from the A4 could be improved for drivers
unfamiliar with the area. My concern has never really been about
avoiding a PCN; it's that the current layout seems capable of
catching careful drivers who simply don't have enough time to
understand the exemption before they're committed to the turn.
Hopefully this update is useful for anyone else who ends up
searching for Rivercourt Road 52M in the
future.[img]
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/pRAuASL#1aPW1VY[/img]
#Post#: 127211--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith and Fulham. Code 52M failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 7, 2026, 5:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please show their NOR. Costs?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page