DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 74152--------------------------------------------------
Hammersmith & Fulham -Rivercourt Road - 52M - Failing to
comply with a prohibtion on types of vehic
DIR By: LB117
Date: June 1, 2025, 8:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So having read what is on here, it looks like there are many
people who have suffered the same experience as me. My car is
leased, and annoyingly it took 12 days from the PCN being issued
to me receiving it (via email, leasing company had already paid
the fine). I received the notification of the PCN 24 hours after
having driven down Rivercourt Road again. As the PCN has been
settled, I am no longer able to see the photos or view the
footage online. However, I still intend to appeal. Can I please
get some guidance on the below representations, which I have
based around those posted by another user on here.
I am writing in relation to a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued
on 15 May 2025 in relation to an alleged contravention on 26
April 2025. The PCN was paid by Tusker, the leasing company from
which I have my vehicle on a long-term lease, and they provided
me notification of the alleged contravention via email on 27 May
2025. I have enclosed a Third Party Authorisation Letter from
the leasing company.
I believe the PCN was unfairly issued due to the following
reasons:
1. Inadequate and Insufficient Signage
There were no clear and visible advance warnings on the A4
before reaching the exit to indicate the prohibition. As an
occasional user of this exit (five/six times per year), who does
not live in the local area, I was wholly unaware that recent
restrictions had been put in place. Had I been aware, I would
not have turned down this road. Given that this exit has been
unrestricted for years, the council should have ensured clear
and proper noticeable advance warnings before the junction to
allow drivers to safely take an alternative route. This signage
should clearly indicate that road access is prohibited at a safe
distance to give drivers to understand the signage and allow
them to adjust their route accordingly. There was no signage on
the A4 approach that stated that Rivercourt Road access is
prohibited with fines levied for alleged contraventions. The
‘MobileVMS’ signage which I gather has been placed along the A4
is non-standard and does not resemble signage as depicted in the
Highway Code as giving orders to motorists.
2. Recent and Unexpected Changes to Restrictions
I now understand that the prohibition was implemented during the
Christmas period when I did not use this exit. This was my first
time using it since the change, and I was unaware of the new
restriction. The lack of prior warning to regular users of this
route caused confusion and led to an inadvertent contravention.
I would not intrepret the variable signage message stating
“LOCAL ACCESS ONLY 70 YARDS AHEAD” to mean that this road now
forms part of a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN).
3. Highway Safety Concerns
Upon exiting the A4, where three lanes of traffic flow at 40
mph, I was immediately presented with multiple signs at a
location where it was unsafe to stop and read them properly.
Having reviewed photos of the location since, there are about 10
signs at that exit, speed restriction, parking restriction, two
camera signs, two one way signs, lorry sign, lorry entry times
and dates, road name. The complexity of signage at the junction
made it difficult to process the restriction in real time,
particularly while navigating a busy exit from flowing traffic.
4. Alternative Actions Were Unsafe
As previously stated, having committed to turn onto Rivercourt
Road, I was not aware of the signage prohibiting access.
However, had I seen it, my only option would have been to
continue along Rivercourt Road, unless I were to put myself or
others at risk of harm. Once committed to the exit, reversing
back onto the A4 is neither a lawful nor safe option due to
Highway Code Rules 200 and 201. As I am sure you will be well
aware, reversing from a side road onto a main road is strictly
prohibited. Hammersmith & Fulham Council’s restriction forces
drivers into a situation where they must proceed, making
enforcement in such cases unfair and unreasonable.
5. Request for Consideration
In light of the above, I respectfully request that this PCN be
reviewed and cancelled. The lack of advance proper and clear
signage on the A4, the unexpected nature of the restriction, the
complexity and volume of signage at the exit, and the inability
to take any safe action once a has driver committed to turning
onto Rivercourt Road are all important factors here, which I
strongly feel should be considered.<BR><BR>As I mentioned above,
I did not receive the PCN until 27 May 2025, at which point it
had been settled by the leasing company already. It is
particularly unfortunate that I had, for the reasons I have
outlined above, also driven the same route on Sunday 25 May 2025
and anticipate receiving a further PCN. I would appreciate if
the council could exercise discretion and consider either
cancelling the charge for this PCN and for that I yet to expect
to receive, or providing further guidance on improving signage
to prevent similar incidents in the future. Clearly, I am now
aware that Rivercourt Road is restricted in its use, and I will
no longer take this route in future.
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 74153--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham -Rivercourt Road - 52M - Failing to
comply with a prohibtion on types of vehic
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: June 1, 2025, 9:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What are the terms in your lease about PCNs and fines?
At the moment, you do not appear to have any standing to
challeng H&F.
#Post#: 74155--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham -Rivercourt Road - 52M - Failing to
comply with a prohibtion on types of vehic
DIR By: LB117
Date: June 1, 2025, 9:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the reply. Attached is what Tusker emailed me
stating I can appeal within 28 days.
The agreement with Tusker states "Understand that parking or
congestion charges and any other fines are their responsibility
and if incurred will be
recharged to them along with an administration fee."
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 74193--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham -Rivercourt Road - 52M - Failing to
comply with a prohibtion on types of vehic
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 1, 2025, 1:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, because they have paid, the matter is closed. We
see lots of cases like yours and in most of them it is clear
that the leasing company know absolutely nothing about the law
on PCNs. It's a growing problem as more and more people lease
cars.
#Post#: 74197--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham -Rivercourt Road - 52M - Failing to
comply with a prohibtion on types of vehic
DIR By: LB117
Date: June 1, 2025, 2:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the reply. So no point in even writing to H&F
Council? The leasing company won't do anything, I'm sure, so I
guess it's just bad luck. As if the fine isn't bad enough,
there's an admin charge for the privilege and had they not been
as slow, I'd have received the PCN before driving down the same
road again.
#Post#: 77309--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham -Rivercourt Road - 52M - Failing to
comply with a prohibtion on types of vehic
DIR By: LB117
Date: June 20, 2025, 3:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly, when I spoke to H&F, they told me I could still
appeal. They also appeared to have my name and details which can
only have come from the leasing company. Appeal sent on 3 June
and waiting to hear. Won't hold my breath, but thought it
couldn't do any harm!
#Post#: 81507--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham -Rivercourt Road - 52M - Failing to
comply with a prohibtion on types of vehic
DIR By: LB117
Date: July 17, 2025, 2:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to add, my fine was cancelled and Tusker will be refunded.
#Post#: 81511--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham -Rivercourt Road - 52M - Failing to
comply with a prohibtion on types of vehic
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: July 17, 2025, 3:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good - well done!
Please post up the NoA.
#Post#: 81515--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham -Rivercourt Road - 52M - Failing to
comply with a prohibtion on types of vehic
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 17, 2025, 3:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Very well done ! It seems clear that H & F realise they have
made a complete boo-boo of this restriction, but are under
pressure from the suits to get the money in.
Essentially, to make it a safe restriction, they need to
completely rearrange the driving pattern on this street, so that
at the bottom, 2 way is allowed for a small distance to allow
sight of the signs and room to turn around and rejoin the A40.
Of course this costs money, so they are reluctant to do this.
The shenanigans around this restriction need to be in the
national press.
#Post#: 81519--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham -Rivercourt Road - 52M - Failing to
comply with a prohibtion on types of vehic
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 17, 2025, 4:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
While I agree that the whole thing is completely wrong, I don't
see that TfL will be prepared to countenance drivers turning off
the A4, turning round and then rejoining. The geometry at Weltje
Road makes it possible to join the A4 there; that isn't
available at Rivercourt Road. The exit onto Rivercourt Road
worked precisely because Rivercourt Road was unimpeded
northbound once you had crossed the cycleway/footway (although
it would take a brave cyclist or pedestrian to exercise right of
way over turning vehicles).
If, as s.121B of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1084 requires, H&F
had consulted TfL before making the TMO and TfL had thought
about the possible consequences (not sure that they would), TfL
could have vetoed the scheme and insisted that Rivercourt Road
had to remain one-way northbound. Legally, they still could. If
H&F didn't comply, TfL could do the work and send the bill to
H&F.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1