DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 76662--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF - 52M Prohibition on certain vehicles, Rivercourt Road
turning from Great west road (A4)
DIR By: mfaiz
Date: June 16, 2025, 6:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is asking grounds for representation, I have the following
options and none of them really fit this case, what did others
do:
--- Quote ---
> ☐ I was not the owner of the vehicle at the time.
> If you sold the vehicle before the date of the contravention
or bought it after the date, you must tell us the name and
address of the person who bought it from or sold it to you, if
you know it, and please supply whatever evidence of the sale you
may have (e.g. a sales receipt).
>
> ☐ There was no contravention of an order or failure to
comply with an indication on a sign.
> Please explain why you think there was no contravention of a
traffic order or why there was no failure to drive the vehicle
in the way shown on the sign.
>
> ☐ The vehicle was being used without your consent.
> If the vehicle had been stolen, please provide details of the
police crime reference or insurance claim.
>
> ☐ We are a hire firm and the person hiring the vehicle
had signed a statement accepting liability.
> Please supply a copy of signed agreement including name and
address of hirer.
>
> ☐ The penalty exceeded amount applicable in
circumstances case.
> If think being asked pay more than should legally pay.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 76678--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF - 52M Prohibition on certain vehicles, Rivercourt Road
turning from Great west road (A4)
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: June 16, 2025, 6:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Does the PCN offer an email address for reps?
#Post#: 76683--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF - 52M Prohibition on certain vehicles, Rivercourt Road
turning from Great west road (A4)
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 16, 2025, 6:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Contravention did not occur.
IMO, your draft is unnecessarily long and introduces secondary
and worse issues which do not bear upon the key point: the
number, type, scope, location and method of display of the
traffic signs, both regulatory and for information, at the point
at which the restriction in question applies - the restriction
not being accompanied by any prior warnings on approach - makes
a relevant motorist's ability to see, read and act upon the
regulatory sign in question impossible. The authority have
therefore failed to meet their mandatory obligation under
Regulation 18 (Traffic Signs) of The Local Authorities’ Traffic
Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and
thereby may not demand a penalty for the alleged contravention.
As regards s121B RTRA, since when would a failure by a council
remove a traffic authority's power to demand a penalty from a
motorist? And IMO it's not relevant anyway and who's to say that
the GLA(not TfL) road has been (adversely) affected?
#Post#: 76700--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF - 52M Prohibition on certain vehicles, Rivercourt Road
turning from Great west road (A4)
DIR By: mfaiz
Date: June 16, 2025, 7:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They have not provided an email, and representations can be made
via post or online only.
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Contravention did not occur.
>
> IMO, your draft is unnecessarily long and introduces secondary
and worse issues which do not bear upon the key point: the
number, type, scope, location and method of display of the
traffic signs, both regulatory and for information, at the point
at which the restriction in question applies - the restriction
not being accompanied by any prior warnings on approach - makes
a relevant motorist's ability to see, read and act upon the
regulatory sign in question impossible. The authority have
therefore failed to meet their mandatory obligation under
Regulation 18 (Traffic Signs) of The Local Authorities’ Traffic
Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and
thereby may not demand a penalty for the alleged contravention.
>
> As regards s121B RTRA, since when would a failure by a council
remove a traffic authority's power to demand a penalty from a
motorist? And IMO it's not relevant anyway and who's to say that
the GLA(not TfL) road has been (adversely) affected?
>
--- End Quote ---
I see your points and have revised my draft:
--- Quote ---
>
> 1. Inadequate and Confusing Signage (Regulatory Breach)
> There were no clear advance warning signs on the A4 prior to
the Rivercourt Road junction, in breach of Regulation 18 of the
Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and
Wales) Regulations 1996. The absence of staged signage (e.g., at
450, 180, and 20 yards) fails to provide adequate notice.
Furthermore, upon exiting the A4, drivers are immediately
confronted with a dense cluster of signs—speed limits, parking
rules, camera enforcement, and directional indicators—creating
cognitive overload at a critical decision point. This undermines
both safety and compliance, particularly for unfamiliar drivers.
>
> 2. Unsafe Road Layout and Lack of Alternatives
> The current layout forces vehicles to stop within 8 metres of
the junction, despite the Highway Code indicating a braking
distance of 13.5 metres at 30mph. Larger vehicles may be forced
to obstruct the A4 to comply. Once committed, given the distance
of infringement start point is so small, there is no safe or
legal way to reverse or turn around, making it impossible to
avoid the restriction without breaching Highway Code Rules 200
and 201. This design contradicts the Council’s duty under
Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to ensure
safe and efficient traffic flow.
>
> 3. Unreasonable Expectations on Non-Local Drivers
> As an infrequent and non-local user of this route, I was
unaware of any recent changes. On this occasion, a vehicle ahead
appeared to be travelling in the wrong direction, adding to the
confusion. My longstanding understanding of the road as
one-way—reinforced by prominent "No Entry" signs—further
contributed to the misinterpretation. The combination of unclear
signage, road layout, and misleading cues made it unreasonable
to expect safe and lawful navigation without error.
>
> Given these substantial legal and safety concerns, I
respectfully request that this PCN be cancelled. The
restriction, as currently implemented, is neither lawful nor
safe.
>
> I look forward to your confirmation that this charge has been
withdrawn.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 76933--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF - 52M Prohibition on certain vehicles, Rivercourt Road
turning from Great west road (A4)
DIR By: mfaiz
Date: June 17, 2025, 5:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just following up to see if there's any further feedback before
I submit. Would this suffice?
#Post#: 76942--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF - 52M Prohibition on certain vehicles, Rivercourt Road
turning from Great west road (A4)
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 17, 2025, 7:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It seems OK to me.
H & F seem to have realised they have cocked-up very badly and
so far are conceding all representations that come on this
forum, but I doubt they return money from the 95% of people who
just cough-up when the PCN arrives in the post. I suspect they
are desperate not to get their scheme under notice at London
Tribunals.
#Post#: 77099--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF - 52M Prohibition on certain vehicles, Rivercourt Road
turning from Great west road (A4)
DIR By: mfaiz
Date: June 18, 2025, 5:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Submitted, let's see what they come back with
#Post#: 79495--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF - 52M Prohibition on certain vehicles, Rivercourt Road
turning from Great west road (A4)
DIR By: mfaiz
Date: July 4, 2025, 1:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can anyone tell me how long they usually take to respond? (Lbhf)
#Post#: 86300--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF - 52M Prohibition on certain vehicles, Rivercourt Road
turning from Great west road (A4)
DIR By: mfaiz
Date: August 19, 2025, 9:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just wanted to feedback that I was successful in my
representation, without tribunal.
#Post#: 86304--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF - 52M Prohibition on certain vehicles, Rivercourt Road
turning from Great west road (A4)
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: August 19, 2025, 9:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well done :) ...They are terrified of going to Tribunal.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page