DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 77496--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Hammersmith and Fulham contravention 52M- RMV Rivercourt
Rd
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: June 21, 2025, 6:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Tod link ---
>
>
> If you mean the footage from their website, yes—I’ve already
downloaded it.
>
> The Council's own video footage demonstrates the danger
involved when a driver attempts to react abruptly to the signage
at this junction. Another vehicle, visible shortly after my
turn, decided to stop and turn around upon seeing the
restriction. As shown in the footage, this sudden manoeuvre
caused the car behind them to brake sharply and stop
unexpectedly to avoid a collision. This illustrates how
hazardous it would have been for me to attempt the same action,
especially with vehicles closely following behind me. In my
case, i was confused and I had only a few seconds to process the
signage while turning and, given the speed and proximity of the
traffic, any sudden stop or reversal would have created an
immediate risk to road safety. Continuing forward was the only
safe and responsible decision under the circumstances.
>
--- End Quote ---
Sunset on 25th April was 8.14pm - the video shows how much light
there was. If the sun were shining, it would have been directly
into the face of the sign(s) - I think there was only one then)
on the A4, and as the 2nd sign in your own video shows, renders
it unreadable. Save this point for the hearing or if H&F pl;ead
adequate advance warning in their evidence pack.
Your paragraph (underlined) about the safety aspect shouild be
added to your point 3 (include the words 'Council's own' so the
Adj. knows to which video you are referring.
#Post#: 77500--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Hammersmith and Fulham contravention 52M- RMV Rivercourt
Rd
DIR By: Tod
Date: June 21, 2025, 6:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much for your insight and suggestions — I really
appreciate the time and clarity you've given in looking over
this. That’s a very helpful observation regarding the lighting
and visibility of the sign, and I’ll definitely keep that point
in reserve in case it becomes relevant at the hearing or in
response to the Council’s evidence pack.
I still have about two weeks before the deadline, so I’m going
to wait a little longer to see if any further suggestions come
through before submitting the appeal. In the meantime, I’ll
revise point 3 as you advised and make sure to reference the
‘Council’s own video’ clearly.
Thanks again — this has been really encouraging.
#Post#: 77508--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Hammersmith and Fulham contravention 52M- RMV Rivercourt
Rd
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: June 21, 2025, 8:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Soome updates
The Hammersmith Society has pblished another item on the
Rivercourt LTN
Original article
HTML https://www.hammersmithsociety.org.uk/rivercourt-road-a-new-two-way-ltn/
New article
HTML https://www.hammersmithsociety.org.uk/rivercourt-road-ltn-and-the-west-dulwich-case/
And this thread (where H&F folded once the appeal had been
registered)
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/hammersmith-and-fulham-code-52m-failing-to-comply-with-a-prohibition-on-certain-/
has a number of technical arguments from Bustagate, with an
update
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/hammersmith-and-fulham-code-52m-failing-to-comply-with-a-prohibition-on-certain-/15/
#Post#: 78965--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Hammersmith and Fulham contravention 52M- RMV Rivercourt
Rd
DIR By: Tod
Date: June 30, 2025, 2:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Based on all the suggestions from the forum and Bustagate, I’ve
decided to appeal. I’ve rewritten my initial representation to
prepare it for submission to the London Tribunals. I’d
appreciate any feedback—do you have any other suggestions or
improvements?
1. Location of the Alleged Contravention
The alleged contravention occurred on the slip road exiting the
Great West Road (A4), before I reached the "RED ROUTE //
CLEARWAY // Exit" sign, which marks the boundary between TfL’s
slip road and Hammersmith and Fulham’s Rivercourt Road. The
signage marking the restriction boundary appears after the point
at which I exited, placing the alleged contravention outside the
effective enforcement zone.
2. Inadequate, Misplaced, and Non-Compliant Signage
The only sign indicating that a permit is required to use the
exit is located after the point of restriction as specified in
the relevant Traffic Management Order (TMO). This undermines the
enforceability of the restriction, as drivers are not given
sufficient advance warning.
Furthermore, the sign in question does not conform to the
requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Directions (TSRGD). In particular:
The sign is a dot matrix display, and
It is positioned facing due west, meaning that whenever the sun
is shining, direct sunlight directly hits the sign, overpowering
the lights forming the display and making it extremely difficult
to read.
This is especially relevant to the conditions at the time of the
alleged contravention. Sunset on 25th April was at 8:14 PM, and
the Council’s own video footage shows that lighting conditions
were already fading. If the sun had been out, it would have been
low in the sky and directly behind the driver, shining straight
into the sign’s face, significantly diminishing visibility and
legibility.
These lighting and compliance issues, combined with the lack of
advance warning signage on the A4, meant I had no reasonable
opportunity to see, interpret, and respond to the restriction in
time. This falls far short of the standard required for proper
and enforceable traffic control.
3. Overloaded and Unsafe Signage at Junction
Upon exiting the A4, I was presented with an excessive number of
signs at a junction where drivers are expected to make rapid
decisions while travelling at 40 mph. It is simply not possible
to read and safely process the information from 11 different
signs in such a short space. These included:
- A composite Controlled Zone sign with extra text,
- Two one-way street signs,
- A speed limit sign,
- A restricted access for HGVs sign with detailed plates,
- A no entry for vehicular traffic sign with an additional
plate,
- A Red Route Clearway ends sign,
- A road name sign,
and
Crucially, the sign restricting access to permit holders — which
was not placed before the turn, but on the opposite side of the
road.
To add to this, the lighting conditions at the time were poor.
Sunset on 25th April was at 8:14 PM. The Council’s own footage
clearly shows the level of dimming light at the time. If the sun
had been shining at a low angle, it would have been directly
facing the signs, further reducing visibility and legibility.
This is an important factor that affected my ability to
interpret the signage in time.
Moreover, the Council’s video footage illustrates the confusion
caused at this junction: another vehicle, shortly after mine,
attempted to reverse or turn around upon seeing the restriction.
This led the car behind it to brake sharply and stop suddenly —
creating a clear road safety hazard. In my own case, I had only
a few seconds to interpret the signage while navigating a turn
and with vehicles closely behind. Any sudden stop or reversal
would have been unsafe. Proceeding was the only safe and
responsible course of action.
4. No Safe Alternative Route
Once committed to the slip road, I had no legal or safe way to
reverse or turn around:
Reversing back onto the A4 — a fast, three-lane carriageway —
would have violated Highway Code Rules 200 and 201 and posed a
serious safety risk.
The “new turning bay,” referenced in the Notice of Rejection, is
not viable in real-world driving conditions. The photos included
by the Council actually support this: the layout makes reversing
or turning impractical and hazardous.
The give way lines are extremely close to the junction and could
result in a vehicle being stranded partially on the A4 — another
clear safety hazard.
Solid white lines funnel exiting traffic forward and physically
discourage any turning back, clearly indicating that the road is
designed to force vehicles forward.
The junction’s layout left me no safe, legal alternative but to
continue onto Rivercourt Road. The manoeuvre I performed was an
ordinary, lawful one — made hazardous only by poor signage,
confusing road layout, and environmental conditions.
5. Legal Precedent – Insufficient Signage
As established in James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676, the fact that
signage is prescribed or authorised does not guarantee that it
sufficiently communicates the effect of a traffic order. If
signage fails to provide clear and adequate information to the
road user, no offence is committed. That principle applies
directly in this case.
6. Request for Cancellation and Review
In light of the above, I respectfully request that this appeal
be allowed and the PCN be cancelled. The combination of:
unclear and poorly positioned signage,
complex and overwhelming sign clutter,
diminished visibility due to lighting and sunset conditions,
the absence of advance warning,
and the lack of a safe alternative route,
meant that compliance with the restriction was not reasonably
possible under the circumstances. I would also respectfully ask
the Adjudicator to urge the Council to review the signage layout
and placement at this junction in the interest of fairness and
public safety.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this representation. I
look forward to your response.
#Post#: 79210--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Hammersmith and Fulham contravention 52M- RMV Rivercourt
Rd
DIR By: Tod
Date: July 2, 2025, 7:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
>
> Soome updates
>
> The Hammersmith Society has pblished another item on the
Rivercourt LTN
> Original article
>
HTML https://www.hammersmithsociety.org.uk/rivercourt-road-a-new-two-way-ltn/
> New article
>
HTML https://www.hammersmithsociety.org.uk/rivercourt-road-ltn-and-the-west-dulwich-case/
>
> And this thread (where H&F folded once the appeal had been
registered)
>
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/hammersmith-and-fulham-code-52m-failing-to-comply-with-a-prohibition-on-certain-/
>
> has a number of technical arguments from Bustagate, with an
update
>
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/hammersmith-and-fulham-code-52m-failing-to-comply-with-a-prohibition-on-certain-/15/
>
--- End Quote ---
Subject: Quick Check-In on Appeal Submission
Hi John,
As we’re approaching the last two days of the 14-day period, I
just wanted to check if there’s anything more I should add or if
what I’ve put together is sufficient? I understand that I
actually have 28 days from the service of the notice to appeal
to the LT.
Thanks,
#Post#: 79268--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Hammersmith and Fulham contravention 52M- RMV Rivercourt
Rd
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: July 2, 2025, 11:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to suggest you be not afraid to use formatting to
increase clarity for the Adjudicator and have modified yr draft
above (Reply #13) to show the kind of thing I mean. I've also
made adjustments in blue to show you are appealing to the
Ajudicator and not the Council.
Attach the appeal as a pdf and you should also attach the
relevant photographs (number them and refer to them by number in
the appeal).
Post your final draft here before submitting.
I'd wait and see if any others, esp. @Bustagate or @Hippocrates
have any further comment, but I'd be inclined to submit and only
if H&F resist yr appeal and force a hearing spend time refining
the appeal text.
When registering the appeal make sure you opt for a personal
(video or telephone) hearing.
#Post#: 79323--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Hammersmith and Fulham contravention 52M- RMV Rivercourt
Rd
DIR By: Tod
Date: July 2, 2025, 4:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you John, here's the appeal formatted and with added lines
as you suggested to improve clarity. I've prepared a few photos
including one from [member=3617]Bustagate[/member] and his
drawings. the dot matrix display that you posted ( even though
they are two now) and photo of the complex signage. I was just
wandering if they would allow as well videos, the one from the
Council and the one from my Dashcam that i posted recently where
clearly the sun hits the sign.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 79452--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Hammersmith and Fulham contravention 52M- RMV Rivercourt
Rd
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 3, 2025, 2:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There's a presumption in proceedings with a public body that it
is acting properly and its statements can be believed. It's
called the presumption of regularity. I consider that H&F aren't
entitled to it. My word doesn't count but evidence of the
Council's irregular actions (as I set out below) may persuade
the adjudicator to puncture the presumption.
It's your call as to what you put in your appeal. Here's what I
would say:
[indent]
There seems some confusion as to what exactly the alleged
contravention is. The contravention code, 52M, applies to a
failure to comply with the terms of a TMO, in this case TMO 2037
dated 18th September 2024. The rejection of my representations
refers to my passing the "flying motorcycle" sign as though that
is the contravention. In normal circumstances the presumption of
regularity would make the two propositions identical.
I consider that in this case the Council aren't entitled to the
presumption of regularity for the following reasons:
1. Great West Road is a TfL road and TfL's ownership extends at
least as far as the combined cycleway/footway to the north of
the carriageway.
2. The Council's plan of the signage,
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rivercourt_road_experimental_tmo/response/3055381/attach/3/Rivercourt%20Road%20A4%20Junction%20Layout%20Plan.pdf,<br
/>confirms this and also shows that TfL's land on the west side
of
the exit slip road runs to where the "RED ROUTE // CLEARWAY //
End" sign is.
3. Under section 121B of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the
Council is obliged to give notice to TfL before doing anything
to one of the Council's highways which might affect TfL's road,
let alone changing road markings on TfL's land. The Council also
needs to comply with any instructions from TfL.
4. The Council has erased TfL's edge-of-carriageway markings on
Great West Road and painted new white hatching with a solid
boundary on either side of the exit slip road, across TfL's
cycleway/footway. Those road markings now prohibit all vehicles,
including pedal cycles, from crossing them.
5. The answer to a question to the Mayor of London about
Rivercourt Road,
HTML https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/a4-and-rivercourt-road-low-traffic-neighbourhood,<br
/>refers to changes to be made to the signage "to remedy the
situation". That indicates that TfL wasn't consulted before the
Council made its changes.
6. The Council's answer
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rivercourt_road_experimental_tmo/response/3055381/attach/4/Response%20all%20information%20to%20be%20supplied.pdf<br
/> to FoI request 16918890 sets out the Council's view as to
where
the boundary lies between Great West Road and Rivercourt Road
and where "a point 8.30 meters south of the southern building
wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road" lies. The boundary is the start
of the one-way south-to-north restriction while the point
defines its end. By my reckoning, the line across Rivercourt
Road from the point, i.e. the end of the south-to-north
restriction, lies south of the start, so the defined restriction
doesn't exist and the TMO is unenforceable.
7. Paragraph 4 of the TMO stops half way through. If it means
anything, it is that the entire section of Rivercourt Road
between Great West Road and King Street is prohibited to all
motor vehicles northbound. Other motor vehicles can enter it
southbound from King Street but are prohibited from turning
round and returning to King Street. Nor can they exit to Great
West Road. They are trapped and will pile up until the road is
blocked. This adds to the TMO's unenforceability.
Given this evidence, I consider that the Council needs to
explain just what the TMO means, where it applies, how it
relates to the signage which has been placed and demonstrate
that there was a contravention.[/indent]
P.S. This attack on the presumption of regularity is independent
of the details of your case and may be of use to others wishing
to challenge PCNs on Rivercourt Road
#Post#: 79461--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Hammersmith and Fulham contravention 52M- RMV Rivercourt
Rd
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: July 3, 2025, 3:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Tod link ---
>
> Thank you John, here's the appeal formatted and with added
lines as you suggested to improve clarity. I've prepared a few
photos including one from [member=3617]Bustagate[/member] and
his drawings. the dot matrix display that you posted ( even
though they are two now) and photo of the complex signage. I was
just wandering if they would allow as well videos, the one from
the Council and the one from my Dashcam that i posted recently
where clearly the sun hits the sign.
>
--- End Quote ---
The Council video will (IF H&F persist in pursuing this after
you've registered the appeal) be included in their Evidence
Pack, so no need to worry about that.
I'm not sure about how to attach a video file or link - you
could ring the Tribunal and ask for guidance, or one of our
experts here would know.
#Post#: 79865--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Hammersmith and Fulham contravention 52M- RMV Rivercourt
Rd
DIR By: Tod
Date: July 7, 2025, 4:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What i found is that:
When appealing a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to the London
Tribunals, you cannot directly upload a video, but you can
provide a link to a video as part of your evidence. Here's how
it works:
🔹 What You Can Do:
Upload documents and images (JPEG, PNG, PDF, etc.) directly to
your online appeal.
Include a URL link to a video hosted on a third-party platform
(e.g. YouTube, Vimeo, Dropbox, Google Drive) in your written
submission or evidence document.
✅ Best Practices for Video Evidence:
Upload the video to a reliable, publicly accessible service
(Google Drive, Dropbox, YouTube [unlisted], etc.).
Ensure access permissions are set so the adjudicator can view it
without logging in.
Clearly reference the link in your appeal statement or an
accompanying document (e.g., "Please see this video showing the
signage at the location: [link]").
Include a brief description of what the video shows and how it
supports your appeal.
With this in mind, I'm going to appeal and am even considering
including screenshots of the matrix signs obscured by sunlight
as additional evidence.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page