DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 78405--------------------------------------------------
H&F - 52M Failing to comply with a prohibition - Rivercourt
Rd
DIR By: TaaSeenMeem
Date: June 26, 2025, 6:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Given the amount of similar threads (and for the same council
and contravention!), I am inclined to keep it brief. I have an
idea what I should do next. The purpose of this thread is
twofold - a) to seek an independent opinion if I should do
anything differently (see below) and b) to contribute to the
forum on what I learn from my imminent dealings with H&F
council.
Here is what happened:
Like many others, got caught off-guard by new restriction on
turning left from A4 onto Rivercourt Road in Hammersmith.
PCN image
HTML https://imgur.com/a/71xaLvt
Location
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/sjESeuxt5dVYPFk98
Here is my plan (with thanks to various contributors on other
similar threads):
Appeal the PCN online - Grounds: Contravention did not occur
Letter to send to H&F as below:
I must respond by 3 July so will linger around this thread until
2 July and then send the below to H&F Council. Any suggestions,
tips and/or guidance in the interim is thankfully received.
1. Inadequate and Confusing Signage (Regulatory Breach)
The absence of proper advance warning signs on the A4 before the
Rivercourt Road junction means that adequate information about
the restriction was not made available to road users. This is a
fundamental legal requirement, and without it, no contravention
can be established. H&F have also failed in their duty under
LATOR (Local Authorities Traffic Orders Regulations) to place
adequate signage, specifically clear and unequivocal signs on
the A4 approach as required by Regulation 18. In the Oxfordshire
case, advance warning signs were placed at 450, 180, and 20
yards before the restriction. No such advance signage exists on
the A4 approaching Rivercourt Road, making this scheme legally
deficient. Under the binding High Court judgment in R
(Oxfordshire County Council) v. The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010]
EWHC 894 (Admin), paragraph 65, Beatson J established that: "If
the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence
is committed"
Under Section 121B of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,
Hammersmith & Fulham cannot implement restrictions affecting
Transport for London roads (including the A4) without giving
proper notice to TfL and obtaining TfL's approval or allowing
the statutory consultation period to expire. This is
particularly concerning as H&F cannot place signs on the A4
(which is TfL's responsibility), suggesting they may have failed
to properly consult on signage requirements under LATOR
Regulation 6(1). I formally request evidence that H&F complied
with Section 121B requirements. If these statutory procedures
were not followed, the entire restriction scheme is unlawful and
void.
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. 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.
#Post#: 78409--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - 52M Failing to comply with a prohibition -
Rivercourt Rd
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 26, 2025, 7:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They seem to be starting to play hardball now, by refusing reps
but re-offering the discount. Most people then cough up, but
this means this appalling scheme never gets examined by an
adjudicator at London Tribunals. However, the plain fact is that
they have not improved the signage on the main A4 road so it
remains as dangerous as ever. Of course, they cannot erect
traffic signs on the A4 because it comes under National
Highways, I think, but could be Transport for London. I also
suspect they have not consulted properly with the authority
controlling the A4 which they should have done, and arranged for
a proper traffic sign to be placed giving warning of the
restriction. Just to note that the previous street off the A4 is
a complete No Entry with the relevant signs, but if you look on
GSV, you'll see these are easily visible, plus the road layout
has been altered to make a turn left there very difficult.
Nothing whatever has been done for Rivercourt Road.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/zXn2RkUabcMnD3Ey6
Yes, your presentations look OK, so ram it up them !
#Post#: 79253--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - 52M Failing to comply with a prohibition -
Rivercourt Rd
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 2, 2025, 10:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There's some monkey business with the plans for the scheme. H&F
have now disgorged plans showing the road markings but these are
dated December 2024 and approved January 2025.
[attach=1]
They have also sent me this as the Advance Signage, which
manifestly isn't there yet
[attach=2]
The scheme was implemented at the end of November 2024, so
clearly these plans weren't used. The December/January plans
show the Give Way road markings about 1 meter further north than
they were originally, as shown in the images in the Hammersmith
Society's article
HTML https://www.hammersmithsociety.org.uk/rivercourt-road-a-new-two-way-ltn/.
Despite this, H&F are claiming that they moved the Give Way
markings because the contractor didn't put them in the correct
place. Apparently the contractor wasn't much good in November at
predicting what the plans would look like in January.
One possible explanation is that TfL found out about the scheme
and demanded that the Give Way signs be moved further north. If
they'd thought about it and really were concerned for cyclists,
they would have realised that the road markings at the edges of
the exit from the carriageway of Great West Road (marked as
being diagram 1040.4 but actually drawn and implemented as
diagram 1040.3) prohibit all vehicles from crossing the solid
white lines at their edges. When I say "all" I mean all: that
restriction applies just as much to bicycles as it does to motor
vehicles. So cyclists on the combined cycleway/footway must
dismount and carry their bicycles over the hatched areas (sorry,
wheeling doesn't cut it; only carrying will do) before
continuing on the other side.
TfL might also have considered the implications of making
Rivercourt Road two-way. While drivers exiting Great West Road
northbound get a PCN, those existing southbound do not. They can
only be prosecuted and get points on their licence. This isn't
just theory: take a look at this PCN video
HTML https://i.imgur.com/7A09bY9.mp4.
It's also possible that TfL didn't find out about the scheme
until much later and that H&F realised the danger - perhaps
there was a smash in the first few days - and redrew the plans
to reduce the risks. If so, they don't seem to have stopped the
smashes, see this recent Hammersmith Society article
HTML https://www.hammersmithsociety.org.uk/rivercourt-road-ltn-and-the-west-dulwich-case/.<br
/>I hope H&F residents realise they're on the line when a victim
sues the Council for causing crashes by creating a grossly
unsafe road scheme.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 79292--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - 52M Failing to comply with a prohibition -
Rivercourt Rd
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 2, 2025, 12:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> One possible explanation is that TfL found out about the
scheme
--- End Quote ---
Yet they have a unescapable duty in Regulation 6 of The Local
Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales)
Regulations 1996, to consult with other parties according to
the table in Reg 6 (1) and in particular Item 1 : -
"Where the order relates to, or appears to the order making
authority to be likely to affect traffic on, a road for which
another authority is the highway authority or the traffic
authority"
So if they consulted, there should be a record of this
consultation.
#Post#: 79310--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - 52M Failing to comply with a prohibition -
Rivercourt Rd
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 2, 2025, 2:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but that obligation is rather less onerous than that under
s.121B of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984:
--- Quote ---
>
> (1) No London borough council shall exercise any power under
this Act in a way which will affect, or be likely to affect,—
> [indent](a) a GLA road,[/indent]
> 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—
> [indent](a) to Transport for London;[/indent]
>
> (3) The second requirement is that—
> [indent](a) the proposal has been approved
> [indent](i) in the case of a GLA road, by Transport for
London;[/indent]
> [/indent]
>
> (5) If Transport for London has reason to believe—
> [indent](a) that a London borough council is proposing to
exercise a power under this Act in a way which will affect, or
be likely to affect,
> [indent](i) a GLA road,[/indent]
> (b) that notice of the proposal is required to be, but has not
been, given in accordance with subsection (2) above,[/indent]
> Transport for London may give a direction to the council
requiring it not to proceed with the proposal until the
requirements of subsections (2) and (3) above have been
satisfied.
>
> (6) If a London borough council exercises any power in
contravention of this section, Transport for London may take
such steps as it considers appropriate to reverse or modify the
effect of the exercise of that power.
>
> (8 ) Any reasonable expenses incurred by Transport for London
in taking any steps under subsection (6) above shall be
recoverable by Transport for London from the London borough
council concerned as a civil debt.[/indent]
--- End Quote ---
Within London, Great West Road is a GLA road, so is controlled
by TfL.
In an FoI request
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/junction_of_great_west_road_with<br
/>I asked TfL to supply:
--- Quote ---
>
> 3. details of notice and correspondence between H&F and TfL
relating to their TMO 2037, in particular under section 121B of
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;
>
> 4. any authorisation provided to H&F which allows them to
place road markings and erect traffic signs within the curtilage
of Great West Road in the vicinity of Rivercourt Road;
>
> 5. any safety assessment carried out into the possible
consequences of TMO 2037 (vehicles turning into Rivercourt Road
reach Give Way road markings 8m after leaving the carriageway of
the A4 and would not be able to see vehicles using the turning
bay until they had started making the turn;
>
> 6. any correspondence or assessment of the need for advance
signage of the restrictions which apply to vehicles turning left
onto Rivercourt Road (as an absolute minimum I would have
expected a 750mm-diameter diagram 613 with the plate "Except
buses, taxis, cycles and authorised vehicles")
>
--- End Quote ---
TfL have asked for more time to answer my questions. I have
agreed to this.
#Post#: 79312--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - 52M Failing to comply with a prohibition -
Rivercourt Rd
DIR By: TaaSeenMeem
Date: July 2, 2025, 2:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I sent the representations last night. It seems you're slightly
ahead in the process and already received a response from H&F.
What is your next step?
I gather that H&F will initially reject the representations, fix
a date for tribunal hearing and then a few days before the
hearing they'd concede on no prejudice basis. At least this is
the picture that has been painted by other posts elsewhere on
this forum.
--- Quote from: Bustagate link ---
>
> There's some monkey business with the plans for the scheme.
H&F have now disgorged plans showing the road markings but these
are dated December 2024 and approved January 2025.
> [attach=1]
>
> They have also sent me this as the Advance Signage, which
manifestly isn't there yet
> [attach=2]
>
> The scheme was implemented at the end of November 2024, so
clearly these plans weren't used. The December/January plans
show the Give Way road markings about 1 meter further north than
they were originally, as shown in the images in the Hammersmith
Society's article
HTML https://www.hammersmithsociety.org.uk/rivercourt-road-a-new-two-way-ltn/.
>
> Despite this, H&F are claiming that they moved the Give Way
markings because the contractor didn't put them in the correct
place. Apparently the contractor wasn't much good in November at
predicting what the plans would look like in January.
>
> One possible explanation is that TfL found out about the
scheme and demanded that the Give Way signs be moved further
north. If they'd thought about it and really were concerned for
cyclists, they would have realised that the road markings at the
edges of the exit from the carriageway of Great West Road
(marked as being diagram 1040.4 but actually drawn and
implemented as diagram 1040.3) prohibit all vehicles from
crossing the solid white lines at their edges. When I say "all"
I mean all: that restriction applies just as much to bicycles as
it does to motor vehicles. So cyclists on the combined
cycleway/footway must dismount and carry their bicycles over the
hatched areas (sorry, wheeling doesn't cut it; only carrying
will do) before continuing on the other side.
>
> TfL might also have considered the implications of making
Rivercourt Road two-way. While drivers exiting Great West Road
northbound get a PCN, those existing southbound do not. They can
only be prosecuted and get points on their licence. This isn't
just theory: take a look at this PCN video
HTML https://i.imgur.com/7A09bY9.mp4.
>
> It's also possible that TfL didn't find out about the scheme
until much later and that H&F realised the danger - perhaps
there was a smash in the first few days - and redrew the plans
to reduce the risks. If so, they don't seem to have stopped the
smashes, see this recent Hammersmith Society article
HTML https://www.hammersmithsociety.org.uk/rivercourt-road-ltn-and-the-west-dulwich-case/.<br
/>I hope H&F residents realise they're on the line when a victim
sues the Council for causing crashes by creating a grossly
unsafe road scheme.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 79314--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - 52M Failing to comply with a prohibition -
Rivercourt Rd
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 2, 2025, 2:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry if my post wasn't clear. I was commenting on this
continuing saga. My correspondence with H&F over Rivercourt Road
is not about a specific PCN: I have been putting FoI requests to
them to elucidate just what the TMO is and whether they have
been complying with the law.
One feature of TMOs is that, 6 weeks after they have been made,
the law deems them valid unless they have been challenged in the
High Court before that (which only other local authorities would
do). While their validity cannot be challenged, their
enforceability can be. In this case I smelled a very dead rat:
the presence of new road markings on what had been the exit slip
road from Great West Road. As it crosses the verge and footway
of Great West Road, this slip road forms part of TfL's highway
and is controlled by TfL. That prompted a series of questions to
H&F and TfL which are still playing out.
I surmise that when H&F wrote the TMO, they thought that the
exit slip road was theirs, hence their painting their own road
markings on it (and erasing TfL's edge-of-carriageway road
marking). The signage plan in my previous post shows that in
December they recognised that the exit slip road is part of
TfL's highway and they have stated this in answer to my
questions.
Unfortunately for H&F, their TMO was signed in September and
defines the one-way south-to-north restriction as running from
the junction between Great West Road and H&F's Rivercourt Road
to "a point 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of
No. 17 Rivercourt Road". This would have made sense if the
junction between Great West Road and H&F's Rivercourt Road had
lain at the edge-of-carriageway markings. Then the end of the
south-to-north restriction would have lain to the north of its
start.
Perhaps there wasn't a smash in late November to force a rethink
and what actually happened was that someone at H&F realised
where the boundary lay between TfL's land and H&F's. That means
that, by my reckoning, the end of the south-to-north
restriction actually lies south of its start. That would make
at least this part of the TMO unenforceable. I rather think that
the rest of it is also unenforceable, but for different reasons.
#Post#: 79462--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - 52M Failing to comply with a prohibition -
Rivercourt Rd
DIR By: TaaSeenMeem
Date: July 3, 2025, 3:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ah I see, so you're fighting for the little man. That's very
noble indeed.
I hope you do realise the amount of confidence somebody like you
give to the rest of us as we are not acquainted with the finer
details of how all of this works. If we don't have people like
you around us, we'd feel helpless - and that is a terrible
feeling.
For now, I look forward to what H&F might come back with (likely
a rejection of the representations) but it would be interesting
to see if they provide any further details to actually address
the points made in the representations.
--- Quote from: Bustagate link ---
>
> Sorry if my post wasn't clear. I was commenting on this
continuing saga. My correspondence with H&F over Rivercourt Road
is not about a specific PCN: I have been putting FoI requests to
them to elucidate just what the TMO is and whether they have
been complying with the law.
>
> One feature of TMOs is that, 6 weeks after they have been
made, the law deems them valid unless they have been challenged
in the High Court before that (which only other local
authorities would do). While their validity cannot be
challenged, their enforceability can be. In this case I smelled
a very dead rat: the presence of new road markings on what had
been the exit slip road from Great West Road. As it crosses the
verge and footway of Great West Road, this slip road forms part
of TfL's highway and is controlled by TfL. That prompted a
series of questions to H&F and TfL which are still playing out.
>
> I surmise that when H&F wrote the TMO, they thought that the
exit slip road was theirs, hence their painting their own road
markings on it (and erasing TfL's edge-of-carriageway road
marking). The signage plan in my previous post shows that in
December they recognised that the exit slip road is part of
TfL's highway and they have stated this in answer to my
questions.
>
> Unfortunately for H&F, their TMO was signed in September and
defines the one-way south-to-north restriction as running from
the junction between Great West Road and H&F's Rivercourt Road
to "a point 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of
No. 17 Rivercourt Road". This would have made sense if the
junction between Great West Road and H&F's Rivercourt Road had
lain at the edge-of-carriageway markings. Then the end of the
south-to-north restriction would have lain to the north of its
start.
>
> Perhaps there wasn't a smash in late November to force a
rethink and what actually happened was that someone at H&F
realised where the boundary lay between TfL's land and H&F's.
That means that, by my reckoning, the end of the south-to-north
restriction actually lies south of its start. That would make
at least this part of the TMO unenforceable. I rather think that
the rest of it is also unenforceable, but for different reasons.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 82440--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - 52M Failing to comply with a prohibition -
Rivercourt Rd
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: July 23, 2025, 7:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
@TaaSeenMeem
Any update on this?
#Post#: 82490--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - 52M Failing to comply with a prohibition -
Rivercourt Rd
DIR By: TaaSeenMeem
Date: July 24, 2025, 7:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
>
> [member=6066]TaaSeenMeem[/member]
>
> Any update on this?
>
--- End Quote ---
Nope, not heard back yet. Only correspondence has been an
automated email dated 01.07.25 (reproduced below)
Thank you for your submission. Your case will be placed on hold
until we respond to you, UNLESS the case has been passed to the
enforcement agents for collection.
If you have challenged within the initial 14-day discount period
(following the issue of the PCN), and if we do not agree to
cancel, we will allow 14 days (from the date of our reply) for
payment to be made at the discounted rate.
All cases are dealt with in chronological order. Therefore,
unless you are supplying further information or evidence, please
do not write to us again as this may delay our response to you.
If you have any further information/comments to make regarding
this PCN, please email them to us at enquiries@lbhfparking.com ,
making sure that you quote both your PCN number(s) and vehicle
registration number.
Please note the information in this email may contain
confidential/sensitive information and is intended for the named
recipient(s) only. Please ensure you keep this information
confidential and think carefully before forwarding on to other
parties, printing or making any copies.
If you are not the intended recipient please notify us
immediately and delete this email from your system.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page