DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 82659--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road PCN x2
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: July 25, 2025, 7:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
To be clear, this is a representation to the Council against the
PCN, and not an appeal to the Adjudicator.
I am not sure about the penultimate paragraph. Perhaps
@Bustagate will review it for you.
I have copied your draft here for ease of suggesting edits.
--- Quote ---
>
> (You need a heading)
>
> [center]Re: PCN HZ93517337 Reg.Mark HN21XOH[/center]
>
> [justify]I make these representations against the above PCN
and also ask they be caonsidered as supplementary
representations against PCN HZ93433791[/justify]
>
> Having [s]since received a second PCN (HZ93517337), I realise
the first time I noticed the new signage was on 06/07 rather
than 01/07, hence my driving down Rivercourt Road twice in the
same week – something that I of course would not have done
otherwise.[/s] (I don't feel this para helps)
>
> These PCNs relate to alleged contraventions on 1st and 6th
July respectively, the latter being before the first PCN was
received.
>
> I drove down along the A4 again on 20/07 and for the first
time, I noticed both two advance variable message signs – pretty
difficult to read in daylight – and three inadequately sized,
decidedly unclear portable signs on the roadside. I do not
believe These portable signs were even not there at the time of
the alleged contravention. Their being a recent addition shows
the Council recognise the earlier signage arrangements were
inadequate.
>
> I was, as goes without saying, consciously looking out for any
indication of this new restriction on 20/07, and don’t recall
seeing any of this the dot matrix signs on either prior
occasion, but obviously the A4 requires complete attention at
all times given how busy it is, especially taking into account
the many vehicles merging from Weltje Road and the BP petrol
station, and so on.
>
> 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 variable message
signs currently in place do not conform to the requirements of
the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) as
they are dot-matrix displays. Additionally, on closer
inspection, they read: ‘NO THROUGH ROUTE TO KING STREET VIA
RIVERCOURT RD’. Again, no mention of the need for a permit, plus
this requires a degree of local knowledge which many will not
possess and is thus misleading.
>
>
> In addition, a tree is was obscuring the many signs and road
markings on the entrance to Rivercourt Road itself (a composite
‘Controlled Zone’ sign with extra text; two one-way street
signs; a speed limit sign; a cycle and pedestrian sign; a road
name sign; the signs restricting access to permit holders,
mentioned for the first time -see attached image), [i](use the
image from Reply #2 on this thread) [/i].making it practically
impossible to see them without having already made the turning.
Having been travelling at 40mph, this signage is absolutely
excessive, and very difficult to read and safely process in such
a short space of time. As I’ve previously suggested in my reps
against the 1st PCN (?), to then reverse is also entirely out of
the question as it would create a clear road safety hazard.
Again, and to reiterate, I’m really unsure as to what else I
could’ve done here as proceeding was the only safe and
responsible course of action, and I do not believe that I had
reasonable opportunity to see, interpret, and respond to the new
restriction in time.
>
> Once committed to the slip road, I had no legal or safe way to
reverse or turn around: reversing back onto the A4 – a 40mph,
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, as 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; solid white lines funnel exiting traffic forward and
physically discourage any turning back, clearly indicating that
the road is designed to force vehicles forward. All of this
falls far short of the standard required for proper and
enforceable traffic control.
> 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. 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.
>
> Finally, the alleged contravention occurred on the slip road
exiting the Great West Road (A4), before I reached the ‘RED
ROUTE // CLEARWAY // Exit’ sign marking 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.
>
> In light of the above, I respectfully request that this appeal
be allowed my representations be accepted and both PCNs be
cancelled. The combination of unclear and poorly positioned
signage, complex and overwhelming sign clutter, 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 further review the signage
layout and placement at this junction in the interest of
fairness and public safety
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 82670--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road PCN x2
DIR By: stereodista
Date: July 25, 2025, 8:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much for your help, John. Have submitted a revised
edit to H&F. Fingers crossed.
#Post#: 86924--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road PCN x2
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: August 23, 2025, 10:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
re Reply#1: I've had confirmation from TfL that H&F did not
serve notice on them about the proposed changes to Rivercourt
Road. It's here
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/junction_of_great_west_road_with#incoming-3090738.
The relevant passage is:
--- Quote ---
>
> You asked
> ...
> 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;
>
> Our Streets Asset Operations team did not receive any notice
or correspondence from the London Borough of Hammersmith and
Fulham relating to their TMO 2037.
>
--- End Quote ---
Note that s.121B of RTRA 1984 is far stronger than r.6 LATOR
1996:
--- Quote ---
>
> (1) No London borough council shall exercise any power under
this Act in a way which will affect, or be likely to affect,—
> (a) a GLA road, or
> . . .
> 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—
> (a) to Transport for London; and
> . . .
>
> (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]
> (b) the period of one month beginning with the date on which
Transport for London and, where applicable, the council received
notice of the proposal has expired without Transport for London
or the council having objected to the proposal; or
> (c) any objection made by Transport for London or the council
has been withdrawn; or
> (d) where an objection has been made by Transport for London
or a London borough council and not withdrawn, the Greater
London Authority has given its consent to the proposal after
consideration of the objection.[/indent]
>
> (4) Before deciding whether to give any consent for the
purposes of subsection (3)(d) above, the Greater London
Authority may cause a public inquiry to be held.
>
> (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.
>
> (7) For the purposes of subsection (6) above, Transport for
London shall have power to exercise any power of the London
borough council on behalf of that council.
>
> (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.
>
--- End Quote ---
After repeated prodding, TfL came up with a plan from their
Property Asset Register
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/junction_of_great_west_road_with/response/3090663/attach/4/image002.png<br
/>which shows which land TfL controls and which it owns. This
shows that the "RED ROUTE // CLEARWAY // End" sign is actually
on H&F's land and that the boundary of the TfL-controlled land
is just a straight line along the northern edge of the combined
cycle/footway.
TfL don't actually own the land of the former Rivercourt Road
where the A4 crosses it. I surmise that neither does H&F. This
is because compulsory purchase powers can only be exercised
against the owners of a plot of land. The householders on either
side of Rivercourt Road had their land acquired, but it will be
lost in the mists of time who actually possessed title to the
land which formed the roads. As councils have powers to make and
maintain highways, they don't need ownership of the land to do
what they want. The same appears to have happened with Weltje
Road and part of Hampshire Hog Lane (the curious dog-leg in the
A4 to the east of Rivercourt Road).
With regard to the sandwich-board signs, H&F's plans for these
showed them 2.4m tall, which would have made them readable by
passing motorists. The signs themselves (inevitably) don't
comply with TSRGD 2016; but then H&F's highway engineers seem to
have great difficulty understanding that they can't just produce
signs as they see fit.
#Post#: 86926--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road PCN x2
DIR By: stereodista
Date: August 23, 2025, 10:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In idiot terms (me being the idiot in question!) is this good
news? I’ve still to hear back from them, but am not particularly
worried at this stage. Having driven the A4 repeatedly since,
it’s so obviously a botched job.
#Post#: 86928--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road PCN x2
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: August 23, 2025, 11:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it makes any difference to you. It's just
something which people such as @Incandescent have been wondering
about and which (somewhat to my surprise) TfL were actually
prepared to state: that H&F did not follow the law when they
made the changes to Rivercourt Road. TfL could take action
against H&F but don't appear to be interested in doing so.
The problem is that while an action for judicial review of H&F's
actions might well succeed, that costs much more than any
number of PCN fines AND there's the risk that you don't succeed
and then have to pay H&F's costs in defending the action. Hence
it's only for people with really deep pockets, such as
businesses which risk going bankrupt because they've lost so
much trade (as happened with the West Dulwich LTN).[table]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
#Post#: 86930--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road PCN x2
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: August 23, 2025, 11:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> TfL don't actually own the land of the former Rivercourt Road
where the A4 crosses it. I surmise that neither does H&F. This
is because compulsory purchase powers can only be exercised
against the owners of a plot of land. The householders on either
side of Rivercourt Road had their land acquired, but it will be
lost in the mists of time who actually possessed title to the
land which formed the roads.
--- End Quote ---
@Bustagate
Does not the body making and enforcing the CPO acquire the title
to the land? If so the public notices of the CPO proposals
should still be in the relevant London Gazette and the local
press (West London Observer, inter alia, at that time). This
section of the Great West Road opened 1956, so CPO must be some
years before that.
#Post#: 86932--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road PCN x2
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: August 23, 2025, 12:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stereodista link ---
>
> In idiot terms (me being the idiot in question!) is this good
news? I’ve still to hear back from them, but am not particularly
worried at this stage. Having driven the A4 repeatedly since,
it’s so obviously a botched job.
>
--- End Quote ---
In the latest success post here H&F didn't even threaten
Tribunal before cancelling - see this thread
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lbhf-52m-prohibition-on-certain-vehicles-rivercourt-road-turning-from-great-west/msg86423/#msg86423
and also
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-hammersmith-and-fulham-contravention-52m-rmv-rivercourt-rd/msg84708/#msg84708
#Post#: 86938--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road PCN x2
DIR By: stereodista
Date: August 23, 2025, 1:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Understood. Thank you!
#Post#: 94806--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road PCN x2
DIR By: stereodista
Date: October 20, 2025, 8:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So I’ve just received two letters from H&F, one confirming the
first PCN has been cancelled and the other rejecting the
representation. Their decision: ‘I have considered what you have
said and all the available evidence, but I do not agree that we
should cancel your liability for this PCN.’ No idea how/ why one
is any different from the other, but should I appeal to the
adjudicator at this stage? Thanks for any further help!
#Post#: 94808--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road PCN x2
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: October 20, 2025, 8:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please post copies of the letters, redacting only yr name &
address.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page