DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 110363--------------------------------------------------
Hammersmith & Fulham – Bus Lane – Shepherds Bush Rd
Southbound Offside
DIR By: pss230s
Date: February 19, 2026, 10:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I’ve received an Enforcement Notice from Hammersmith & Fulham
for allegedly being in the offside bus lane on Shepherds Bush
Road (southbound).
Date: 22/11/2025
Time: 16:06
Penalty: £160
Notice dated: 06/02/2026
I’ve seen previous threads about this exact bus lane being
confusing and possibly non-compliant in terms of signage and
layout.
Before I make formal representations, can anyone advise whether
this location is still worth challenging?
Are signage / DfT authorisation arguments still running here, or
has that been closed down?
Happy to upload the rest if needed.
Thanks in advance.
Enforcement Notice – Page 1:
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/rdWF5ZGz/PCN.jpg
#Post#: 110399--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Bus Lane – Shepherds Bush Rd
Southbound Offside
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 19, 2026, 4:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
PM me your email address please and I will assist.
#Post#: 110402--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Bus Lane – Shepherds Bush Rd
Southbound Offside
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 19, 2026, 4:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorted. Draft done.
This in pdf:
1. I am in possession of the special DFT authorisation for this
offside bus lane and it is clear that you have departed from the
agreed plan of the layout of the signage, in particular the sign
to diagram 958.
2. Notwithstanding that there is the said authorisation, I
refer you to this extract from a High Court decision:
R(Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator
[2010]EWHC 894 (Admin) Mr Justice Beatson confirmed that,
Para 65. The Defendant's submission that the fact that signs
are prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient
for securing adequate information as to the effect of an order
is made available to road users is clearly correct. If the signs
do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is
committed;
I argue, therefore, that your departure from the DFT authorised
plan by placing the 958 sign AFTER the taper line substantially
exacerbates your problem concerning enforcement.
3. The placement of the said sign to diagram 958 is too late
and it is a warning sign according to Chapter Three TSM. In
fact, I say that all the signage placed is contrary to their
meaning according to the TSM. You should be aware of this as
professionals.
4. The Enforcement Notice conflates service with delivery. This
causes me confusion. Please explain what is the last day
therefore in this regard.
In light of the above, which clearly expresses this total
confusion of signage, I request that you cancel the PCN and EN
forthwith.
#Post#: 125951--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Bus Lane – Shepherds Bush Rd
Southbound Offside
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 27, 2026, 5:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
DNC. 2260349793
******
We have decided, without prejudice to our position, to cancel
this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
We will therefore not be contesting your appeal and have advised
London Tribunals of our decision.
However this is not an acceptance of any of your arguments.
The PCN was correctly issued. Signage is fully compliant. This
is purely a one-off discretionary gesture with advice.
There are two different bus lanes in this direction of traffic
in Shepherd’s Bush Road. They are not the same bus lane.
The first one is the much longer nearside bus lane, which can be
seen in the recording in the distant background. It has an ‘end
of bus lane’ sign, before the second offside bus lane begins.
The second one is the shorter offside bus lane, which is the bus
lane where the alleged contravention occurred.
This offside bus lane is a short one, about two or three car
spaces in length.
This short second offside bus lane close to Hammersmith Broadway
is clearly separated from the correct traffic lane.
There are a total of seven separate indicators for this bus lane
– the surface is red tarmac, the surface has the words BUS LANE
painted on it in white, it has a thick white line separating it
from the correct lane, it has a directional arrow on the road
surface telling motorists in advance to keep left, it has a
taper leading up to it, and it has a blue and white roadside
sign.
There are also two advanced warning signs before the bus lane
begins, ourside the library and police station.
In addition, there is a sign warning of CCTV enforcement in
place before the offside bus lane begins. This is not required
by law. It is an additional feature to help drivers.
You ignored all indicators and drove through the whole of the
bus lane, including over the words BUS LANE. All other vehicles
remained in the correct lane. You clearly took advantage over
other drivers.
I will now address your arguments here:
1. I am in possession of the special DFT authorisation for this
offside bus lane and it is clear that you have departed from the
agreed plan of the layout of the signage, in particular the sign
to diagram 958.
The bus lane does indeed once have a DfT authorisation. Please
note that bus lane authorisations have now been completely
abolished. This bus lane no longer requires any authorisation to
operate. Whatever you have read online about the authorisation
is null, void and obsolete information.
In addition, the Council was originally permitted under the
regulations a 5% tolerance away from the original map and plan.
This 5% tolerance was used when the road was resurfaced and
signage / markings were slightly moved from the original plan,
several years ago.
2. Notwithstanding that there is the said authorisation, I refer
you to this extract from a High Court decision:
R(Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator
[2010]EWHC 894 (Admin) Mr Justice Beatson confirmed that,
Para 65. The Defendant's submission that the fact that signs are
prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient for
securing adequate information as to the effect of an order is
made available to road users is clearly correct. If the signs do
not in fact provide adequate information no offence is
committed;
I argue, therefore, that your departure from the DFT authorised
plan by placing the 958 sign AFTER the taper line substantially
exacerbates your problem concerning enforcement.
See above – this is irrelevant, as authorisations have been
abolished in law. This is further internet AI nonsense.
3. The placement of the said sign to diagram 958 is too late and
it is a warning sign according to Chapter Three TSM. In fact, I
say that all the signage placed is contrary to their meaning
according to the TSM. You should be aware of this as
professionals.
See above, again this is also internet AI nonsense. The
authorisation and map is abolished. The sign is in a compliant
position.
4. The Enforcement Notice conflates service with delivery. This
causes me confusion. Please explain what is the last day
therefore in this regard.
Service is two days after the date on each notice.
I trust this completely addresses all of your concerns.
As you have now been fully informed, any future PCNs may not be
cancelled.
S Winters
Appeals Officer
******
I do not take too kindly to my arguments being called AI
nonsense.
In this case one of the most senior and most experienced
adjudicators and a retired Judge found my arguments
"well-founded".
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K7I8FNAG4XAoF3JN0RWcUfmq9toyd4lR/view
I said this in case:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/motorcycle-in-bus-lane-confusing-sign/msg43105/#msg43105
They are playing the right notes but in the wrong order.
#Post#: 125960--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Bus Lane – Shepherds Bush Rd
Southbound Offside
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 27, 2026, 6:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What a cretin that person is !!
#Post#: 125963--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Bus Lane – Shepherds Bush Rd
Southbound Offside
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 27, 2026, 6:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> What a cretin that person is !!
>
--- End Quote ---
Shelley Winters?
Now is the winter of our discontent.
Hence this:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/enforcement-of-traffic-penalties-by-london-councils-training-of-staff-changes-in/msg125942/#msg125942
#Post#: 126019--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Bus Lane – Shepherds Bush Rd
Southbound Offside
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 28, 2026, 7:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> What a cretin that person is !!
>
--- End Quote ---
Indeed.
#Post#: 126218--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Bus Lane – Shepherds Bush Rd
Southbound Offside
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 29, 2026, 2:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=8003]raja143[/member] I look forward to your thread as
discussed and well done on the DNC. 2260475109 was due to be
heard in February.
I am also going to start a thread in the Flame Pit and ask
@mrmustard to blog about all this alleged "AI nonsense."
HTML https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/the-shepherds-bush-bus-lane-which-raked-in-ps1m-with-confusing-signs-8498962.html
#Post#: 126237--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Bus Lane – Shepherds Bush Rd
Southbound Offside
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 29, 2026, 4:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
BANTER
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/hammersmith-fulham-bus-lane-shepherds-bush-rd-southbound-offside-11587/msg126236/#msg126236
#Post#: 126353--------------------------------------------------
My last appeal letter Re: Hammersmith & Fulham – Bus Lane –
Shepherds Bush Rd Southbound Offside
DIR By: Cata
Date: July 30, 2026, 5:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
APPEAL LETTER
Request for Cancellation of PCN HZ8532699A – Shepherds Bush Road
Offside Southbound Bus Lane (SBRO)
Grounds: No breach of the bus lane order or regulations
I respectfully request the cancellation of the PCN issued at
SBRO on several grounds already
outlined in my formal representations, with the following two
actually demonstrating that no
breach of the bus lane order or regulations occurred:
1. Unlawful Substitution of an Indicator Sign with a Regulatory
Sign Renders
Enforcement Invalid
As shown in Annex 2 of my formal representation, the Borough
received permission from
the Department for Transport (DfT) to install traffic sign
diagram 958 at SBRO. Instead, it
installed sign 959B, which is not a mere variation but a legally
distinct regulatory sign.
Sign 958 vs. Sign 959B – Key Legal Distinctions
• Diagram 958 (TSRGD Schedule 11, Part 2, Item 37) is an
indicator sign, intended to
give advance notice that a bus lane ahead permits certain
vehicles (e.g., taxis, pedal
cycles) to use it.
o It is not regulatory and cannot be used as the sole legal
basis for enforcement.
• Diagram 959B (Schedule 9, Part 4, Item 10) is a regulatory
sign that imposes a legal
obligation on drivers, restricting the lane to certain vehicles
and times.
Legal Breach
• The DfT did not authorise the use of sign 959B at this
location.
• The Borough therefore exceeded its legal powers by installing
an unauthorised
regulatory sign.
• Under the TSRGD, traffic authorities may only use signs
precisely as drawn in the
Schedules.
Conclusion: Enforcement based on an unauthorised regulatory sign
is unlawful. As such,
this PCN should be annulled, as no offence was committed at
SBRO.
2. The Signage at SBRO Fails the Legal Test of Adequacy – Proven
by the
Disproportionate PCNs issued at SBRO
Even if sign 959B had been authorised (which it was not), its
placement and effect on road
users fail the legal test of adequacy, as established in:
• CO/4368/2009 (Justice Beatson):
R (Oxfordshire CC) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator (2010)
• James v Cavey (1967):
James v Cavey
These cases establish that “signs must be sufficient in fact,
not just prescribed by law”—
in other words, adequate in practice, not merely in regulation.
Statistical Evidence of Disproportionate PCNs Issued at SBRO
Among the
Borough’s 46 Bus Lanes
FOI data from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
(undisputed by the
Borough, with references included in my original and additional
submissions) shows:
• The Borough operates 46 bus lanes.
In 2023:
• Total PCNs issued across all 46 bus lanes: 17,338
• Of those, 12,458 (72%) were issued at SBRO, which is only 38
yards (35meters)
long
In 2024
• Total PCNs issued across all 46 bus lanes: 17,330
• Of those, 11,921 (69%) were issued at SBRO (FOI Ref: 17565238,
attached):
From Nov 2022 to Jan 2023:
• Similar pattern observed, with SBRO issuing again an
abnormally high number of
PCNs, again suggesting irregularities specific to this bus lane.
Comparison with the Primary Bus Lane Immediately Preceding SBRO
Further Highlights the Dispropor?onate Enforcement at SBRO
• SBRO’s primary bus lane runs from Dewhurst Road to 229
Shepherds Bush Road:
o Length: 704 yards (644 metres)
o PCNs issued in 2024: 2,100
• SBRO is the secondary/continuation lane:
o Length: 38 yards (35 metres)
o PCNs issued in 2024: 11,921
If we look at PCNs per metre:
• Primary lane: ~3.2 PCNs per metre
• SBRO: ~340 PCNs per metre
Thus, SBRO generates over 106 times more PCNs per metre than the
directly connected,
longer primary lane. This is illogical, as longer lanes
naturally offer greater opportunity for
infractions. Moreover, the two lanes form a continuous traffic
system, operating under the
same traffic and weather conditions, making such an extreme
disparity even more
inconsistent
Sign Placement and Misleading Positioning
As noted in my original challenge (Section 2 – Non-Compliant
Signage Placement):
• The (illegal) 959B sign is placed directly at the lead-in
taper, instead of the 30
metres ahead as required by Section 9.3.4 of the Traffic Signs
Manual – Chapter 3.
• The Borough claims to have DfT permission for this and points
to two preceding
advisory signs. However, the data above clearly proves that this
signage has to be
either misleading, unclear, or unfairly placed—as data show that
enforcement at
SRBO is skewed against drivers.
This makes the signage legally inadequate and unenforceable.
Regulatory Context
• Regulation 18(1) of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders
(Procedure) (England
and Wales) Regulations 1996 requires that councils clearly
inform road users of
restrictions imposed by traffic orders.
• The extraordinary rate of PCNs at SBRO—compared to both the
primary lane and
the rest of the borough—demonstrates a failure to comply with
this obligation.
Conclusion
This PCN should be annulled on both legal and practical grounds:
1. The sign used (959B) is a regulatory sign not authorised for
this site, making
enforcement unlawful.
2. Even if it were authorised, the signage fails the legal test
of adequacy, as
demonstrated by the grossly disproportionate PCN figures at
SBRO, compared to:
o Its directly connected primary bus lane, and
o The entire set of 46 bus lanes in the Borough.
The cumulative evidence here presented demonstrates that the
signage at SBRO is not fit for
purpose, creating a trap-like enforcement environment. This
supports the claim that PCN
HZ8532699A is invalid and should therefore be cancelled.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page