This one by Mr Burke is what the majority of adjudicators will do. And of course they are all informed by the unfortunate Baroness Walmsley.
Redbridge is now practised at seeing these through and is unlikely to make procedural errors.
I have highlighted the last bit of Walmsley - not publishing policy is an issue in my view.
--------
Case reference 2260127984
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM GIB504
PCN Details
PCN HG34638675
Contravention date 20 Nov 2025
Contravention time 12:42:00
Contravention location Cottons Park Car Park
Penalty amount GBP 110.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 16 Jul 2026
Adjudicator Michael Burke
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge. The Appellant explains that he was aware of the need to register a parking session but that the machine was out of order. He has provided a photograph as supporting evidence. There was a RingGo number but no further explanation and he did not know what RingGo was. He argues that the facts do not meet the contravention alleged.
The contravention alleged on the face of the PCN is an imperfect description of the contravention committed. However, none of the established contravention codes precisely reflects the situation where the motorist does not activate the required parking session in a free car park. The Enforcement Authority must be entitled to enforce car park restrictions and the law should not make this more difficult in circumstances where they offer free parking. It is clear that the Appellant has understood the nature of the allegation throughout. I am satisfied that the correct interpretation is that registering the vehicle for a parking session is the equivalent of paying the parking charge and that where the motorist has done that the vehicle may not be issued a PCN for the duration of validated session.
It is not unusual for a pay and display machine or validation system to be out of order for one reason or another. In such circumstances the motorist must find an alternative way to park legally, whether by using an alternative machine or validation system or parking elsewhere. In this case it seems he could have validated using the RingGo App.
The Appellant has not established anything which goes beyond mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion. An Adjudicator has no power to direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.
-----------
Walmsley v TfL and Others [2005] EWCA Civ 1540
Issue: Judicial Review - Mitigating circumstances and Adjudicators’ discretion
The Court of Appeal, overturning an earlier decision of the High Court (referred to in the Road User Charging Adjudicator’s Annual Report 2004-2005), upheld the Adjudicator’s decision to refuse an appeal.
Baroness Walmsley had used her vehicle in the Congestion Charge zone on 29 and 30 October 2003 and had sought to purchase a Congestion Charge licence for her vehicle via the internet. Although she had correctly entered the first four characters of her registration number the last three letters, she entered were those of her previous vehicle and were not those of her current car. This mistake was made for both days of travel.
Two Penalty Charge Notices (‘PCNs’) were issued by TfL and sent by post to Baroness Walmsley.
The Baroness made representations asserting that she had paid the Congestion Charge. TfL rejected those representations. The Baroness appealed to an Adjudicator.
The Adjudicator refused her appeal indicating that, “There is a high level of responsibility on the registered keeper of the vehicle to pay any charge incurred by it by midnight of the day on which the charge was incurred. Liability is strict. The Congestion Charge Regulations afford no discretion in this situation. The registration recorded on the receipt must be for the vehicle used within the Zone during the prescribed hours. Article 6(5)(a) of the Congestion Charge Scheme states, ‘a licence may be purchased only for a single vehicle having a specified registration mark’. The Appellant did not pay for the vehicle’s specified registration mark. I accept that this was a genuine error, but I have no alternative other than to refuse this appeal.”
This decision was upheld on review by another Adjudicator. The Baroness applied for and was granted Judicial Review in the High Court by Mr Justice Stanley Burnton.
In his decision Mr Justice Burnton indicated that he considered that as the Baroness had made an error when specifying her vehicle registration mark, she was liable for a penalty. However, he went on to indicate that Regulation 16(2) of the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001 afforded Adjudicators discretion to cancel Penalty Charge Notices in situations such as the Baroness’s where the error was genuine and accordingly the case was remitted back to the Adjudicator for re-determination.
ort 2005-2006 Road User Charging Adjudicators
TfL appealed Mr Justice Burnton’s decision.
Held: In the Court of Appeal Lord Justices Chadwick, Sedley and Keene upheld TfL’s appeal, reinstating the original Adjudicator’s decision. The Court of Appeal held that Regulation 16 (2) did not provide any discretion to Adjudicators along the lines suggested by Mr Justice Burnton and that the only time an Adjudicator could direct a Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled was if one of the six statutory grounds of appeal under the Regulations were made out. None of the grounds of appeal were in fact made out by the Baroness.
In addition, their Lordships were critical of TfL having a policy on the use of its discretion which it had not made available to the public.
