Free Traffic Legal Advice

my wife contested it as she had  paid at the wrong meter on the same road and provided the receipt as evidence that It was  have paid.

Is ther much chance of getting off.

I am waiting a response from my apeal as Owner per attaced PCN rejectionand notice to owner

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1YmBIcDwHLhhy8NGnUiNw6l7Zl6u1iwzY?usp=sharing


I am the registered keeper of vehicle and I make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice. 1. Background On 27.11.25, my wife was driving the vehicle and parked on Boundary Road. She paid for parking using the RingGo app, but due to confusing signage and multiple RingGo codes for the same road, she inadvertently entered the wrong location code. This was not an attempt to avoid payment; payment was made for the correct time period, as evidenced by the attached RingGo receipt and screenshots. 2. Grounds for Representation (a) Contravention Code 11 is factually incorrect The PCN alleges “Parked without payment of the parking charge”. This is not correct. Payment was made for parking on Boundary Road during the relevant time. The error was in the location code, not in failing to pay. The council’s own evidence should reflect that a valid RingGo session existed, albeit under a different code. (b) Inadequate signage and multiple codes The sign nearest to the bay was obscured by a van at the time of parking. Camden has a statutory duty under Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) Regulations 1996 to ensure signage adequately conveys restrictions. Where signage is obstructed and multiple codes exist for one road, motorists cannot reasonably ascertain the correct code. (c) Council’s photographic evidence The photos provided by Camden do not show both the vehicle and the relevant parking sign in the same image. This omission indicates that the sign was not clearly visible from the parked position and supports my assertion that the sign was obscured. If the sign were clearly visible, the CEO would reasonably have captured it alongside the vehicle to demonstrate compliance with signage requirements. in fact the only sign visible is on the other side of the road which we now know would not be the correct one. (d) Procedural impropriety The previous rejection letter relied on generic wording and did not properly consider these points. Authorities must have regard to the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance under s.87 Traffic Management Act 2004 and exercise discretion fairly. 3. Evidence Provided RingGo receipt and screenshots showing payment for Boundary Road. Note that the the penalty notice states Location: Boundary road this matches the Ringo receipt stating Boundary Road. 4. Request Given that payment was made and the error arose from inadequate signage and confusing coding, I respectfully request that Camden cancel this PCN. If Camden does not accept these representations, please ensure the case is referred to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators for independent review. Yours faithfully,

Please post a GSV view telling us where your wife parked and the location of the machine with the location code on it.

I don't think there are meters only pay by phone bays, which is what the OP means.
My suspicion is a location code from a Westminster bay across the road was paid for. Clue in the road name - Boundary Road.

Ha ! Yes, good spot. I did suspect something like this, so over to the OP to confirm or deny.

THEY LET ME OFF IN THE END THANSK FOR YOUR HELP THOUGH