Free Traffic Legal Advice

Can you break your original post down into bullet point of just what happened and give the date your wife got the Notice to owner please. 

Yes she can be held liable if your informal reps were unsuccessful and her formal reps and appeal are rejected

Redbridge uses RingGo not PayByPhone.

The registered keeper presumed owner is liable for PCNs.

Appeals are allowed at the Tribunal on this - councils must make the payment system clear and there really shouldn't be a company called PatByPhone. I would caution though that not all adjudicators may see it this way - the last case below was refused but a personal hearing armed with facts about the signage can be persuasive.All three allowed appeals are by the same adjudicator but there are other cases.

---------------------------


Case Details
Case reference 2240524380
Appellant David Lazarus
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM EU68OCA

PCN Details
PCN AF07961254
Contravention date 16 Sep 2024
Contravention time 13:46:00
Contravention location Belgrave Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge

Referral date -

Decision Date 08 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Martin Hoare
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Mr Lazarus attended his appeal hearing. The Council did not attend. He relied on his appeal notice :’ I parked my car in Ilford and looked at sign and it read Pay by Phone. I have the App and paid via the app in good faith. If there was a sign about RingGo then I would have paid via that app! After appealing, the Council stated that they only operate with RingGo and this would have been clearly displayed at the location. This is not true’.
According to the Authority’ The signage also provides a telephone number which is for RingGo. This indicates that the motorist may pay and dìsplay or 'Pay by phone'. The phone number is given for those who wish to pay by phone. This does not indicate that the motorist may use the proprietary PayByPhone App.'
Mr Lazarus used his app which is called ‘Pay by Phone’ as a trading name. The Council photographs show the sign facing the carriageway which Mr Lazarus relied on to make his payment. It reads ‘pay by phone’. He reasonably concluded that this meant he could use his app called ‘pay by phone’.
Although the Council photographs show the rear of a suspended pay machine with Rin Go logos, this was not seen by Mr Lazarus as he properly relied on the conspicuous ‘pay by phone’ sign facing him.
The Council has not established that the signage was adequate.
The appeal is allowed.

----------

Case reference 2240441589
Appellant Simple Self Drive
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM LX23UDG

PCN Details
PCN AF07626227
Contravention date 04 Jul 2024
Contravention time 13:46:00
Contravention location High Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge

Referral date -

Decision Date 20 Dec 2024
Adjudicator Martin Hoare
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Simple submitted that the driver bought a ticket using an app, for which payment evidence was provided.
The pay machine instructions were not clear and hence payment was not made via the app used by the Authority.
The Authority explained ‘The proof provided by the appellant shows that they validated a parking session via the, pay Byphone' app. We do not use 'PayByPhone' operator to have our parking session valìdated but use 'RingGo'. Further ‘The machines at the location has been covered up as we no longer operate via machine however, the machines do advise use RingGo if the machines are out of order’.
The civil enforcement officer’s contemporaneous photographs, include images of the signage in place at the time payment was made. There is no clear, legible payment instruction which mandates payment by phone only using a certain app.
The Authority evidence on this occasion does not establish that the payment instructions and signage were adequate in this aspect. Adequate payment instructions and signage are a prerequisite for lawful enforcement.
The appeal is allowed.

-----------

Case reference 2240373627
Appellant Susannah Clegg
Authority London Borough of Lambeth
VRM KU61HFV

PCN Details
PCN LJ30420089
Contravention date 06 Jun 2024
Contravention time 09:39:00
Contravention location Gordon Grove
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit

Referral date -

Decision Date 04 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Martin Hoare
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Miss Clegg explained that she paid to park, as established by her receipt.
The Council submitted ‘Unfortunately, the wrong app was used to pay for parking. The app used in Lambeth to pay for parking sessions is the ‘Pay by phone’ app - not the app Miss Clegg used – which is for another London borough (Hackney).’
The Council photographs do not demonstrate that the signage indicates that only payment by using s currently exclusive provider confers a right to park.
Hence the use of another provider arose due to the absence of adequate signage in place.

-----------

Case reference 2240435553
Appellant Khadijha Rahman
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM GU15BYR

PCN Details
PCN AF07525911
Contravention date 11 Jun 2024
Contravention time 11:52:00
Contravention location Eastwood Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge

Referral date -

Decision Date 28 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Herjinder Mann
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons 1. This was a personal appeal via the telephone.
2. The Appellant states that she made a payment via the PaybyPhone system. The confirmation that she received did not display the location details. She now understands that payment should have been via RingGo. She says that there is a lack of clarity and the sign does not state that payment must be via RingGo.
3. The Enforcement Authority submit that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked without a valid parking ticket or payment registered on the Ring Go system on the 11th June 2024 in Eastwood Road, Goodmayes. The civil enforcement officer states that they checked the RingGo system three times. They submit that the appellant paid by the PayByPhone company which is not the permitted method at this location. They say that the sign provides a phone number by which payments are to be made. They have provided a photograph of the signage at the location.
4. I have seen photographic evidence of the road sign indicating the methods of payment. The sign gives the times of operation and states “Pay by phone” followed with a telephone number. I find that the method of payment is clearly specified.
5. I find that the sign is clear in relation to the method of payment by making a payment by calling a phone number. There is no reference to using the PayByPhone company.
6. I accept that the Appellant did make a payment via the Pay By Phone app and she did intend to pay for the parking. The circumstances that the Appellant found herself in and her assumption amount to mitigation which I am unable to take into account. Although the Appellant did make a payment for parking, she did not pay via the telephone number provided. The Pay by Phone app is not used by the enforcement authority at this location.
7. As the payment was not made in the manner prescribed, I find that there has been a contravention. It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that they follow the instructions on the road sign. It is not for the Appellant to choose the app by which to pay and in these circumstances the payment was not made to the Enforcement Authority.
8. I therefore refuse this appeal and determine that the penalty charge is payable by the Appellant.

What are the thoughts on all of the decisions going one way with the exception of one adjudicator? How scared would you be if you were to have an upcoming case with that adjudicator and are in part relying on precedent.

Is there any way to search case decisions by adjudicator?