Yes we know about Redbridge's parking regime and so do you it seems.
I take it you decided to not bother with RingGo although it is hardly a pain if you have it set up on your phone.
------------
Case Details
Case reference 2240378813
Appellant Mark Andrews
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM MJ65ZYB
PCN Details
PCN AF07114746
Contravention date 31 May 2024
Contravention time 12:59:00
Contravention location GEORGE LANE VIADUCT
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 23 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal refused with recommendation
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons The Appellant has attended for his appeal. I find him to be an honest, convincing and consistent witness. I believe what he tells me.
The Enforcement Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge when in the George Lane Viaduct on 31 May 2024 at 12:59.
The Appellant's case is that he was parked at this location to deal with an urgent matter. He looked for a pay machine to purchase time to park, however, the four machines he found were out of order. He then tried to pay using the Ringo App. He has produced clear evidence by way of screenshots of his attempts to purchase time by using the RingGo application - all to no avail. The last message indicated that RingGo could not provide parking time. The Authority has provided statistics to show how many successfully contacted them - presumably many to pay mothing - as the first hour is free to park. The Appellant then attempted to access the Authority's website to pay to park, however, this also failed. He then attended to his chore, which took about 10 minutes, and he then left the location. All this took just under an hour.
I have considered the evidence and I find that Appellant's vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge when in in the George Lane Viaduct on 31 May 2024.
If the Appellant had not attended to his task I would have made a finding that insufficient time was permitted to pay in the circumstances of this case. However, he was not permitted to park for 10 minutes to attend to his chore.
I have accepted the Appellant's evidence because I find it credible and realistic. If he had been able to find a working pay machine or have got through to RingGo there would have been nothing to pay as the first hour is free.
Due to the unfortunate set of circumstances I find this Appellant encountered, there is now a penalty of £80.00 due to parking in a place, which would have been free if he had been able to register his arrival time. All matters raised only go to mitigating circumstances.
In the circumstances of this case, in which the Appellant was unable to register for his 'free period' of parking, I strongly recommend to the Authority that they either cancel this PCN or do not collect the penalty amount.
The appeal is refused with a recommendation for cancelation of this PCN.
Recommendation cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Decision Date 22 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Previous decision Appeal refused with recommendation
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner. The Council is also directed to refund the penalty charge paid.
Reasons Mr Andrews has attended the hearing today by telephone.
Adjudicator Carl Teper refused this appeal in his decision entered on 23 November 2024.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked without payment of the parking charge. It was not in dispute that Mr Andrews' car was parked in a bay where there was free parking for up to one hour.
Mr Teper made a finding of fact that the vehicle was parked for less than one hour. It must follow, as a matter of fact, that there was no parking charge due from which it must also follow that the alleged contravention did not occur. In my judgement, it was a mistake on the facts to find that a parking charge was due. The application for review is allowed on that basis and in the interests of justice.
The Council's conditions of use explain to the motorist that a ticket or Ringo session is to be obtained at the time of parking. They do not say that a parking charge is due for the first hour if that condition is not complied with.
It follows that the appeal is allowed.
--------
Case reference 2240428886
Appellant Ololade Oluyoye
Authority London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
VRM VX72PCF
PCN Details
PCN BZ61951006
Contravention date 02 Aug 2024
Contravention time 12:11:00
Contravention location Clockhouse Avenue
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 24 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons I heard the Appellant in person.
I see no reason at all to doubt her evidence as to what occurred. Essentially on parking her vehicle she immediately began to attempt to make payment but was delayed as a result of poor reception /problems with the app. The PCN was issued whilst she was in the process of attempting to pay.
On parking a vehicle in any sort of bay the motorist is allowed a reasonable time to do whatever is necessary to validate the parking, in this case to make a payment. What is a reasonable time is a question of fact in all the circumstances of the case, and the motorist must of course act promptly. It seems to me that it is inevitable that the technology will not always work as it should and that some reasonable allowance must be made in this situation (although the time would of course eventually come when the motorist has to give up and use another method of payment). On the facts of the present case I am satisfied the Appellant had not exceeded the reasonable time allowable and that, as it transpires, the PCN was not correctly issued.
The Appeal would also fall to be allowed for two more fundamental reasons. The Council has provided an Amending Traffic Management Order but this is of little value in the absence of the “Parent” order which it amends. In the absence of that Order it is impossible to be satisfied that payment was required or if so how it was to be made.
In addition, it appears that the parking session in question was free. If something is “free” payment is not required for it; and unless the TMO contains some particular provision dealing with this point and issuing a PCN for a failure to “pay” is incorrect.
