Draft for representation
Grounds of Representation
☑ The alleged contravention did not occur.
☑ There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.
⸻
REPRESENTATIONS
I make these representations on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur and that there has been a procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority.
1. The alleged contravention did not occur
The allegation is that my vehicle was:
“Parked without payment of the parking charge.”
That allegation is factually incorrect.
The parking charge for the relevant location and period was paid in full using the RingGo cashless parking system. Unfortunately, when completing the payment, the driver inadvertently selected the wrong vehicle registration number within the RingGo application.
This was a genuine keying error and not an attempt to avoid payment.
The council received the parking fee it was entitled to receive. There was therefore no loss of revenue whatsoever.
The contravention alleged is specifically one of parking without payment. Payment was made. Accordingly, the allegation that the vehicle was parked without payment is simply not correct.
Whilst I appreciate the council may argue that payment should have been linked to the correct vehicle registration, that is not what this PCN alleges. The allegation is non-payment.
Numerous adjudicators have recognised that there is an important distinction between:
* parking without payment; and
* payment having been made but recorded against an incorrect registration because of a genuine keying error.
The latter is not accurately described by the contravention alleged on this PCN.
For that reason alone, I submit that the alleged contravention did not occur.
⸻
2. The council has failed to properly exercise its discretion
Even if the council considers that a contravention technically occurred, I request that it exercises its discretion under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.
This was a genuine mistake.
* the parking session was purchased;
* the correct location was selected;
* the council received full payment;
* there was no intention whatsoever to evade payment;
* there was no financial prejudice to the council.
The purpose of civil parking enforcement is compliance, not punishment.
Cancelling this PCN would be entirely consistent with the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance, which expects authorities to exercise discretion fairly and reasonably where appropriate.
Should the council refuse to cancel the PCN, I request that it explains precisely why it considers it proportionate to demand a penalty of £110 where the parking charge itself was fully paid.
⸻
3. Procedural Impropriety
The original Regulation 9 PCN does not appear to comply with the statutory requirements introduced by the 2022 Civil Enforcement Regulations.
The PCN states:
“The Penalty Charge of £110 must be paid no later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the PCN was served.”
However, paragraph 2(d) of Schedule 2 to The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 requires a Regulation 9 PCN to state that payment must be made:
“within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred.”
The wording used on Redbridge’s PCN appears to replicate the wording of the superseded 2007 Regulations rather than the wording now prescribed by the 2022 Regulations.
The statutory wording is mandatory.
Failure to include the information required by the Regulations amounts to a procedural impropriety.
⸻
4. Failure to include the information required by Regulation 3
In addition, I do not believe the original PCN adequately conveys the information required by Regulation 3 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
In particular, the PCN does not properly explain:
* that representations received before a Notice to Owner is served must be considered by the authority; and
* that, if a Notice to Owner is nevertheless served, formal representations must then be made in accordance with that Notice.
These are mandatory statutory requirements.
Again, failure to comply with those requirements constitutes procedural impropriety.
⸻
5. Request for disclosure
Should the council not accept these representations, please provide:
* the complete Traffic Management Order applicable to George Lane (C);
* all Civil Enforcement Officer notes;
* all photographs;
* the RingGo payment audit relied upon by the council;
* confirmation that the council has actively considered the exercise of discretion rather than applying a blanket policy.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Notice to Owner and the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
