Free Traffic Legal Advice

I paid for parking on street in a pay and display bay using Ringgo but unfortunately I did not have my reading glasses and selected the wrong vehicle in Ringgo on my phone app. I have two silver VW's on there, one is my dads which is the one I selected by mistake.

An honest mistake and I have sent the evidence of payment to the council on their website where you can in the first instance contest the PCN explaining that I paid for the wrong car etc. I also referenced what seems to be a common point which is that as I paid for the parking on the app, they have suffered no actual loss, have taken the payment and also issued the fine and that it was a genuine mistake in the app.

They rejected my claim and have stated that the PCN was issued correctly, which having done some background reading on here seems to be correct. However I also understand they have to act fairly and are encouraged to use discretion by the government, which they are clearly not doing here.

The next step is to wait for a Notice to Owner and appeal from there.

I have looked to see what the current thinking is on this topic as it must be a fairly common error and it seems that some councils do accept this as a genuine reason to exercise their discretion but others do not.

Is it worth carrying on with the appeal process and are there any template responses I could use if so?

Many thanks.

Dear Kingston Council

Ref: PCN  VRM

       
I challenge this PCN as follows:

1.The wording of the PCN in terms of the 28 days period is wrong since it does not comply with Schedule 2 para. 2 @  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/2
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred,


2. The code contains a range of multiple choice versions of the alleged contravention.

In light of these procedural improprieties, the PCN must be cancelled since tjhe PCN when read as a whole is non-compliant.

Yours

Registered keeper

Address

They rejected my claim and have stated that the PCN was issued correctly

Can we see this response please?

A decision by an adjudicator isn't a statement of the law? I wonder if they've told the adjudicator?!?

I would definitely wait for the NTO, though we'll want to spruce up the formal representations a bit.

Do you have the V5C and is the address up to date?

Quote from: 968t on April 04, 2024, 08:09:14 pm

They rejected my claim and have stated that the PCN was issued correctly

Can we see this response please?

@968t Can we also see what was written as the initial challenge? How can we advise if we are not fully informed  with what has been going on?

A decision by an adjudicator isn't a statement of the law? I wonder if they've told the adjudicator?!?

I would definitely wait for the NTO, though we'll want to spruce up the formal representations a bit.

Do you have the V5C and is the address up to date?

Everything is in my name and up to date, yes, so it is just a case of waiting for the NTO now.

Thanks for all of the responses so far. I see I was probably on the wrong track in my initial response....I am surprised local councils are not using the correct wording, seems a bit weak!

Still waiting for NTO...

OP, just stand back and think about what you submitted in your informal reps.

The required tariff was not paid for the car in question. But this should be forgiven because the person making the informal reps, who claimed to be associated with this vehicle and another one, says they paid for the different vehicle.

Did you:
Submit a screenshot of your RingGo page showing the combination of vehicle VRMs;
Put yourself in the position of the person whose mind starts as a blank canvas?

Or did you think that the mere act of saying would be accepted as fact?

Next time, think of what the reader would need to see for them to be persuaded to your point of view.