Free Traffic Legal Advice

I don't see how the alleged contravention of not paying is valid, because the first hour is free. However, the CEO doesn't know how long you've been there when checking the parked cars unless a free session has been obtained.

Only thing is they are unlikely to give way if you submit reps, so you have to be prepared to stand your ground and take them to London Tribunals.

This reviewed case from a few days ago shows that the contravention of not paying for a free hour is a nonsense.

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

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.

This reviewed case from a few days ago shows that the contravention of not paying for a free hour is a nonsense.

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

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.

Thanks - from my reading the first appeal was rejected but the second was allowed it seems?

Is it best for me to draft a response to Redbridge council for the first stage? It would be great if someone could review it.

Come on Felics, you know the rules!

So I have drafted a response to my first appeal below.

Please could someone let me know if this is OK to send to the borough?

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

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally appeal the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) referenced above, issued for parking at Cameron Road on 23/01/2025. I respectfully request the cancellation of this notice based on the following circumstances and evidence.

On the date in question, I parked my vehicle in the designated bay where the first hour of parking is free, as outlined by the Council's conditions of use. Unfortunately, I forgot to register my parking session immediately upon exiting my vehicle. I rectified this oversight within 10 minutes by successfully registering my session through the RingGo app.

As my parking duration did not exceed the first free hour, no parking charge was due for this period. I have attached evidence of my registration to demonstrate that I complied with the parking requirements, albeit slightly delayed.

I would like to draw your attention to a similar case that reached an adjudication, where a PCN was eventually cancelled. In Sean Stanton-Dunne’s decision dated 22 January 2025, the Adjudicator stated:

“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. The Council's conditions of use explain to the motorist that a ticket or RingGo 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.”

This precedent supports the argument that failing to immediately register for free parking does not equate to a valid contravention, particularly when the vehicle was parked for less than the allotted free hour.

I respectfully request that Redbridge Borough Council exercise discretion in this matter and cancel the PCN, given that no parking charge was due, and I promptly remedied my error. I trust this matter can be resolved amicably and that the penalty will be withdrawn.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your positive response.

Yours faithfully,
Felics

I don't have any proof aside from me leaving my house and coming back (via my Ring Doorbell).

I have a shopping receipt showing 1.20PM and also ring doorbells screenshot below (conveniently showing the PCN still on my dash as I hadnt yet spotted it!)

First is of me leaving with timestamp and second of me returning with timestamp. Car in the drive.




Do you think that would suffice? Should I also send these bits of evidence to Redbridge in my initial appeal?