Two cases.
What is your PCN number and car VRM.
Post your challenge and their rejection.
--------
Case reference 2240496252
Appellant Sham Choudhury
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM FD57ZCX
PCN Details
PCN AF07715145
Contravention date 22 Jul 2024
Contravention time 17:01:00
Contravention location Albert Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 30 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons It seems to me that a PCN cannot be issued for a failure to “pay” for something which is free, and for which, by definition, no payment is required. The Appeal is allowed on this ground and it is unnecessary to examine the other issued raised by the Appellant.
--------
Case Details
Case reference 2240397035
Appellant Athinoulla Antoniou
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM EA71HKT
PCN Details
PCN AF07531492
Contravention date 14 Jun 2024
Contravention time 11:20:00
Contravention location The Shrubberies
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 16 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Belinda Pearce
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons A Telephone Appeal Hearing was scheduled for 9.30 a.m. today, 16th November 2024; I spoke with the Appellant on the contact number provided.
1. The Enforcement Authority assert the whereabouts of the said vehicle, at the relevant time on the material date, to be at a location subject to a restriction requiring the purchase of time to park and facilitating the purchase of parking time by telephone payment.
The Enforcement Authority assert the absence of payment in respect of the said vehicle.
2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and challenge as stated in her written representations, supported by screen-shots and photographic capture, which she reiterated and comprehensively detailed during the Telephone Hearing.
3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so parked contrary to an operative restriction is obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises copy Penalty Charge Notice and contemporaneous notes attributable to the Civil Enforcement Officer together with contemporaneous photographic evidence: images showing the said vehicle in situ, unoccupied and unattended, and the applicable signage notifying motorists of the restriction.
The Civil Enforcement Officer confirms the absence of payment receipt by the telephone service provider at the at the point of enquiries.
The Enforcement Authority also adduce:
i) Inactive links to governing Traffic Management Order provisions which, as I have expressed in other Appeals, I find unsatisfactory.
ii) A map/plan of RingGo locations plotting the location in question; this is of limited, if any, evidential value.
iii) sample images of an out-of-use voucher-dispensing machine, charges information and conditions of use; this too is of limited evidential value.
No contemporaneous photographic evidence is adduced to demonstrate the presence, position and visibility of any voucher-dispensing machine in the vicinity of the said vehicle.
4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was examined to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations.
The image of the sign at the location, as submitted by the Civil Enforcement Officer, is at such angle that the capitalisation in the legend, despite zoom enhancement, cannot be clearly discerned; the 'P' of ''Pay' can be seen as capitalised.
The image submitted by the Appellant, of the sign consulted by the Appellant, clearly demonstrates the capitalisation of both words 'Pay' and 'Phone.'
Neither sign references the telephone service provider upon whom the Enforcement Authority rely for operation of the telephone payment facility.
5. The Appellant described the sequence of events on the date in question, and emphasised that she had diligently complied with the parking regime; she was surprised to receive the Penalty Charge Notice and is of the opinion that the fault lies with the Enforcement Authority for lack of clarity regarding the need to use only the RingGo service.
I had the opportunity to assess and question the Appellant during the Hearing, I found the Appellant's evidence to be cogent and credible, and I accepted it in its entirety.
The Appellant interpreted the legend on the sign to indicate the 'Pay by Phone' service with which she was acquainted and had the App; she duly utilised that service.
Being unfamiliar with the area the Appellant interpreted the reference 'Eight Bells' to be a local landmark; the name of the council was also of no consequence to the Appellant.
6. In light of the fact that a telephone payment service exists bearing the name 'Pay by Phone' which mirrors the pay by phone words on the sign, and that motorists having 'apps' no longer need to make telephone connections nor attend voucher-dispensing machines, it would be prudent of an Enforcement Authority to ensure that signage unambiguously specifies which system is to be used on the sign so as to avoid such situations.
I find the incorporation of the words 'pay by phone' to cause ambiguity and thereby render the sign inadequate.
Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to consult signage and comply with restrictions, it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure the signage implementing the terms of a Traffic Management Order is adequate to communicate the nature of the restriction to motorists.
I do not find that to be the case in this instance.
The legend on the sign lacks clarity and is open to ambiguity.
Evidentially I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.
