Free Traffic Legal Advice

Case Details
Case reference   2250334450
Appellant   **********
Authority   London Borough of Redbridge
VRM   PF19FWH
PCN Details
PCN   AF09033725
Contravention date   26 Apr 2025
Contravention time   13:27:00
Contravention location   Beal Road
Penalty amount   GBP 110.00
Contravention   Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date   -
Decision Date   08 Nov 2025
Adjudicator   Carl Teper
Appeal decision   Appeal refused
Direction   Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons   
The Appellant attended the video linked hearing. The Authority was not represented.

The Enforcement Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge when in Beal Road on 26 April 2025 at 13:27.

The Appellant's case is as follows: 'I paid the £2 receipt attached but in error I put in location 7107 instead of 7157. I typed in wrong code which said parked in Grove Road, Wanstead. My £2 was paid on 13.06pm on 26 April. Note I cannot be parked in 2 places at the same time. It was a typo error by typing in 7107 instead of 7157. Proof attached of my payment to LBR of £2 on 13.06pm . Please cancel the penalty based on the above grounds as you can clearly see its a honest mistake and I cannot be parked with the same car at 2 locations at once.'

I have considered the evidence and I find that Appellant's vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge when in Beal Road on 26 April 2025.

I find that the Appellant paid to park his vehicle in location 7107, which is Grove Park and not 7157, which is Beal Road.

I find that it does remain the driver's responsibility to provide the correct location code before
obtaining a parking session using the RingGo service or any parking payment service. The parking application cannot decide where a motorist's vehicle is actually parked - that is why location codes are provided.

I find this error by the Appellant only goes to mitigating circumstances, which have already been considered by the Authority; they do not provide a defence or raise an exemption.

The Adjudicator decides appeals by making findings of fact and applying the law as it stands. The Adjudicator has no power to quash a penalty charge on the basis of mitigation submitted.

The appeal is refused

This is different from the usual Redbridge ones because it's a shared use permit/pay bay and the contravention is not having a permit in a shared use bay (the suffix s is shared use). The usual code in shared use bays is 12 as most are resident permit bays - we'd have to look at the order to see what permits are allowed there.

But a challenge can still be made on having a pay/free session - Redbridge has recently changed to 7 digit location codes which I think is bound to result in more errors where there us just one end digit different among similar location names.

And if the CEO could tell there was a live pay session for a nearby location I'd say a Lower level code 19 should have been issued.

This is the order.

I think the bay you were in is in a permit parking area - do you know what the entry signs say? Usually the signed bays are not for permit holders.

What is the latest Maps link.

https://store.traffweb.app/redbridge/documents/parkmap/sched/1.%20The%20Redbridge%20(Waiting,%20Loading,%20Stopping%20and%20Street%20Parking%20Places)%20Consolidation%20Order%202021.pdf

It's a PPA not a CPZ - I just thought it odd that permit holders can also use the signed bays when they also have the unmarked kerbside.

The parking sign doesn't say resident though.

IMO, it's the wrong contravention.

A motorist has 2 options to procure parking rights:

1. To display a valid permit or hold a virtual permit; or
2. To pay the parking charge.

IMO, the only possible contravention description is 12. It cannot be 16 because having a valid paid parking session is not a defence against failing to display/hold a permit.

Nonsense.

You can have 1 or 2, therefore it follows that not having one cannot be a contravention because you could have the other.

Only contravention grounds which relate to permits AND payment could apply. And this is 12 in your case.

Where are the Permit Parking Area signs?

"permit parking area”
   an area—
(a)
into which each entrance for vehicular traffic has been indicated by the sign provided for at item 5 of the sign table in Part 3 of Schedule 5; and

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/5

(b)
where any parking place within that area reserved for the use of the permit holders as indicated on that sign is not shown by markings on the road (whether or not an upright sign is placed next to, or near, such a parking place to indicate that only the permit holders in question may use the place)

Just catching up on my tickets/appeals Based on all the discussions and thoughts, how should I respond as there has been a number of points made in this thread, some have confused me, I believe tomorrow is the last day to appeal

Some more info, not sure if it'll help, I was there the other day and noticed the roads (York Road & Beal Road) off Argyle road that I was on, actually had the code that I had used and that appeared on Ring Go 6081228, so its very easily confusing, with two parralell roads having the code but the road itself not.. and one would deem this area Ilford Town.

I assume I cannot say I saw the sign on the side road which matched the ringo, as I was walking being the same area, as Redbridge have a tendancy to give a block/area of roads the same code and/or I had parked in the area before a number of times (which I had) and been using the 6081228 so had no reason to think otherwise when it showed in the app or would they counter saying I should have verified with the sign on the actual road?