Free Traffic Legal Advice

Check the section sticky and post the PCXN, your challenge and their rejection.

Redbridge is an awful council for PCNs.

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

thanks - attached
I can't find the section sticky ?

snip

Stamfordman gave you the link
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

You've posted receipts from Wanstead Opticians and a glasses case company.

Delete these links.

I'll look at the PCN and rejection tomorrow.

It's a template rejection sent to everyone and has not addressed your challenge which presumably said you had a valid permit that fell off.

Did you enclose a picture of the permit?

What holder were you using - was it supplied by Redbridge?

How long have you held a resident's permit?

It's a permit parking area and doesn't mention residents so technically a code 16 should have been issued.

Authorities that issue PCNs have a statutory duty to act fairly and in the public interest. A lot of councils would have cancelled this, certainly if it is a first time.

Given they've fobbed you off with a template this is also a failure to consider.

I would go on to formal stage but be aware that after this should they reject the tribunal cannot consider mitigation.

The next step is a notice to owner served on the registered keeper - is that you?

You then makes formal reps. At which point three things can happen:

- They accept. Happy days.
- They reject again but reoffer the discount so you need to decide whether to appeal.
- They reject but do not reoffer the discount so then nothing to lose by taking it to London Tribunals.

See what others think but if it were me as a resident I'd have a good go at them on fairness grounds and failure to consider by fobbing you off with a template.

This case from yesterday indicates that Redbridge is prepared to shaft its residents but the facts here are clearly not the same as it looks like the appellant didn't play the fairness card and instead said the permit was on display but that doesn't stop Redbridge using discretion if they know there was a valid permit. 

--------

Case Details
Case reference 2240526863
Appellant Sunny Sagoo
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM S21VOO
PCN Details
PCN AF08067845
Contravention date 09 Oct 2024
Contravention time 09:08:00
Contravention location Highbury Gardens
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 20 Feb 2025
Adjudicator Michael Burke
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked in a residents or shared-use parking place or zone without either clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place, or without payment of the parking charge. The Appellant disputes this, stating that there was a valid permit clearly displayed. He says that the same Civil Enforcement Officer had issued a PCN to the vehicle in similar circumstances the previous day.

The Enforcement Authority have provided photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer which support the assertion that the VRM could not be seen at the bottom of the permit.

It happens on occasion that a permit is dislodged by the rush of air when the door is closed or in some other way. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that the permit relied upon is securely and clearly displayed before leaving the vehicle. The contravention occurs if at any time the vehicle is parked without the necessary permit clearly displayed with all particulars visible.

I have no reason to doubt that the Appellant made a genuine error but this amounts only to mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion but Adjudicators have no power to direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.

Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.