Free Traffic Legal Advice

It will be interesting if the adjudicator finds they did not address your point about the statutory guidance.

Yep, got a date for adjudication 9th July,.

Hoping that the statuary guidance ground to go in my favour, as the sky news article also said that BPA (British Parking Association) say the same that on minor errors the tickets should be cancelled, although I assume thats more for private parking.

I just need to decide if I add the bit around my ticks or if it'll be seen as 'why am I adding it now'

Hi All,

So adjudication date in 3 days, the council have just sent across their response and its a damn thorough one, leaving little to no room for me to argue my case, as all my points I had used they've countered, so its a matter of jumping on the call, and just letting the adjudicator give a verdict it seems - Feel free to suggest anything I can or should bring up

Case reference   2250684736
Appellant   xxxxxx
Authority   London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
VRM   LL74KVV
   
PCN Details
PCN   HZ78920571
Contravention date   28 Jul 2025
Contravention time   20:01:00
Contravention location   HOPGOOD STREET
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Parked in permit space without a valid permit
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   18 Jun 2026
Adjudicator   Lola Moses
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons   Introduction
1. This appeal concerns a Penalty Charge Notice issued for parking in an electric vehicle charging bay during permit-holder only hours. The appeal was listed for a personal hearing via Microsoft Teams on 18 June 2026 at 11:30. By 11:40 there was no attendance and no communication from the Appellant. I am satisfied that proper notice of the date, time and method of the hearing was given. The Notice of Hearing explained that, in the event of non-attendance, the appeal may proceed in the Appellant’s absence. In the circumstances, I proceeded to determine the appeal in the Appellant’s absence on the basis of the evidence before me.
Enforcement Authority’s Evidence
2. The Enforcement Authority’s evidence checklist and covering letter record that its evidence was sent to the Appellant on 15 June 2026. The covering letter states that the evidence was enclosed.
Findings and Conclusion
3. Practice Direction No. 2 of 2025 required the evidence to reach the Appellant no later than five days before the hearing. Evidence posted on 15 June 2026 could not have complied with that requirement. There is no explanation for the delay and no application to extend time or adjourn.
4. The Appellant’s absence does not establish that the evidence was received in sufficient time, that he had an adequate opportunity to consider it, or that he agreed to waive the late service. Given the timing and extent of the evidence, I find that admitting it would not provide the Appellant with a fair hearing. I therefore decline to admit the Enforcement Authority’s evidence.
5. The burden rests upon the Enforcement Authority to prove the contravention. Without its evidence, it has not discharged that burden.
Decision
6. The appeal is allowed.

Okay, so I can see it does say 3 days, but that seems to be for adjournment and if they have a valid reason for the delay , which I dont see they can, below is the extract from the 'Practice Direction no. 2 o'

Service of evidence generally

3. The Chief Adjudicator has directed that authorities must serve their evidence no laterthan five days before the first scheduled date of hearing of the appeal.
4. The five days take into account weekends and Bank holidays.
5. Service means the evidence pack reaching the appellant. Where evidence is served by post, the deemed service date is the second day after it was posted provided that day is
a working day; or if not, the next working day after that day.
6. The adjudicator must ensure a fair hearing. If the service date is not met, the adjudicator
may consider that this has prevented a fair hearing and allow the appeal accordingly. Where there are genuine reasons causing a delay to service, the authority may apply for an adjournment to give effect to the three clear days.
7. Service by email should be indicated in the case summary or the evidence checklist.
8. While some appellants are able to access the authority’s evidence via London Tribunal’s appellant portal, the obligation to serve evidence is not replaced.


Would the email override postal, even if postal hasnt arrived, as technically its in my inbox, while it is still short of 5 days on both fronts, postal and email.

Silly question, but would I go into adjudication and say the following (AI reworded)

"I'd like to highlight Practice Direction No. 2 of 2025, which states that parties should have 5 days. I haven't been given sufficient time, particularly with work and family commitments, to properly review the claimant's response. If you still believe the case should proceed today, I'll leave it to you to consider my defence alongside their submissions.

While I've raised several points in my defence, the key point I stand by is that this was a genuine mistake.

The claimant argues that I had three opportunities (I assume within the app) to check the parking code. However, if I believed I'd entered the correct code the first time—especially as the incorrect code was very similar to the correct one—then I would naturally have assumed the subsequent confirmations were also correct."

Just very frustrating, they can get away with all this in most cases, by their argument above that one would see the code x number of times, one can never have a minor keying error ever.

A case on location - we know this adjudicator is frustrated by councils not using discretion for trivial errors but feels his hands are tied. But with parking PCNs they can make non-binding recommendations and I'd say if it looks like you are going to lose in cases like this you should prompt the adjudicator to consider a recommendation.

----------


Case reference   2260020878
Appellant   xxxxxx
Authority   London Borough of Redbridge
VRM   LL63 YWF
PCN Details
PCN   AF11799455
Contravention date   13 Oct 2025
Contravention time   13:55:00
Contravention location   Snakes Lane East
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date   -
Decision Date   06 Jul 2026
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 the video linked hearing; the Authority was not in attendance.


The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required, or without payment of the parking charge when in Snakes Lane East on 13 October 2025 at 13:55.


The Appellant's case is that she paid to park correctly using the RingGo application.


I have considered al the evidence and I find that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required, or without payment of the parking charge when in Snakes Lane East on 13 October 2025


I find the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO) record to be accurate and credible. I have reached this conclusion bearing in mind that it is contemporaneously recorded and is supported by photographic evidence.


I find that by a genuine mistake that the Appellant who is elderly made a one digit error in relation to the location as 6081248 instead of 6081246.


This genuine error by the Appellant goes to mitigating circumstances, it does 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.


That said I recommend to the Authority that they cancel the PCN in this particular case for the following reasons:


First, I find the error in this case to be an understandable and a genuine case of human error.


Second, this is the first time this Appellant has made such an error in over 10 years;


Third, I find that this is not a case of reckless parking with a total disregard for parking regulations.


Fourth, this Appellant had paid to park albeit with a one digit error, in such circumstances I find that there is little or no real parking management purpose achieved by upholding this PCN.


This recommendation is advanced strongly by the Adjudicator.

The appeal is refused with the above recommendation.

Recommendation   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Hi Stamfordman,

Interesting, oh man! thats recent as in two days, same LA, if i get that adjudicator i'm done for!

Although with the appeal refused, why would the council consider a recomendation on close to the same points/reasons that would have been forward in the first case by the appealant. They get no brownie points for doing so and would just go against their original case.

Although I can see a recomendation as such to provide the discounted rate instead more likely?

Not necessarily ! The case cited here is for a different contravention. Yours is for failing to pay for parking when no parking charge was due when the PCN was served.  Appeals based on this have succeeded. What the council should do is get their CEOs to record car registrations in the car park, and to then check for payment when the free time has expired, but they don't.  They just whack the motorist with a PCN, knowing that >95% of people then just cough-up.

Yours is for failing to pay for parking when no parking charge was due when the PCN was served.

I struggle with this, as I can see it and makes sense, but then when the council put their arugment against this, then I go into a limbo.. ie if i said that to the ajudicator, its 0 payment so how can you pay, its a contradiction, he may disagree or say something else and i'll be stumped! maybe my understanding or grasping the technical reality behind it isn't there..