Responded with a lengty response, hopefully it'll do the job if not here then at ajudication
1. The Contravention Did Not Occur
1(a) A payment was made – therefore the alleged contravention is factually incorrect
Contravention 11 requires the motorist to have failed to make a payment. The enforcement authority’s rejection letter confirms that a parking session was created and that a payment was made, but under the wrong location code. This means the contravention as stated on the PCN is factually incorrect.
If the authority believes the issue was that the payment was allocated to the wrong location, that is a different contravention entirely, and not the one stated on the PCN. A PCN must match the facts alleged; if it does not, it is unenforceable - Therefore, the contravention as stated did not occur.
1(b) Additional point: the parking charge was £0.00 – no monetary payment was due
This is a crucial point, the location in which the vehicle was parked carried a £0.00 parking charge during the relevant period.
Where the required payment is £0.00, it is impossible to “fail to pay the parking charge” because:
* No monetary payment is required,
* No monetary payment is possible, and
* A charge of £0.00 cannot logically be “unpaid.”
If the authority’s position is that a free session was not correctly registered due to a location-code error, then that is not the contravention on the PCN. Code 11 explicitly requires non-payment of a charge, but when the charge is £0.00, the contravention cannot occur in law or in logic - It is therefore impossible for the alleged contravention to have taken place.
2. Failure to Consider Circumstances and Exercise Discretion
The Traffic Management Act 2004 statutory guidance requires councils to properly consider representations and exercise discretion fairly and proportionately. My error was a genuine and minor human mistake — a single incorrect digit/location code input while using the RingGo app. I made a good-faith effort to comply and made the required payment (even though the charge was £0.00).
[**** Intersted your extract from the General Guidance Here *****]
The rejection letter does not indicate that due consideration was given to mitigation or discretion. It uses a standardised explanation of policy rather than addressing my specific circumstances. The purpose of parking enforcement is compliance, not punishment. Penalising a minor clerical mistake — especially when the charge was £0.00 — is disproportionate, with my intention to comply being clear, this is precisely the type of situation where statutory discretion should be applied
Conclusion -
* The contravention as stated did not occur,
* It is logically impossible to “not pay” a charge of £0.00,
* The authority’s own evidence confirms a payment was made,
* The authority failed to consider the cirsumstances and fairly and proportionately
* And the enforcement action is disproportionate and unreasonable.
