These cases often turn on detail and here 'Pay by phone' on the sign does not have the p for phone capitalised. There are cases where adjudicators have allowed the assumption it is the PayByPhone app as below and maybe not just if there is a cap P but we need to look at this to see if RingGo was clearly flagged say on the post.
-------
Case reference 2240405891
Appellant xxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM R17JAJ
PCN Details
PCN AF07349477
Contravention date 04 Jun 2024
Contravention time 14:30:00
Contravention location Westwood Road
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 21 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The Appellant has attended with his daughter.
The Enforcement Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge when in Westwood Road on 4 June 2024 at 14:30.
The Appellant's case is that he parked and saw the sign plate that indicated a motorist should pay by phone. He then proceeded to use the pay by phone app on his mobile to pay for parking time - a receipt is produced in evidence.
I have considered all the evidence in this case and I find, on a balance of probabilities, that this PCN cannot be upheld.
I have preferred the evidence of the Appellant to that of the Authority's in relation to signage, and I find that the location where the Appellant had parked his vehicle is confirmed by the photograph he has submitted. This is also confirmed by 'Google Maps' to the extent that the '2' on the pole is the same as that on the Appellant's photograph.
Further, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the CEO's photo shot of a sign plate was on the other side of the road to where the Appellant was parked.
The point here is that I find that the pole with the 'RingGo' sign on it was on the other side of the road to where the Appellant's vehicle was parked, and therefore, not relevant to his parking.
It may well not be the Authority's fault that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 uses the same words as the pay by phone app, to indicate that payment by phone is required. However, it is also not the Appellant's fault.
I find that the scenario in this case is even more convoluted due to the similarity of Westwood Road and West Street. I also note that the location number is the same in relation to both locations, which is 7178. Parking is not supposed to be an IQ test or requiring some sort of academic research.
Accordingly, I find that in the rare circumstances of this case, as detailed above, that there is justifiable confusion and ambiguity in relation to this parking incident in Westwood Road on 4 June 2024.
The law, in relation to where an Adjudicator finds that there is an ambiguity, is that it cannot be enforced against the party it disadvantages.
The appeal is allowed.
