Free Traffic Legal Advice

You've probably found the cases I've posted where adjudicators have said a contravention of not paying for something that is free is a nonsense.

We'd like to think that making an honest mistake with a pay by phone session that has no adverse affect on the council would be a shoo-in for a first time PCN cancellation but more councils are turning down this opportunity to show what nice people they are, hence the pursuit of other avenues as secondary measures.

Hi HCA and Stamford Man, does the Purple Sign that I have uploaded help my challenge? Many thanks.

What purple sign?

This one - but no idea where I got Purple from :-):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G8vS73hIELhe4f0G3RoRLfyKIh3ApXfU/view?usp=drive_link

Regards,

R

Dear Redbridge,

I am requesting cancellation of the PCN owing to an honest mistake in selecting the car VRM on the RingGo app, and also make two other points, both of which are that the contravention did not in any case occur.

My wife and I have two Volkswagen cars, and on this occasion my wife accidentally selected VRM xxxx (which was parked at xxxx at the time) instead of VRM xxxxx. As both cars are VWs this made it easier to make this error on the app, but it was an honest one that has had no detrimental effect on the council.

I enclose the RingGo receipt showing a parking session was taken out.

The parking session was in any case for the free one hour parking, and as the contravention is parked without paying the parking charge, this cannot have occurred as you can't pay for something that is free! My wife had an appointment at xxx and parked and left within the free hour. We have dash cam footage to show this.

I am also puzzled by the contravention code 11b - b is a suffix for business bay, and this wasn't such a bay, so again this contravention did not occur.

I hope you agree this adds up to reasons for cancelling the PCN on this occasion and look forward to your positive reply.

I've edited a few things. 

So an update, as expected Redbridge rejected. Rather than upload a picture of their letter, I have copied the content of the letter which is below. I will be grateful for any advice with how to proceed with this:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Penalty Charge Notice (PCN): AF10290791

Vehicle Registration: GN20ZRC

Thank you for your letter regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice, the content of which is noted.
However, I agree with our earlier observations, and remain satisfied that the notice was issued correctly.

The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked unattended, in an area where a parking session must be obtained via the RingGo system, this is either over the phone or via the app.
While we understand the mistake made in selecting the vehicle registration number on the RingGo app, it remains the responsibility of the driver to ensure the correct details are entered. Additionally, the contravention code 11b applies to the specific circumstances of the violation, regardless of the bay type.

Whilst I note the circumstances you have outlined; this does not warrant the cancellation of the PCN.
On this basis the Penalty Charge must be paid, if paid within fourteen days from the date on this letter the reduced rate of £55.00 will be accepted. After this point the full charge of £110.00 will become due.

Please be advised that no further correspondence received by this department will stop this PCN from progressing. If you wish to appeal this decision you must wait for a Notice to Owner to be sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle at the full charge of £110.00. Once this has been received you will be required to follow the instructions given to make a formal representation against the Notice.
Should your representation be rejected you will be sent a form to appeal to the Independent Adjudicator, whose decision is final.

Yours faithfully,

Parking & Traffic Enforcement

"Additionally, the contravention code 11b applies to the specific circumstances of the violation, regardless of the bay type."

They are saying yes we missed up the contravention suffix but it's still a code 11.

They are also vulnerable on the not paying for a free session in my view.

You could also raise government fairness guidance:

Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest. Failure to act in accordance with the general principles of public law may lead to a claim for a decision to be judicially reviewed.

....

They should approach the exercise of discretion objectively and without regard to any financial interest in the penalty or decisions that may have been taken at an earlier stage in proceedings.

This is one where if you do take it to the tribunal it will depend on the adjudicator. It shouldn't be like that but there are increasing divisions among adjudicators on several contraventions and locations.

Sorry for the delay in replying, I was away.

Here is the TMO for the location:

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