Full decision. Must say Adjudicator Styles sounds early 20th century wiith his dial phone reference. Misdialling a telephone number doesn't (usually) cost you £110.
I still think the 7 digit codes cross into territory where statutory guidance on fairness should come into play.
Plus of course there is the nonsense of not paying for a free thing.
But it looks like we'll have to accept that unless you get one of the few friendly adjudicators there is no defence to Redbridge pushing these through.
I would add though that we can push for a non-binding recommendation to cancel, and that the TMO provided to the tribunal stands up in court.
-----------
Case reference 2260030725
Appellant xxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM FT12UGR
PCN Details
PCN AF11197984
Contravention date 12 Sep 2025
Contravention time 15:08:00
Contravention location Mildmay Road
Penalty amount GBP 110.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 10 Jul 2026
Adjudicator Gerald Styles
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons The appellant did not attend the on-line hearing arranged for 9 July. The Council was not expected to attend and did not do so.
Her case to tribunal was set out at length and can be conceniently recorded in full below. It was presented at the hearing by her husband Mr xxxxx.
I am submitting these final representations ahead of my hearing.
I formally contest that the alleged contravention of "not paying
a parking charge" did not occur. My vehicle was parked for less
than one hour, during which time a free, one-hour parking session
was available and active. Consequently, as the parking period was
free of charge, the allegation of failing to pay is a factual
impossibility. Furthermore, even if a technical contravention
occurred, I submit that it was the result of a genuine, minor
keying error, and the Council has failed to act in accordance
with its statutory duty to exercise fairness and proportionality.
1. Failure to Address Statutory Duty of Fairness
I am deeply disappointed that in both my initial challenge and my
formal representation, I explicitly requested that the Council
address its statutory duty to act fairly and with discretion. The
Council’s rejection letters failed to address this requirement
entirely. The Council’s response demonstrates an apparent lack of
awareness regarding this statutory guidance, let alone evidence
that it has been applied.
2. Contradiction of the Alleged Contravention
The Council has formally acknowledged in its Notice of Rejection
that my vehicle was parked for less than one hour. As the parking
session was free for the first hour, the contravention of "not
paying a parking charge" is a factual impossibility. I left the
space before the free session ended; therefore, no payment was
required, and no loss was suffered by the Council.
3. Mischaracterisation of "Standard Practice"
The Council asserts that the use of 7-digit location codes is
"standard practice". I dispute this; 7-digit codes are not the
industry standard, and their use inherently increases the risk of
minor human error. Furthermore, the Council argues that the
incorrect code rendered the session "invalid," yet this is not
the contravention stated on the PCN, which specifically alleges
"not paying a parking charge".
.4,Proportionality and Evidence of Intent
I have provided a RingGo receipt confirming a session was booked
for the relevant time, along with a Monzo bank statement showing
a purchase made at the Ilford Exchange during that same period.
These documents objectively prove my presence at the location and
my clear intention to comply with parking requirements. In light
of the fact that no payment was required, the enforcement of a
penalty charge is an excessive and disproportionate response to a
minor, honest administrative error.
Conclusion
I respectfully request that the Adjudicator considers that the
Council has failed to demonstrate it has complied with its
statutory duty to act fairly. I ask that this appeal be allowed,
or, at a minimum, that a recommendation be made for the Council
to cancel the PCN given the absence of any financial loss or intent to evade charges.
…..
I can fully accept that the appellant did not seek to avoid payment. I have however disagreed with her arguments that the Council has been at fault in pursuing the penalty charge under appeal.
The appellant failed to pay the charge which was an alternative to registering correctly for the hour which was gratis provided registration was done correctly.
Errors with long numbers have a long history and the forbears of young motorists will remember how misdials were common and indeed frequent in the days when telephones were ones with rotary dials. In more modern days I know one time passwords also get miskeyed frequently and that too is irritating. I do not however see the length of the bay locator number as opearting as legal defence in this case.
Unfortunately for motorists making keyboard mistakes the Councils have strong legal ground for insisting on a penalty charge when the there is a motorist keyboard error. The line of authority for this in this tribunal derives from Lady Walmsley’s Case where the Court of Appeal held that it was not payment that was crucial but payment for the correct registration. By analogy I accept that the motorist has responsibility if registering for doing so with the correct bay locator.
I do not identify the error in this case as explained by weighty mitigation and I do not consider the Council has wrongly failed to assess whether the case warranted discretionary cancellation. The penalty charge claimed is the lawful amount. The amount has been correctly set and lawfully approved in London. It lawfully has the character of a standard amount and it is not legally disproportionate.
