Free Traffic Legal Advice

Outline:

---

The RingGo app refused us the ability to extend parking by another 15 mins to allow us to return to our vehicle in time (bug or did I not read properly?)

---

Upon nearing completion of the 4 hours parking we had paid for, I tried to extend the parking by 15 mins to allow us to return to the car in time. Unfortunately the ringgo app refused this request, possibly as the signage on the other side of the road suggests only 4 hours max duration of parking is permitted. On our side of the road (ringgo area code 52811), the signage indicates 6.5 hours of parking (see attached photo). Upon realising that the parking app would not let us extend our stay a further 15 minutes, we returned to the vehicle for 15:26 (13 mins past expiry). Unfortunately we had a ticket issued at 15:24.

To compound matters, upon appealing this, I never got any correspondance (despite it being detailed on the PCN) until after this discount expiry. I have requested the missing correspondance be re-sent and the discount expiry be reapplied until I receive this, but am awaiting the outcome of this still.

My query really is in relation to the fact that despite my best efforts and every intention to pay for parking, I've still been hit with a fine. I want to understand whether the app issued the request correctly and that I wasnt allowed to extend my stay or if the app glitching cost me a parking ticket. I appreciate any input and time from you all!

---

PCN viewable here: https://www2.richmond.gov.uk/PCNViewer/PCNDetails.aspx#details with the following details:

PCN #:RT38958939
licence: GF54 YGE

maps location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/8XwCiqetZYqDaFr5A

I attempted to extend the session before expiry, rather than pay for a new session after expiry had lapsed

I understand Incandescent's point, but I don't think this would be lawful.

De facto the vehicle did not leave and therefore could not return. The system appears to presume that a new session i.e. one which follows a hiatus from the previous one, must be a returning vehicle when in fact it could simply be, as the OP says in this case, a new session following a period of unpaid for parking during which they were de jure in contravention, albeit that a penalty couldn't be demanded within 10 minutes.

In the good old days we had meters which couldn't be fed, but these are the enlightened days of mobile comms, yeah!

I have attached a zip file containing PCN and notice to owner. The correspondance I've sent via email thus far is below and consists of two emails. I provided a timestamped png with the initial email which had the parking sign visible on page 5 of the notice to owner as evidence. The second email notes the missing correspondance which presumably would contain the informal rejection.

---

Dear [NAME]

Your form has been submitted.

Your case will be placed on hold until you hear from us.

If you need to contact us in the meantime, please quote your PCN notice number and vehicle registration number. To find out more about the appeal process, visit www.richmond.gov.uk/how_to_appeal_pcn

Your reference: FS-Case-533497665

Notice number: RT38958939

Vehicle registration: GF54YGE

Date of issue: 21/07/2023

Location: KEW GREEN KEW (CPZ KC)

Explain why you think the PCN should not have been issued: // The RingGo app refused us the ability to extend parking by another 15 mins to allow us to return to our vehicle in time //

Upon nearing completion of the 4 hours parking we had paid for, I tried to extend the parking by 15 mins to allow us to return to the car in time. Unfortunately the ringgo app refused this request, possibly as the signage on the other side of the road suggests only 4 hours max duration of parking is permitted. On our side of the road (ringgo area code 52811), the signage indicates 6.5 hours of parking (see attached photo). Upon realising that the parking app would not let us extend our stay a further 15 minutes, we returned to the vehicle for 15:26, saw the ticket time of 15:24 and called the council for further action (which I think the nice man on the phone made a note & reference of). I have also attached proof of receipt for the previous 4 hours in case necessary.

I hope that the ticket can be waived in light of this ambiguity in the app,

Thanks,

[NAME]

---

Hi,

I have just come off a call with the parking officer regarding this charge. I explained that through the web portal for this charge, I can see the correspondance history. Unfortunately, the only correspondance I have received to my address is dated 21/09/2023. This means I did not receive any of the responses to my initial enquiry for dates listed in July and August and also missed the early repayment deadline. I would like to request the following:

1. Have the missing correspondence provided to me via email if possible
2. Extend the early repayment deadline to 7 days after I have received the contents of (1)

This will allow me to review the correspondance I havent received and action where needed,

Sincerely,

[NAME]
(RT38958939, license plate: GF54 YGE)

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Apologies, the frontend was only letting me upload 4 small files at a time so I thought a zip would be easier. Thanks for doing that. The second email was sent fri 29/09/23

They have finally gotten back to me with the initial missed correspondence and an attached letter. Of note is the following lines:

"The reasons for the rejection are as follows:
The PC was issued because your vehicle was observed parked in a shared use bay during the prescribed hours with a RingGo cashless parking session that expired at
3:13pm. Restrictions are enforced here Monday to Sunday 10am to 4:30pm, including Bank Holidays, Event Days 10am to 11pm.
Please be aware for future awareness, that a set of bays will have its own relevant sign-plate within the length of the bay; and sign-plates are only applicable for the side of the road that they are assembled on.
www.richmond.gov.uk/parking."

This suggests to me that they havent fully understood my reasoning. At this point, should I just pay up or keep pursuing this further? I suppose I could submit the initial reasoning as my formal representation. Whats my best course of action here?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Sorry, you're right, see attached imgur link

I did not notice this sentence before:

"Enquiries with ParkNow have confirmed that, after reviewing the activity recorded on your RingGo account, you tried to create a new parking session rather than extend (see below). This activated the 'no return' rule in RingGo and accordingly, you were not able to create the session. On this basis, I am satisfied that there were no issues with the app, and find that the issues were cause by user error."

This was indeed the case, however I tried to create a new session because the iOS app wouldnt let me extend my current session so I was left with no choice but to wait for it to expire and then try to create a new session

OP, the Notice of Rejection of Reps dated 15 November, not the earlier one rejecting your challenge pl.

+1, we need to see the formal notice of rejection in full.