Is there any reason why you didn't look at the parking sign?
Two points. Cases have been won where adjudicators say you can't be in contravention for not paying for something free, and all pay bays in Redbridge are free for the first hour.
And other case below on geolocation indicates a possible outcome is to get a recommendation to cancel, which isn't binding.
-----------
Case reference 2250307301
Appellant Terry Pace
Authority London Borough of
Havering
VRM GL56EJF
PCN Details
PCN HG34507892
Contravention date 01 Mar 2025
Contravention time 13:55:00
Contravention location Lodge Farm Car Park Main Road
Penalty amount GBP 60.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 24 Sep 2025
Adjudicator Mackenzie Robinson
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
1. Reasons This case was due to be decided after a hearing on 24 September 2025. However Mr Pace did not join the hearing, despite being allowed an additional 10 minutes. I therefore decided this case based on the evidence before me.
2. Mr Pace appeals on the basis that the signage stated that parking was free at all times. It was not made adequately clear that a parking session still had to be registered.
3. I find that the precise contravention selected by the civil enforcement officer did not occur. There is no parking charge for parking in this car park. A driver therefore cannot fail to pay the parking charge.
4. When a driver registers a parking session, he obtains a ‘e-ticket’, and displays it on the digital system. The technology may change, but this is no different in reality to obtaining a physical parking ticket and displaying it on the dashboard. The civil enforcement officer is able to inspect the e-ticket on the digital system using his handheld device. Mr Pace therefore failed to display his e-ticket, but that was not the contravention for which the penalty charge notice was issued.
5. I allow this appeal.
----------
Case reference 2250212103
Appellant Nadia Niazi
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM EN66 FYA
PCN Details
PCN AF0874709A
Contravention date 23 Feb 2025
Contravention time 17:41:00
Contravention location Ilford Lane
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 31 Oct 2025
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The Appellant has attended her appeal by video link, the Authority was not represented.
The facts of this case are not in dispute, the Appellant cited two decisions of other Adjudicators in the same circumstances that she was in.
First, case number 2240496252, which was a Redbridge case decided by Adjudicator Houghton, in which he decided as follows:
"It seems to me that a PCN cannot be issued for a failure to “pay” for something which is free, and for which, by definition, no payment is required. The Appeal is allowed on this ground and it is unnecessary to examine the other issued raised by the Appellant."
Second, case number 2240441669, which was decided by Adjudicator Stanton-Dunne, in which he decided as follows:
"The signage for the car park confirms that the first 30 minutes of parking is free. I accept Mrs Greenhalf's evidence. It follows that there was no parking charge payable."
"I have also looked at the images of the tariff board supplied by Mrs Greenhalf. I can see no instruction to motorists that they must register a parking session with Ringo to have the benefit of the free parking period and the conditions of use do not warn motorists of any liability to receive a PCN for failing to register a free parking session."
I have considered the above cases and I agree with them and adopt their reasoning as if it was my own. Neither Authority in the above referenced cases sought to review the above decisions.
I find that it was only after the issuing of this PCN that the Authority ensured that sufficient warning signage was added to those locations, indicating the the pay by phone was not the correct pay by phone app and that it was RingGo.
I find that the absence of the now present warning signage strongly caused this alleged contravention.
Taking all the above into account I find that this PCN cannot be upheld.
The appeal is allowed.
----------
Case reference 2260036390
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM YC62LLK
PCN Details
PCN QT11188832
Contravention date 29 Sep 2025
Contravention time 16:15:00
Contravention location St James Road
Penalty amount GBP 90.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 23 May 2026
Adjudicator Richard Young
Appeal decision Appeal refused with recommendation
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons 1. This appeal relates to the issue of a PCN by Kingston Council on 29 September 2025. It is alleged that, on that date, the appellant’s vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge.
2. I find that the contravention occurred. I base this finding on the details recorded on the PCN itself. These details were themselves based on the enforcement officer’s observations. I also base my finding on the date and time stamped of the appellant’s vehicle showing it to be parked in the manner alleged in the PCN. I find that the provisions of the Kingston upon Thames (Parking, Waiting, Loading and Stopping Restrictions) Order 2023 provides the legal basis for the restriction that the PCN rests on.
3. In making these findings, I have had regard to the appellant’s grounds of appeal dated 16 January 2026. The appellant states that a parking session was paid for. The RingGo receipt in the appellant’s documents gives the location reference as 26523. The contravention was recorded as having occurred on St James Road, Surbiton. The case summary states that the correct code was 26573. The appellant accepts in her email of 9 February 2026 that the incorrect location was paid for. She explained that the RingGo app generated the location code by reference to what it considered her location to be – and the appellant accepted the code provided when she made payment. None of this can change my finding that the contravention occurred because, as the enforcement officer’s notes show, the appellant had no parking session paid for at the location concerned when the PCN was issued.
4. Kingston’s case summary states that the enforcement authority appreciates that there may have been a “genuine error.” The appellant’s case is that the Ringo app made an error as to her location – her error is simply that she did not spot it. Kingston has not addressed the point about the app in the case summary. The notice of rejection does not directly address the about the app point either, save to make the point about the need to check. Whilst I would not associate myself with all of the remarks made by the appellant in her email dated 16 January 2026, I do find it significant that it was the RingGo app that generated the location code by what it worked out to be the appellant’s location. If the RingGo app is not capable of doing that accurately, then that seems unfair to me. It also seems to me that, if it cannot be done accurately, then the app should not attempt to detect a motorist’s location at all, but rather leave it to the motorist to input the code. Whilst I acknowledge Kingston’s point about the need to check, it does not seem to be in dispute that the appellant was misled by the RingGo app which Kingston uses. For this reason, although the contravention clearly occurred, I find that there is significant mitigation and recommend that Kingston cancels this PCN on mitigation grounds – as there was a problem with their/RingGo’s app. I will conclude by observing that this is not a case where the appellant herself typed in the wrong code, as often happens when RingGo-based challenges are brought.
5. I refuse the appeal – but with the above recommendation.
Recommendation cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
