Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: iispartan on March 30, 2026, 08:15:11 pm
-
I believe the registered keeper is her mum, but they live at same address and she’s insured on the vehicle.
Yes, below is the initial appeal that was rejected:
Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice. On the date of the alleged contravention (19/03/2026), I had parked in Carlton Gardens (W5) and paid for parking using the PayByPhone app. I have attached a screenshot as evidence of this payment. However, I now understand that I mistakenly selected the location code for the opposite side of the road, where different parking zones apply. This was an honest and genuine error, as both sides of the road are in close proximity and it was not clear at the time that they required different location codes. Importantly: • A valid payment was made covering the time of the alleged contravention • There was no intention to avoid payment • The error relates only to the location code, not to non-payment Given that payment was made in full and this was a minor and understandable mistake, I kindly request that you exercise discretion and cancel this PCN. I would appreciate your consideration of this appeal and look forward to your response.
-
Who is the registered keeper and is the logbook address correct.
No need to draft reps until the NTO comes.
I would start by addressing their rejection but do you have the initial challenge.
-
Yes, it is worth waiting for the NtO and making formal representations, because she had an active Ealing app session for Carlton Road from 08:08 to 09:30, the PCN issued at 09:17 on Carlton Gardens alleges code 19s, and the published definition of code 19 is parking with an invalid permit/ticket or after paid-for time has expired, which is not an obvious fit with a live payment made for the wrong adjacent location.
Her draft is broadly on the right track, and the strongest simple point is that the council's rejection appears to miss the real issue by saying pay by phone was not usable in that bay at all, so yes, I would advise carrying on if she is willing to risk losing the discounted penalty and argue that the contravention did not occur.
-
Thanks very much for the response, I’ve drafted an appeal below. I think I’ll advise her to wait for the NtO and take this all the way. Let me know your thoughts.
I make formal representations on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.
The PCN has been issued for contravention code 19s. This code applies where a vehicle is parked in a residents’ or shared-use bay with an invalid permit, voucher, or pay and display ticket, i.e. one that would have been valid for that parking place at some time, or where paid-for time has expired.
That is not the situation here. Payment was made via the council’s pay-by-phone system for the relevant period. The issue is not that the payment was invalid in the sense required by code 19s, but rather that it was made against a different location. In such circumstances, the alleged contravention is not properly made out under code 19s.
Further, the council’s rejection asserts that payment by phone is not usable in this bay. This is contradicted by the council’s own photographic evidence, which shows signage stating “Permit holders or pay by phone…”, confirming that this is a shared-use bay where payment by phone is permitted.
The council has therefore both misapplied the contravention code and relied on an incorrect understanding of the applicable signage.
In the circumstances, the alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN must be cancelled.
-
The rejection as you say makes no sense - the parking place seems to be a shared use bay as per the council pic.
The code 19s - s is for shared use - is for an invalid permit voucher or pay and display ticket that would have been valid for that parking place at some time or after the expiry of paid for time.
So I don't think the contravention occurred - the correct one is code 16s if a wrong location code was used. The sign is permit or bay not residents or pay.
Think I'd go on with this.
(https://i.ibb.co/SXLjWtd6/Screenshot-2026-03-30-at-20-56-15.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/zh1TqtgN/Screenshot-2026-03-30-at-20-56-04.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/nsGH60Ct/Screenshot-2026-03-30-at-20-55-56.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/hx9fNkDw/zo2-BBj-C-xl.jpg)
-
On behalf of a friend.
She parked her car on Carlton Gardens and payed via the app. However she found a ticket on her windscreen and later realised the session she payed for was Carlton Road which is adjacent to it and very similar parking codes. She appealed to the council explaining the misunderstanding however unsurprisingly they have rejected the appeal (attached) but doesn’t even seem like they read it.
Now the question is, is it still worth appealing further? It feels unfair especially after such a similar road name and code. Any thoughts welcomed.
Link to images: https://imgpile.com/p/eJmpoeS