Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: flash2005 on May 23, 2026, 07:32:07 pm
-
Representations submitted.
-
Good stuff. They are not obliged at this stage to provide the TMO etc but I have seen an old decision by Mr Chan which supports non-disclosure. Basically, ask them to consider your informal challenge as formal representation and DO NOT spell out the previous failure to consider.
-
Draft for representation
Grounds of Representation
☑ The alleged contravention did not occur.
☑ There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.
⸻
REPRESENTATIONS
I make these representations on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur and that there has been a procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority.
1. The alleged contravention did not occur
The allegation is that my vehicle was:
“Parked without payment of the parking charge.”
That allegation is factually incorrect.
The parking charge for the relevant location and period was paid in full using the RingGo cashless parking system. Unfortunately, when completing the payment, the driver inadvertently selected the wrong vehicle registration number within the RingGo application.
This was a genuine keying error and not an attempt to avoid payment.
The council received the parking fee it was entitled to receive. There was therefore no loss of revenue whatsoever.
The contravention alleged is specifically one of parking without payment. Payment was made. Accordingly, the allegation that the vehicle was parked without payment is simply not correct.
Whilst I appreciate the council may argue that payment should have been linked to the correct vehicle registration, that is not what this PCN alleges. The allegation is non-payment.
Numerous adjudicators have recognised that there is an important distinction between:
* parking without payment; and
* payment having been made but recorded against an incorrect registration because of a genuine keying error.
The latter is not accurately described by the contravention alleged on this PCN.
For that reason alone, I submit that the alleged contravention did not occur.
⸻
2. The council has failed to properly exercise its discretion
Even if the council considers that a contravention technically occurred, I request that it exercises its discretion under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.
This was a genuine mistake.
* the parking session was purchased;
* the correct location was selected;
* the council received full payment;
* there was no intention whatsoever to evade payment;
* there was no financial prejudice to the council.
The purpose of civil parking enforcement is compliance, not punishment.
Cancelling this PCN would be entirely consistent with the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance, which expects authorities to exercise discretion fairly and reasonably where appropriate.
Should the council refuse to cancel the PCN, I request that it explains precisely why it considers it proportionate to demand a penalty of £110 where the parking charge itself was fully paid.
⸻
3. Procedural Impropriety
The original Regulation 9 PCN does not appear to comply with the statutory requirements introduced by the 2022 Civil Enforcement Regulations.
The PCN states:
“The Penalty Charge of £110 must be paid no later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the PCN was served.”
However, paragraph 2(d) of Schedule 2 to The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 requires a Regulation 9 PCN to state that payment must be made:
“within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred.”
The wording used on Redbridge’s PCN appears to replicate the wording of the superseded 2007 Regulations rather than the wording now prescribed by the 2022 Regulations.
The statutory wording is mandatory.
Failure to include the information required by the Regulations amounts to a procedural impropriety.
⸻
4. Failure to include the information required by Regulation 3
In addition, I do not believe the original PCN adequately conveys the information required by Regulation 3 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
In particular, the PCN does not properly explain:
* that representations received before a Notice to Owner is served must be considered by the authority; and
* that, if a Notice to Owner is nevertheless served, formal representations must then be made in accordance with that Notice.
These are mandatory statutory requirements.
Again, failure to comply with those requirements constitutes procedural impropriety.
⸻
5. Request for disclosure
Should the council not accept these representations, please provide:
* the complete Traffic Management Order applicable to George Lane (C);
* all Civil Enforcement Officer notes;
* all photographs;
* the RingGo payment audit relied upon by the council;
* confirmation that the council has actively considered the exercise of discretion rather than applying a blanket policy.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Notice to Owner and the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
-
Main point to make is to not ignore it, or it's game over. Secondly, it is pointless paying as the amount demanded is the full penalty, no discount. However, when rejecting, the council may re-offer the discount to encourage payment, because going to adjudication is a PITA for them as they have to prepare an evidence pack and also pay the adjudication fee. AFAIK this fee is about £30
-
Got the NTO today. Appreciate next steps on this please.
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/FTyBb0T.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/tx3Wsn6.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/fFAm340.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/QqnLCf5.jpg)
-
Failure to consider. Keep going.
-
Got the rejection letter :(
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/NmXIhkJ_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ZHOtMiD_xl.jpeg)
-
I have submitted the challenge today to Redbridge.
Many thanks @Hippocrates
-
;D
Does this mean this is good to go and submit the challenge ?
-
;D
-
@Hippocrates
@stamfordman
I have drafted an appeal below. Please review and provide feedback
Formal Representation Against PCN – Redbridge Council
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice.
The alleged contravention did not occur. The parking charge for the vehicle was in fact paid via the RingGo app for the relevant parking session and location. Unfortunately, an honest and inadvertent error was made when entering the vehicle registration number within the application, resulting in payment being linked to an incorrect registration.
Importantly, the council suffered no financial loss whatsoever, as the appropriate parking fee was paid in full for the relevant period. This was clearly a genuine keying error and not an attempt to avoid payment. In these circumstances, enforcing a penalty charge of £110 is wholly disproportionate and contrary to the principles of fairness and reasonable public administration.
I would respectfully ask the council to exercise discretion and cancel the PCN on this occasion.
Further, I note that the PCN appears to contain procedural defects and may not comply with the requirements of the applicable legislation.
The PCN states:
“The Penalty Charge of £110 must be paid no later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the PCN was served.”
However, Schedule 2 paragraph 2(d) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 requires a Regulation 9 PCN to state:
“that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred”.
The PCN therefore appears to rely on outdated wording derived from the superseded 2007 regulations by referring to the date the notice was “served” rather than the date the alleged contravention “occurred”.
In addition, the PCN does not appear to adequately convey the information required under Regulation 3 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022, specifically regarding the recipient’s right to make representations before a Notice to Owner is served and the council’s duty to consider those representations.
Accordingly, I submit that the PCN is non-compliant and unenforceable.
Should the council nevertheless decide not to cancel the PCN, please treat this letter as a request for:
1. A full copy of the relevant Traffic Management Order relied upon;
2. Copies of all CEO notes and photographs;
3. Confirmation that the council has properly considered exercising discretion in light of the payment having been made.
I look forward to your confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
-
Is any member able to help with this please ?
There is an issue with the PCN which uses the old 2007 legislation re "served" rather than "occurred". I will dig out my skeleton argument. It is worth using as they may well mess up their reply or fail to consider.
The PCN
This states the old 2007 wording re served rather than “occurred” as provided at Schedule 2 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022
Particulars to be included in a penalty charge notice given under regulation 9
2. The information to be included in a penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 is—
(a)the date on which the notice is served,
(b)the regulatory matters,
(c)the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer issuing the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable,
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred,
(e)that if the penalty charge is paid no later than the applicable date, the penalty charge will be reduced by the amount of any applicable discount, and
(f)that if the penalty charge is not paid within the period of 28 days referred to in sub-paragraph (d), a notice to owner may be served by the enforcement authority on the owner of the vehicle.
Further, I do not believe the meaning of the highlighted part is sufficiently expressed on the PCN as provided at Part 2 para. 3 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022
3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the following information—
(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;
(b)that if, before a notice to owner is served, representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified in the notice for the purpose those representations will be considered by the enforcement authority;
(c)that if a notice to owner is served despite the representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.
-
Is any member able to help with this please ?
-
Fewer councils now offer first time discretion for pay by phone errors and Redbridge has become a hardliner.
What they'll say is payment must be made for the correct VRM according to their traffic order.
However, some adjudicators take the view that the contravention parked without paying did not occur and instead Redbridge should have issued a parked without a valid session.
This is compounded by the council receiving full payment anyway.
Authorities also have a duty to act fairly but this is routinely ignored and is not a ground the tribunal can consider.
But a lot of cases we see in Redbridge are errors in the first hour, when parking is free - then the notion you can pay for something free is ridiculed by some adjudicators. In your case you paid for the second hour so if the council does not use discretion you are likely to lose.
-
There may be an error in the PCN or on the Redbridge website relate to payments for PCNs, but we await your PCN post on a different hosting site. 'Hippocrates' is good on this aspect, so hopefully he will post soon.
Please check now, do the images appear properly ?
Yes.
-
There may be an error in the PCN or on the Redbridge website relate to payments for PCNs, but we await your PCN post on a different hosting site. 'Hippocrates' is good on this aspect, so hopefully he will post soon.
Please check now, do the images appear properly ?
-
There may be an error in the PCN or on the Redbridge website relate to payments for PCNs, but we await your PCN post on a different hosting site. 'Hippocrates' is good on this aspect, so hopefully he will post soon.
-
You need to use another hosting site; the one you used no longer covers the UK
So how incorrect was the entered reg number ? You can argue on 'O' and '0' (zero), because the official font for number plates has no zero character, the letter O is used. If it was for a totally different registration, then it is mitigation, I'm afraid, despite full payment being made. London councils and TfL between them are collecting well over £600 million a year from PCN penalties. So they're not going to stop the money rolling in.
It is for another car, the number plates are very similar though. Is there any mistake in the PCN that can be exploited ? The payment was paid, but another car was selected by mistake in the Ringo app.
-
You need to use another hosting site; the one you used no longer covers the UK
So how incorrect was the entered reg number ? You can argue on 'O' and '0' (zero), because the official font for number plates has no zero character, the letter O is used. If it was for a totally different registration, then it is mitigation, I'm afraid, despite full payment being made. London councils and TfL between them are collecting well over £600 million a year from PCN penalties. So they're not going to stop the money rolling in.
-
The driver of the vehicle paid for the parking ticket using the RingGo app, but unfortunately selected the incorrect vehicle registration when making the payment. The parking fee was still paid in full, which makes this penalty extremely unfair and disproportionate.
Given that payment was made for the parking session, I would like to know whether there is any way to contest this notice, as it appears to be an honest mistake rather than an attempt to avoid payment.
<br> PCN Front <br>
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/oGkYUws.png)
<br> PCN back <br>
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/F2Knvyi.png)
<br> Evidence of payment<br>
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ukziDmS.png)
<br> Evidence of multiple cars in the Ringo Account<br>
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/catcGkM.png)
<br>
Council Photos <br>
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/mBkw7Ms.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/7hc6NwY.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/6D791mU.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/JtxUMpa.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/0RgPYHa.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/EqV0g06.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/tKfLvpt.jpeg)
<br>
Google Street <br>
https://maps.app.goo.gl/jbq954hxcg7yW24K8