Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: U.s.0.1 on August 30, 2026, 02:05:13 pm
-
Hmm. So it seems like a 5050 chance.
Pretty much.
-
Hmm. So it seems like a 5050 chance.
-
This adjudicator tends to allow the can't pay for a free thing appeal.
----------
Case reference 2260158423
Appellant xxxxx
Authority London Borough of Croydon
VRM KW73XMU
PCN Details
PCN CR4917525A
Contravention date 25 Nov 2025
Contravention time 09:26:00
Contravention location South End
Penalty amount GBP 110.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 01 Sep 2026
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
Mrs xxxxx has attended the hearing today by telephone link as the authorised representative of Mr xxxxx and the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked without payment of the parking charge.
The PCN was issued at 9.26am. The controlled hours of parking at this location are from 9am to 5pm. It is not in dispute that there is one hour of free parking.
As there was no parking charge due for the first hour of parking, it follows that the alleged contravention did not occur. I have seen no signage telling motorists that there is a liability to make a payment if a free parking session has not been obtained through Ringo. I have also seen no signage telling motorists that they will be liable to receive a PCN during the free parking period if a parking session has not been obtained.
-
Yes you can have a go at them on statutory guidance to act fairly but they will fend this off.
Asking for their policy would be useful at reps stage.
There are plenty of other cases to check on this forum although they can be hard to search for.
I have some others on file - I'll have a look.
-
Are you the registered keeper with current DVLA details?
If so, then you either:
Pay the reduced sum as stated in their reply, or
Wait for the next notice (Notice to Owner, NTO) and make reps guided by the forum. It is probable, but cannot be guaranteed, that the 'discount' would be re-offered even if these were rejected. But at least you would have had a bite at their procedures, which are often grounds for appeal in themselves!
-
Thanks for discussing this all, true heroes of the world.
What should be my next steps?
-
Thanks.
As regards the CC, IMO this is distinguished by virtue of it being pan-London as opposed to TMOs which vary between authorities who seem to favour bespoke solutions as opposed to following best practice examples.
As regards Mr Burke's views, I see no reason why registering is not the legal equivalent of obtaining a virtual permit for which there is a matching off-street description, indeed at least one London council's order effectively refers to it as such i.e. registering will add the vehicle to a database which brings up a corresponding entry on a CEO's HHC, just like virtual permits.
If an OP gets to tribunal in this regard they really should share the TMO evidence which often gets overlooked.
-
This one by Mr Burke is what the majority of adjudicators will do. And of course they are all informed by the unfortunate Baroness Walmsley.
Redbridge is now practised at seeing these through and is unlikely to make procedural errors.
I have highlighted the last bit of Walmsley - not publishing policy is an issue in my view.
--------
Case reference 2260127984
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM GIB504
PCN Details
PCN HG34638675
Contravention date 20 Nov 2025
Contravention time 12:42:00
Contravention location Cottons Park Car Park
Penalty amount GBP 110.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 16 Jul 2026
Adjudicator Michael Burke
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge. The Appellant explains that he was aware of the need to register a parking session but that the machine was out of order. He has provided a photograph as supporting evidence. There was a RingGo number but no further explanation and he did not know what RingGo was. He argues that the facts do not meet the contravention alleged.
The contravention alleged on the face of the PCN is an imperfect description of the contravention committed. However, none of the established contravention codes precisely reflects the situation where the motorist does not activate the required parking session in a free car park. The Enforcement Authority must be entitled to enforce car park restrictions and the law should not make this more difficult in circumstances where they offer free parking. It is clear that the Appellant has understood the nature of the allegation throughout. I am satisfied that the correct interpretation is that registering the vehicle for a parking session is the equivalent of paying the parking charge and that where the motorist has done that the vehicle may not be issued a PCN for the duration of validated session.
It is not unusual for a pay and display machine or validation system to be out of order for one reason or another. In such circumstances the motorist must find an alternative way to park legally, whether by using an alternative machine or validation system or parking elsewhere. In this case it seems he could have validated using the RingGo App.
The Appellant has not established anything which goes beyond mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion. An Adjudicator has no power to direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.
-----------
Walmsley v TfL and Others [2005] EWCA Civ 1540
Issue: Judicial Review - Mitigating circumstances and Adjudicators’ discretion
The Court of Appeal, overturning an earlier decision of the High Court (referred to in the Road User Charging Adjudicator’s Annual Report 2004-2005), upheld the Adjudicator’s decision to refuse an appeal.
Baroness Walmsley had used her vehicle in the Congestion Charge zone on 29 and 30 October 2003 and had sought to purchase a Congestion Charge licence for her vehicle via the internet. Although she had correctly entered the first four characters of her registration number the last three letters, she entered were those of her previous vehicle and were not those of her current car. This mistake was made for both days of travel.
Two Penalty Charge Notices (‘PCNs’) were issued by TfL and sent by post to Baroness Walmsley.
The Baroness made representations asserting that she had paid the Congestion Charge. TfL rejected those representations. The Baroness appealed to an Adjudicator.
The Adjudicator refused her appeal indicating that, “There is a high level of responsibility on the registered keeper of the vehicle to pay any charge incurred by it by midnight of the day on which the charge was incurred. Liability is strict. The Congestion Charge Regulations afford no discretion in this situation. The registration recorded on the receipt must be for the vehicle used within the Zone during the prescribed hours. Article 6(5)(a) of the Congestion Charge Scheme states, ‘a licence may be purchased only for a single vehicle having a specified registration mark’. The Appellant did not pay for the vehicle’s specified registration mark. I accept that this was a genuine error, but I have no alternative other than to refuse this appeal.”
This decision was upheld on review by another Adjudicator. The Baroness applied for and was granted Judicial Review in the High Court by Mr Justice Stanley Burnton.
In his decision Mr Justice Burnton indicated that he considered that as the Baroness had made an error when specifying her vehicle registration mark, she was liable for a penalty. However, he went on to indicate that Regulation 16(2) of the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001 afforded Adjudicators discretion to cancel Penalty Charge Notices in situations such as the Baroness’s where the error was genuine and accordingly the case was remitted back to the Adjudicator for re-determination.
ort 2005-2006 Road User Charging Adjudicators
TfL appealed Mr Justice Burnton’s decision.
Held: In the Court of Appeal Lord Justices Chadwick, Sedley and Keene upheld TfL’s appeal, reinstating the original Adjudicator’s decision. The Court of Appeal held that Regulation 16 (2) did not provide any discretion to Adjudicators along the lines suggested by Mr Justice Burnton and that the only time an Adjudicator could direct a Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled was if one of the six statutory grounds of appeal under the Regulations were made out. None of the grounds of appeal were in fact made out by the Baroness.
In addition, their Lordships were critical of TfL having a policy on the use of its discretion which it had not made available to the public.
-
@stamfordman, ' While you can't pay for a free thing the tribunal mostly says the contravention of not paying occurs if the correct car is not parked at the correct location. '
Would you have any case numbers so we can see adjudicators' reasoning?
-
London councils, which include Redbridge, and also TfL, are now getting around £650 million a year from parking and traffic penalties. Any hope of them acting fairly is very misplaced because they are just totally ignoring government guidance.
An authority has a discretionary power to cancel a PCN at any point throughout the process. It can do this even when an undoubted contravention has occurred if the authority deems it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest. Failure to act in accordance with the general principles of public law may lead to a claim for a decision to be judicially reviewed.
Enforcement authorities have a duty not to fetter their discretion, so should ensure that PNCs, NtOs, leaflets and any other advice they give do not mislead the public about what they may consider in the way of representations.
They should approach the exercise of discretion objectively and without regard to any financial interest in the penalty or decisions that may have been taken at an earlier stage in proceedings.[/i]
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
-
https://ibb.co/JWhrgpN2
This was the council repsonse
-
Hello
So their response is above on 1 of the imagebb.
My appeal I sent directly on their portal and didn't save it anywhere unfortunately, but it covers what I mentioned above. I did not use any formal template this time.
-
Let's see your challenge and their rejection.
While you can't pay for a free thing the tribunal mostly says the contravention of not paying occurs if the correct car is not parked at the correct location.
These days Redbridge like a lot of councils won't use discretion without compelling mitigation despite guidance about being fair.
-
Hi all
I am in need of some help please. I think I also have shot myself in the foot.
I got a council window shield PCN for using an incorrect car registration in the Ringo app. Essentially, I had changed my number plate literally the day before, and forgot to update the Ringo app with my new reg number.
Got the below windowshield PCN.
Now this is where I may have shot myself in a foot. I really thought they'd be lenient because of the appeal I sent to the council.
I essentially said that I changed my plate yesterday. I even sent them a copy of the eV948 as evidence which I thought would've been perfect evidence. Obviously I also attached proof of the Ringo purchase etc I made with the old vehicle reg. Worth nothing, it was 1 hr free parking too, which I also mentioned in the appeal.
They rejected it, I couldn't believe it. See below imagebb. I don't usually send appeals willy nilly like this but I thought I had more than enough evidence to support my case.
So now I am in need of some help, and want to ask if I should cut my losses and pay the £55 discount, or if it is worth fighting further.
All help will be appreciated.
https://ibb.co/YBkVkw2k
https://ibb.co/JWhrgpN2
https://ibb.co/XxWBC86q
https://ibb.co/bRBjfJ2B