Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: 968t on April 04, 2024, 08:09:14 pm

Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: H C Andersen on September 15, 2024, 04:17:42 pm
I referred to the written decision because IMO there's no need to go further.

The adjudicator accepted in that decision that the list of representation grounds on the website was incomplete. She cited one, but IMO it makes no difference how many e.g. 1 or all but 1, incomplete is incomplete.
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: Hippocrates on September 15, 2024, 02:42:27 pm
I am not privy to what was submitted of course. But, in this case they did retreat and I have asked why:

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/code-27-royal-borough-of-kingston-upon-thames/msg33605/#msg33605

I would ask for a review but that is up to cp8759 and the OP.
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: H C Andersen on September 15, 2024, 01:25:27 pm
OP, based upon this decision alone I would consider an application for review.

It is known, or should be known, that the complexity and clarity of the grounds
which apply to shared use permit and payment bays(code 12) is not a silver bullet argument at adjudication. I put it this way because the code is NOT IMO part of the grounds, it is an administrative measure included within PCNs by authorities. IMO, a correct reading of the law in this regard should give the list of grounds followed by a code, not a code followed by grounds: the law is only interested in grounds. It's not done this way because numerical order looks neater and computers find it easier to manage.

So, IMO code 12 and 's' should be ignored when assessing whether the grounds convey the contravention with sufficient clarity. Having said this, the approved grounds don't include the words '(shared use bay)' but where London Councils' Contravention Codes include a suffix it always includes a written description e.g. 'General Suffixes ..s) shared use bay''.

But this omission wasn't put to the authority in formal reps*.

But I would focus on this part of the decision:

'The Regulations state that....the NTO should include the address of any website where representations may be submitted online. The Notice to Owner includes the Council's website address. The Regulations do not refer to what information a council should provide on their websites.'

Give us a break!

Is the adjudicator seriously suggesting that the requirement that 'a website where representations may be submitted' may exclude whatever grounds the council decide and yet still satisfy the requirement that representations may be submitted! FFS.

*- I'm not in favour of 'ambushing' authorities at adjudication with arguments that could and IMO should have been put to them in formal reps but which were deliberately omitted in order to test a point only directly with an adjudicator when it would be virtually certain that the authority would not be represented. 

But this view is not unanimous?
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: Hippocrates on September 15, 2024, 11:36:42 am
@cp8759The learned Michael Lawrence always stuck by his decisions for the sake of consistency. This decision hardly inspires confidence in the Tribunal. Serendipity. Review? Time to create a stink as far as Tommy Poirot is concerned. How can it be right that when you type in the correct grounds and it comes up with "unavailable"? This is a shambles.

Which are the days when she doesn't sit?  >:(
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: cp8759 on September 15, 2024, 11:28:15 am
Well Teresa Brennan has changed her mind unfortunately, outcome here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dLtcHRwJAv00bMikhuPDKvGo4DoNexr6/view).
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: Hippocrates on August 22, 2024, 01:22:51 pm
All clear now.
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: 968t on August 22, 2024, 12:54:48 pm
Hi Hippocrates, I am currently waiting on my appeal, we have a date but it has not happened yet.

I will update once this has gone through.

Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: Hippocrates on August 21, 2024, 01:01:54 pm
@968t what is happening as it still shows £110
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: Hippocrates on June 16, 2024, 09:27:41 pm
I am free.
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: cp8759 on June 16, 2024, 09:25:27 pm
I would definitely appeal this.
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: Hippocrates on June 14, 2024, 08:08:43 pm
https://imgur.com/rhT1eD6

Immediately!

Has cp8759 offered to represent? If not, I will do it.

Is that all of the NOR? If so, it is lacking information.

I have in mind 6(6) ff

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/576/regulation/6

Website says this:

Click your reason or search for it below
Resident's permit
Printed resident's permit
We will reconsider if you upload a copy of your resident's permit.

If you upload a copy of your resident's permit we'll double check that resident's permits could be used for the vehicle, date and place where you parked you parked. We may not reconsider your Penalty Charge if you were parked where resident's permits are not allowed to be used.

If we have previously cancelled a Penalty Charge of yours through goodwill, we may not cancel this one.

Virtual resident's permit
We will reconsider if you explain what the issue was with your resident's permit. Please include any screenshots, confirmation emails or receipts that you have. We will check that your resident's permit was valid for the vehicle, date and place where you parked

Select this reason to use it in your challenge
Tried paying by phone/app
If you explain the problem you had trying to pay by phone, we will reconsider your case and then reply to you. Please upload any receipts, emails or screenshots that show you tried to pay by phone or online.
Select this reason to use it in your challenge
Didn't see/understand the signs
Your Penalty Charge was issued for contravention 12: parking without paying or without clearly displaying the relevant item (such as a permit or Pay & Display ticket). In bays where virtual (electronic) permits can be used or where you can pay to park by phone or online, Civil Enforcement Officers check their handheld computers before issuing a Penalty Charge. The sign(s) beside the bay explain who the bay is for.
Select this reason to use it in your challenge
Was loading/unloading
We will reconsider if you upload a copy of your delivery note, receipt/invoice for goods or job sheet. We will check that your document was valid.

We will reconsider your case if you provide us with more information. Depending on what you were loading or unloading, we may need to see a delivery note, a receipt/invoice for goods or a job sheet. And please describe the loading or unloading activity. Among other things, we will check: that what you were doing counts as loading or unloading; and that you only parked as long as necessary for the loading or unloading that you did.
Select this reason to use it in your challenge
Signs/lines faulty
If you explain why you believe the signs or markings were faulty, we will reconsider your case and then reply to you.
Select this reason to use it in your challenge
Procedural impropriety
We were unable to find a matching reason, please try another search term

*********

Tribunal website:

Stage 1 – You have received a Notice of Rejection
The person to whom a Notice of Rejection has been issued has 28 days, beginning with the date of service of that notice, to:

Pay the charge; or
Appeal to the adjudicator.
A Notice of Appeal form should be sent by the enforcement authority with their Notice of Rejection. If this form is not enclosed, the authority should be contacted to obtain one.

If you miss the 28 time limit your appeal may still be registered by the adjudicator.  When you submit your appeal you must include an explanation for the delay. The adjudicator will then decide whether the appeal should be registered
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: 968t on June 14, 2024, 11:21:39 am
(https://i.imgur.com/h382pkF.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/rhT1eD6.png)
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: Hippocrates on June 13, 2024, 11:39:54 am
As per HCA.

previous decisions take by adjudicators are neither binding on other adjudicators or a statement of law
 etc.


Bolleaux in bold. :o
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: H C Andersen on June 13, 2024, 11:02:43 am
We'd better see the NOR pl.

Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: 968t on June 13, 2024, 10:22:32 am
Quote from: cp8759 on May 27, 2024, 09:44:54 am
@968t I suggest you make a representation asking the council to exercise discretion, and if they refuse an appeal to the tribunal can be easily won based on these cases:

Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230464748, 15 February 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q88oTLrU2jQVfF8GH4_qDIrcjnWr9Ozh/view)
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230487415, 23 February 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BsSXu-Op8qxCns4Glwd1ojwu5Y4rSsXk/view)
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230545861, 26 February 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BT9woH9WHHUNmWrhFUGn8MGDNnOJePUM/view)
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2240138955, 18 May 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/13D9t_RFUl68WIrqcDJjgP8HP0q9o_-bi/view)

Of course you don't want to mention that now because doing so would undermine the argument. Here's what you could send:

Dear Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames,

In the first instance I require you to reconsider my informal representations. I also draw your attention to the decisions in Andrew David Rush v London Borough of Southwark (2120562288, 5 January 2013) and Natalie van Dijk v London Borough of Islington (2150275729, 23 September 2015), while those cases are not binding there is no reason to suppose the adjudicator would reach a different conclusion in this case.

Yours faithfully,

Make representations online and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.

Formal notice of rejection has just arrived. The reasons given are pretty much the same as the first response posted above, wrong vehicle paid for (they acknowledge that I paid for the wrong vehicle and reference the Rinngo evidence I provided), previous decisions take by adjudicators are neither binding on other adjudicators or a statement of law etc.

I can post the complete response up if required?

I have 28 days to appeal to the independent Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: Hippocrates on May 27, 2024, 09:41:06 pm
Just read (past tense) the PM.  I would also screenshot all details on their website re grounds.
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: 968t on May 27, 2024, 11:23:36 am
Thanks CP. I have submitted the response via their challenge page on the Kingston website. I have email confirmation and screenshots.
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: cp8759 on May 27, 2024, 09:44:54 am
@968t I suggest you make a representation asking the council to exercise discretion, and if they refuse an appeal to the tribunal can be easily won based on these cases:

Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230464748, 15 February 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q88oTLrU2jQVfF8GH4_qDIrcjnWr9Ozh/view)
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230487415, 23 February 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BsSXu-Op8qxCns4Glwd1ojwu5Y4rSsXk/view)
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230545861, 26 February 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BT9woH9WHHUNmWrhFUGn8MGDNnOJePUM/view)
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2240138955, 18 May 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/13D9t_RFUl68WIrqcDJjgP8HP0q9o_-bi/view)

Of course you don't want to mention that now because doing so would undermine the argument. Here's what you could send:

Dear Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames,

In the first instance I require you to reconsider my informal representations. I also draw your attention to the decisions in Andrew David Rush v London Borough of Southwark (2120562288, 5 January 2013) and Natalie van Dijk v London Borough of Islington (2150275729, 23 September 2015), while those cases are not binding there is no reason to suppose the adjudicator would reach a different conclusion in this case.

Yours faithfully,

Make representations online and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: H C Andersen on May 23, 2024, 07:24:15 pm
Yes, discretion still applies, indeed the authority may cancel a PCN at any time.

As regards grounds of a PI, I don't think this is a correct reading of the regs.

The legal requirement for a PCN in this respect is:

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,


My emphasis.

Not 'must state', even less that the words must be used verbatim, but 'information to be included'. And IMO provided the information is included, however expressed providing it is clear and does not mislead, then there cannot be a PI.


A PCN must be read as a whole and must convey the meaning of the words in the regs.

Can the meaning be conveyed, and therefore compliance achieved, without using the words in the regs?

IMO, yes.

Has it on this occasion?

The regs also require (as part of the 'Regulatory Matters' ) that the information includes

c)the date on and the time at which the alleged contravention occurred,.

Not, 'This is the Contravention Date' but 'the date on which....'.

So, does the PCN carry this information? It certainly doesn't say 'Date of Contravention' but says:

Was seen in...
On...
Between .....12.36 and 12.43


So, if this isn't 'Particulars to be included' then you should put this forward as a PI, otherwise if this satisfies the regs then IMO so must 'date on which the contravention occurred.'

There will be other views, I'm sure.
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: 968t on May 23, 2024, 09:42:47 am
Quote from: H C Andersen on May 23, 2024, 09:28:24 am
that it is wrong for the council not to exercise their discretion when it is pretty obvious that this was a genuine mistake,

How would they know? Both vehicles could have parked on the same day, one with the benefit of payment and one without. How would the authority know the link you say exists between the two cars and their drivers?

And it's their choice whether to exercise discretion, so don't compile reps which in any way hint at them having to do so.

Remember, an adjudicator cannot exercise discretion, so IMO this is your last bite of the cherry on this point.

Do not expect them to fill in gaps in your reps e.g. to check whether the other vehicle was also parked at that time. Explain every point you want to get across.

I don't disagree with what you say above at all. It is totally their choice, however my experience with this council is that they will do anything they can to profit from parking so my cynical side feels their default response will always be the same, no discretion. I provided all the evidence I had to show that both vehicles were registered in my app at the time, screenshots etc, that is all I had. I could also provide copies of log books to show both are registered to people with the same last name, but I could never prove that both vehicles were not parked in the same zone to eliminate the possibility that one had paid and one had not.....

As you will probably know better than me, does the discretion point still apply in this next step responding to the NTO or should the response better be focused on points of law in terms of the wording of the PCN?
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: H C Andersen on May 23, 2024, 09:28:24 am
that it is wrong for the council not to exercise their discretion when it is pretty obvious that this was a genuine mistake,

How would they know? Both vehicles could have parked on the same day, one with the benefit of payment and one without. How would the authority know the link you say exists between the two cars and their drivers?

And it's their choice whether to exercise discretion, so don't compile reps which in any way hint at them having to do so.

Remember, an adjudicator cannot exercise discretion, so IMO this is your last bite of the cherry on this point.

Do not expect them to fill in gaps in your reps e.g. to check whether the other vehicle was also parked at that time. Explain every point you want to get across.
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: 968t on May 23, 2024, 09:12:13 am
Quote from: cp8759 on April 06, 2024, 12:23:11 pm
A decision by an adjudicator isn't a statement of the law? I wonder if they've told the adjudicator?!?

I would definitely wait for the NTO, though we'll want to spruce up the formal representations a bit.

Do you have the V5C and is the address up to date?

@cp8759 and @Hippocrates are you able to 'spruce up' as mentioned above now I have the NTO?
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: 968t on May 22, 2024, 09:14:30 am
Quote from: H C Andersen on May 21, 2024, 08:58:40 pm
OP, just stand back and think about what you submitted in your informal reps.

The required tariff was not paid for the car in question. But this should be forgiven because the person making the informal reps, who claimed to be associated with this vehicle and another one, says they paid for the different vehicle.

Did you:
Submit a screenshot of your RingGo page showing the combination of vehicle VRMs;
Put yourself in the position of the person whose mind starts as a blank canvas?

Or did you think that the mere act of saying would be accepted as fact?

Next time, think of what the reader would need to see for them to be persuaded to your point of view.

Yes, I submitted all of the Ringgo details and referred to a previous case which I thought might help. The reason I chose not to pay the reduced fee and wait for the NTO is because I still feel that it is wrong for the council not to exercise their discretion when it is pretty obvious that this was a genuine mistake, that combined with the comments from Hippocrates and CP above that highlight some shortcomings in the PCN wording that might make the PCN non compliant. However I also appreciate what you say above.

Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: H C Andersen on May 21, 2024, 08:58:40 pm
OP, just stand back and think about what you submitted in your informal reps.

The required tariff was not paid for the car in question. But this should be forgiven because the person making the informal reps, who claimed to be associated with this vehicle and another one, says they paid for the different vehicle.

Did you:
Submit a screenshot of your RingGo page showing the combination of vehicle VRMs;
Put yourself in the position of the person whose mind starts as a blank canvas?

Or did you think that the mere act of saying would be accepted as fact?

Next time, think of what the reader would need to see for them to be persuaded to your point of view.
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: 968t on May 21, 2024, 02:40:09 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/TPd3AcQ.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/UkfuK1Z.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/YZBTZj0.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/YxjrlSc.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/Y9cLHhd.jpeg)
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: 968t on May 01, 2024, 11:46:20 am
(https://i.imgur.com/O8JGdDf.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/5OA9OPf.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/bqjwV9j.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/DzHcShz.jpeg)

Still waiting for NTO...
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: Hippocrates on April 08, 2024, 10:14:48 am
Well, definitely wait for the NtO and then add the wording issues. Can you get a photo of the payment machine please?
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: 968t on April 08, 2024, 08:38:21 am
Quote from: cp8759 on April 06, 2024, 12:23:11 pm
A decision by an adjudicator isn't a statement of the law? I wonder if they've told the adjudicator?!?

I would definitely wait for the NTO, though we'll want to spruce up the formal representations a bit.

Do you have the V5C and is the address up to date?

Everything is in my name and up to date, yes, so it is just a case of waiting for the NTO now.

Thanks for all of the responses so far. I see I was probably on the wrong track in my initial response....I am surprised local councils are not using the correct wording, seems a bit weak!
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: 968t on April 08, 2024, 08:33:20 am
The following text was what I sent on the initial challenge:

Parking was paid for via the Ringo App, unfortunately I did not have my glasses with me and I selected what I thought was my car, which is down as a Silver Volkswagen in the Ringo App, however I had forgotten that I had added my fathers car into the app to help him pay for his parking as he is too old to use the app, and I selected his car, also a Silver Volkswagen by mistake. Once the confirmation text came through I realised the wrong vehicle had been selected and I tried to change the car via the app but the app only allows you to do this within the first 15 minutes and it was already 20 minutes later. I ran back to the car but the ticket had already been issued. Looking into the legalities of this point it would appear that it is a common issue and one that has been dealt with by multiple parking adjudicators. As the council has suffered no loss, as the time for parking the car was paid for, there should be no reason why the fine cannot be cancelled. The attached receipt proves that payment was made and as such no material loss has been suffered by the council. Furthermore, the signage is somewhat lacking in detail in this areas, as there are no terms and conditions shown, either for the parking area or the use of the app. As such we hope you will agree that payment for the period in question (see attachement) was indeed made in good faith, no material loss has been suffered by the council and that this PCN can be cancelled.
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: Hippocrates on April 07, 2024, 09:40:48 pm
Quote from: cp8759 on April 05, 2024, 12:19:41 am
Quote from: 968t on April 04, 2024, 08:09:14 pm
They rejected my claim and have stated that the PCN was issued correctly
Can we see this response please?

@968t Can we also see what was written as the initial challenge? How can we advise if we are not fully informed  with what has been going on?
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: Hippocrates on April 06, 2024, 10:51:26 pm
Well, at least, the present Parking Manager is slightly better than the last one.  Gareth Campbell (the former), Mrs Anita Haylock-Roeleveld (the latter).  Total bolleaux response and as cp advised, wait for the NtO. I have three live parking cases at present with this council. I assisted with this case: 2100649871

It is an enduring mystery why Local Authorities seem unable simply to copy out the words of the statute or statutory instrument imposing formal requirements. It is not sufficient for the Local Authority to say as here that they have subsequently amended the wording. They have given no good reason for departing from the statutory wording in the first place. However, the fact that the Enforcement Authority depart from the formal wording of a statute or statutory instrument does not necessarily invalidate the document. The question I have to consider is whether the PCN was substantially compliant.

I regard this as a borderline case. Having considered the matter very carefully I do not feel able to say that the wording on the PCN is substantially compliant and accordingly I allow the appeal.
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: cp8759 on April 06, 2024, 12:23:11 pm
A decision by an adjudicator isn't a statement of the law? I wonder if they've told the adjudicator?!?

I would definitely wait for the NTO, though we'll want to spruce up the formal representations a bit.

Do you have the V5C and is the address up to date?
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: 968t on April 05, 2024, 05:22:04 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/LApJLwq.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/Tqgq0a4.jpeg)
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: cp8759 on April 05, 2024, 12:19:41 am
Quote from: 968t on April 04, 2024, 08:09:14 pm
They rejected my claim and have stated that the PCN was issued correctly
Can we see this response please?
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: 968t on April 04, 2024, 10:25:26 pm
Thanks Hippocrates, much appreciated.

Just to clarify, I should wait for the Notice to Owner to arrive before sending this response?

Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: Hippocrates on April 04, 2024, 09:25:31 pm
Dear Kingston Council

Ref: PCN  VRM

       
I challenge this PCN as follows:

1.The wording of the PCN in terms of the 28 days period is wrong since it does not comply with Schedule 2 para. 2 @  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/2
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred,


2. The code contains a range of multiple choice versions of the alleged contravention.

In light of these procedural improprieties, the PCN must be cancelled since tjhe PCN when read as a whole is non-compliant.

Yours

Registered keeper

Address
Title: Re: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: 968t on April 04, 2024, 08:42:52 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/QI0jevb.jpeg)
Title: Kingston 12s Parked without valid virtual permit - Used wrong vehicle in Ringgo
Post by: 968t on April 04, 2024, 08:09:14 pm
I paid for parking on street in a pay and display bay using Ringgo but unfortunately I did not have my reading glasses and selected the wrong vehicle in Ringgo on my phone app. I have two silver VW's on there, one is my dads which is the one I selected by mistake.

An honest mistake and I have sent the evidence of payment to the council on their website where you can in the first instance contest the PCN explaining that I paid for the wrong car etc. I also referenced what seems to be a common point which is that as I paid for the parking on the app, they have suffered no actual loss, have taken the payment and also issued the fine and that it was a genuine mistake in the app.

They rejected my claim and have stated that the PCN was issued correctly, which having done some background reading on here seems to be correct. However I also understand they have to act fairly and are encouraged to use discretion by the government, which they are clearly not doing here.

The next step is to wait for a Notice to Owner and appeal from there.

I have looked to see what the current thinking is on this topic as it must be a fairly common error and it seems that some councils do accept this as a genuine reason to exercise their discretion but others do not.

Is it worth carrying on with the appeal process and are there any template responses I could use if so?

Many thanks.