Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Felics on January 24, 2025, 11:39:17 pm
-
Hi @John U.K., thanks for your response!
I've just posted my own thread - https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/london-borough-of-hounslow-hanworth-airparks-leisure-centre-code-73u-parked-with/
Would really appreciate any help. Thanks again!
-
Did anything come from this? I'm pretty much in the same boat, just had my initial appeal rejected by the council.
Thanks in advance!
@Felics has not been seen for a long time, so for advice with your own case please
have a read of
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
and start your own thread with
a brief account of all the circumstances (by all means include a reference to this thread),
all sides of the PCN and all correspondence to and from the Council (redact only yr name & address - leave all else in),
any Council photos,
and
a GSV link to the location.
You could also try a PM to Felics.
-
Did anything come from this? I'm pretty much in the same boat, just had my initial appeal rejected by the council.
Thanks in advance!
-
At this stage IMO all you need is:
Contravention did not occur;
Procedural impropriety.
I rely upon my formal representations and will be submitting further representations upon receipt of the authority's evidence and to support my grounds of procedural impropriety.
As regards procedural impropriety(PI) this arises from the NOR which omits mandatory information. On this point, pl post the 'appeal form' and the 'guidance notes attached'.
So nothing additional like mentioned in my earlier post? Will the adjudicator have access to my evidence from my formal reps?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/4g8gmQi.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/pU3D1Zq.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/1cWtsST.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/5MV6aBL.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/LwSbnhI.jpeg)
-
At this stage IMO all you need is:
Contravention did not occur;
Procedural impropriety.
I rely upon my formal representations and will be submitting further representations upon receipt of the authority's evidence and to support my grounds of procedural impropriety.
As regards procedural impropriety(PI) this arises from the NOR which omits mandatory information. On this point, pl post the 'appeal form' and the 'guidance notes attached'.
-
Contravention did not occur.
The second case you cite you have picked out the wrong part - it's the last point about free parking you need.
I would also say something about the council's rejection. which refers to no valid parking session, but the contravention is not paying for parking. They could have issued a different contravention of no valid P&D 'display'.
I would also say you did activate the free hour and provide proof as that shows you had an hour in mind.
Much depends on the adjudicator but at least if you get one of the tough ones you can evidence other cases.
-
I've populated as below. Any comments/guidance before I submit?
(https://i.imgur.com/7RYGyJq.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/H2gwyOt.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/f3prsme.jpeg)
-
You just need to register the appeal. Ask for a personal or telephone hearing.
You are not now making reps but putting forward a case to the adjudicator so you need a different approach/wording.
Thanks,
On the online portal, there are a couple of options to choose from. Which should I choose or does it make no difference?
(https://i.imgur.com/WEcHqFw.jpeg)
It also asks why I am appealing - can I not put the blurb I have above in my earlier post?
(https://i.imgur.com/jRVykXY.jpeg)
-
You just need to register the appeal. Ask for a personal or telephone hearing.
You are not now making reps but putting forward a case to the adjudicator so you need a different approach/wording.
-
I am thinking of responding with the below and including the following evidence:
My receipt for shopping at the specific time
My ring video doorbell showing me leaving and returning back.
-------------------
I am making representation of parking ticket issued to my vehicle (PCN XXX) on 23 January 2025. The alleged contravention of “Parked without payment of the parking charge” did not occur, and I request that this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) be cancelled based on the following grounds:
1.First Hour is Free: The parking terms at the location clearly state that the first hour of parking is free. A charge cannot be enforced for non-payment of a free parking period. I was within this free period at the time the PCN was issued.
2.Evidence of Parking Duration: I have additional supporting evidence from my Ring Video Doorbell, which captures timestamped images of my departure and return. These images confirm that my total parking duration was under 45 minutes, further reinforcing that I was within the free parking period.
3.Precedents from Similar Cases: Several independent adjudications have ruled in favour of appellants in comparable situations:
- Case Reference 2240496252 (Sham Choudhury v. London Borough of Redbridge): The adjudicator ruled that a PCN cannot be issued for failing to pay for a period that is free of charge.
- Case Reference 2240428886 (Ololade Oluyoye v. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham): The adjudicator determined that motorists must be allowed a reasonable time to register their parking and that technical delays should be taken into account.
- Case Reference 2240441669 (June Rosetta Greenhalf v. London Borough of Havering): The adjudicator found that the parking terms did not explicitly require registration for free parking, and therefore, the PCN was invalid.
In light of the above points and supporting case law, I respectfully request that this Penalty Charge Notice be revoked.
-
Any comments on the above ? Thanks in advance.
-
Fopr some reason you are still redacting the PCN no. and reg.mark.
More importantly, you have redacted the date of the NoR, which, as the notice itself explains explains, governs the nex stages in the process.
Please supply the missing info...
Sorry old habits...
See updated above.
-
Fopr some reason you are still redacting the PCN no. and reg.mark.
More importantly, you have redacted the date of the NoR, which, as the notice itself explains explains, governs the nex stages in the process.
Please supply the missing info...
-
Received a notice of rejection.
I will be drafting my appeal to the ajudicator soon.
Would be great if someone could scan.
(https://i.imgur.com/8J1EPbF.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/eGWGJv3.jpeg)
-
DRAFT BELOW:
-------------------
I am making representation of parking ticket issued to my vehicle (PCN XXX) on 23 January 2025. The alleged contravention of “Parked without payment of the parking charge” did not occur, and I request that this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) be cancelled based on the following grounds:
1.First Hour is Free: The parking terms at the location clearly state that the first hour of parking is free. A charge cannot be enforced for non-payment of a free parking period. I was within this free period at the time the PCN was issued.
2.Evidence of Parking Duration: I have additional supporting evidence from my Ring Video Doorbell, which captures timestamped images of my departure and return. These images confirm that my total parking duration was under 45 minutes, further reinforcing that I was within the free parking period.
3.Precedents from Similar Cases: Several independent adjudications have ruled in favour of appellants in comparable situations:
- Case Reference 2240496252 (Sham Choudhury v. London Borough of Redbridge): The adjudicator ruled that a PCN cannot be issued for failing to pay for a period that is free of charge.
- Case Reference 2240428886 (Ololade Oluyoye v. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham): The adjudicator determined that motorists must be allowed a reasonable time to register their parking and that technical delays should be taken into account.
- Case Reference 2240441669 (June Rosetta Greenhalf v. London Borough of Havering): The adjudicator found that the parking terms did not explicitly require registration for free parking, and therefore, the PCN was invalid.
In light of the above points and supporting case law, I respectfully request that this Penalty Charge Notice be revoked.
-
OK great, thanks.
I'm going to draft something up and put on here. Would be great if someone could have a look to see if its coherent.
Thanks
-
The key message is that you must not ignore the NtO because if you do, you lose all subsequent rights to contest it.
Receipt of an NtO means the discount option has gone, so it is a total no-brainer to take them all the way to London Tribunals. However, first you must submit your reps again, this time against the NtO.
-
Reps should be stating that the contravention did not occur as no parking charge was due in the first hour, and you have evidence you were parked for less than an hour.
Here are other possible cases that could be quoted.
-----------
Case reference 2240496252
Appellant Sham Choudhury
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM FD57ZCX
PCN Details
PCN AF07715145
Contravention date 22 Jul 2024
Contravention time 17:01:00
Contravention location Albert Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 30 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons 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.
------------
Case reference 2240428886
Appellant Ololade Oluyoye
Authority London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
VRM VX72PCF
PCN Details
PCN BZ61951006
Contravention date 02 Aug 2024
Contravention time 12:11:00
Contravention location Clockhouse Avenue
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 24 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons I heard the Appellant in person.
I see no reason at all to doubt her evidence as to what occurred. Essentially on parking her vehicle she immediately began to attempt to make payment but was delayed as a result of poor reception /problems with the app. The PCN was issued whilst she was in the process of attempting to pay.
On parking a vehicle in any sort of bay the motorist is allowed a reasonable time to do whatever is necessary to validate the parking, in this case to make a payment. What is a reasonable time is a question of fact in all the circumstances of the case, and the motorist must of course act promptly. It seems to me that it is inevitable that the technology will not always work as it should and that some reasonable allowance must be made in this situation (although the time would of course eventually come when the motorist has to give up and use another method of payment). On the facts of the present case I am satisfied the Appellant had not exceeded the reasonable time allowable and that, as it transpires, the PCN was not correctly issued.
The Appeal would also fall to be allowed for two more fundamental reasons. The Council has provided an Amending Traffic Management Order but this is of little value in the absence of the “Parent” order which it amends. In the absence of that Order it is impossible to be satisfied that payment was required or if so how it was to be made.
In addition, it appears that the parking session in question was free. If something is “free” payment is not required for it; and unless the TMO contains some particular provision dealing with this point and issuing a PCN for a failure to “pay” is incorrect.
---------
Case reference 2240441669
Appellant June Rosetta Greenhalf
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM AC03JAG
PCN Details
PCN HG34158396
Contravention date 29 May 2024
Contravention time 12:20:00
Contravention location Keswick Avenue Car Park
Penalty amount GBP 60.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 05 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons Mrs Greenhalf has attended the hearing today with her husband, Mr Keith Greenhalf.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in Keswick Avenue Car Park without payment of the parking charge.
Mrs Greenhalf says that the car was parked for around 15 minutes and the CEO recorded a 6 minute observation period before the PCN was issued. 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 allow the appeal for these reasons.
------------
-
Hello,
NTO received a few days ago.
Thoughts on how to proceed?
(https://i.imgur.com/GZoScHU.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/fStmkUz.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/voo5Dxk.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Y9TeQ7S.jpeg)
-
It supports your case, so put it in.
Don't be shocked if they reject your reps, because councils refuse almost all informal reps because they know that if they do, most people then just cough-up, thus maintaining their "nice little earner". Councils keep all the money from PCN payments, did you know that ?
The optimist thought the councils existed for the greater good of the borough. ???
But who decides what that 'greater good' is ?
-
It supports your case, so put it in.
Don't be shocked if they reject your reps, because councils refuse almost all informal reps because they know that if they do, most people then just cough-up, thus maintaining their "nice little earner". Councils keep all the money from PCN payments, did you know that ?
The optimist thought the councils existed for the greater good of the borough. ???
-
It supports your case, so put it in.
Don't be shocked if they reject your reps, because councils refuse almost all informal reps because they know that if they do, most people then just cough-up, thus maintaining their "nice little earner". Councils keep all the money from PCN payments, did you know that ?
-
I have a shopping receipt showing 1.20PM and also ring doorbells screenshot below (conveniently showing the PCN still on my dash as I hadnt yet spotted it!)
First is of me leaving with timestamp and second of me returning with timestamp. Car in the drive.
(https://i.imgur.com/gOUQCie.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/NAdQv7e.jpeg)
Do you think that would suffice? Should I also send these bits of evidence to Redbridge in my initial appeal?
-
Any receipts from shopping? It would help if you can line up the under 1 hour - your doorbell could do - as the case I posted was predicated on the first adjudicator finding that it was under the free hour.
I would say:
I challenge the PCN because the alleged contravention of parked without payment of the parking charge cannot apply as I ensured my visit to local shops took well under the free hour allowed.
In any case I did manage to obtain a ticket not long after parking (see enclosed).
I believe I am on firm ground here in saying that the contravention did not occur because a parking charge is not due for the first hour.
I look forward to your early conformation of cancellation of the PCN.
-
I don't have any proof aside from me leaving my house and coming back (via my Ring Doorbell).
-
This needs a redraft. It's an informal challenge. The decision I posted needs careful handling.
First though - do you have proof you only parked for 45 minutes?
-
So I have drafted a response to my first appeal below.
Please could someone let me know if this is OK to send to the borough?
---------------
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally appeal the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) referenced above, issued for parking at Cameron Road on 23/01/2025. I respectfully request the cancellation of this notice based on the following circumstances and evidence.
On the date in question, I parked my vehicle in the designated bay where the first hour of parking is free, as outlined by the Council's conditions of use. Unfortunately, I forgot to register my parking session immediately upon exiting my vehicle. I rectified this oversight within 10 minutes by successfully registering my session through the RingGo app.
As my parking duration did not exceed the first free hour, no parking charge was due for this period. I have attached evidence of my registration to demonstrate that I complied with the parking requirements, albeit slightly delayed.
I would like to draw your attention to a similar case that reached an adjudication, where a PCN was eventually cancelled. In Sean Stanton-Dunne’s decision dated 22 January 2025, the Adjudicator stated:
“It must follow, as a matter of fact, that there was no parking charge due from which it must also follow that the alleged contravention did not occur. The Council's conditions of use explain to the motorist that a ticket or RingGo session is to be obtained at the time of parking. They do not say that a parking charge is due for the first hour if that condition is not complied with.”
This precedent supports the argument that failing to immediately register for free parking does not equate to a valid contravention, particularly when the vehicle was parked for less than the allotted free hour.
I respectfully request that Redbridge Borough Council exercise discretion in this matter and cancel the PCN, given that no parking charge was due, and I promptly remedied my error. I trust this matter can be resolved amicably and that the penalty will be withdrawn.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your positive response.
Yours faithfully,
Felics
-
PCN : AF08588236
REG: FE15NXW
Hopefully that helps.
-
Come on Felics, you know the rules!
-
Thanks John - Can I send you the PCN number and Reg mark privately? Or would you like me to still post on the thread?
Just edit your last post to add them - your reg mark is there for the world to see, anyway, and the experts here like to be able to check the Council site for errors in the 'small print', for which they also need the PCN number..
-
This reviewed case from a few days ago shows that the contravention of not paying for a free hour is a nonsense.
-------------
Case reference 2240378813
Appellant Mark Andrews
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM MJ65ZYB
PCN Details
PCN AF07114746
Contravention date 31 May 2024
Contravention time 12:59:00
Contravention location GEORGE LANE VIADUCT
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 23 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal refused with recommendation
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons The Appellant has attended for his appeal. I find him to be an honest, convincing and consistent witness. I believe what he tells me.
The Enforcement Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge when in the George Lane Viaduct on 31 May 2024 at 12:59.
The Appellant's case is that he was parked at this location to deal with an urgent matter. He looked for a pay machine to purchase time to park, however, the four machines he found were out of order. He then tried to pay using the Ringo App. He has produced clear evidence by way of screenshots of his attempts to purchase time by using the RingGo application - all to no avail. The last message indicated that RingGo could not provide parking time. The Authority has provided statistics to show how many successfully contacted them - presumably many to pay mothing - as the first hour is free to park. The Appellant then attempted to access the Authority's website to pay to park, however, this also failed. He then attended to his chore, which took about 10 minutes, and he then left the location. All this took just under an hour.
I have considered the evidence and I find that Appellant's vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge when in in the George Lane Viaduct on 31 May 2024.
If the Appellant had not attended to his task I would have made a finding that insufficient time was permitted to pay in the circumstances of this case. However, he was not permitted to park for 10 minutes to attend to his chore.
I have accepted the Appellant's evidence because I find it credible and realistic. If he had been able to find a working pay machine or have got through to RingGo there would have been nothing to pay as the first hour is free.
Due to the unfortunate set of circumstances I find this Appellant encountered, there is now a penalty of £80.00 due to parking in a place, which would have been free if he had been able to register his arrival time. All matters raised only go to mitigating circumstances.
In the circumstances of this case, in which the Appellant was unable to register for his 'free period' of parking, I strongly recommend to the Authority that they either cancel this PCN or do not collect the penalty amount.
The appeal is refused with a recommendation for cancelation of this PCN.
Recommendation cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Decision Date 22 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Previous decision Appeal refused with recommendation
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner. The Council is also directed to refund the penalty charge paid.
Reasons Mr Andrews has attended the hearing today by telephone.
Adjudicator Carl Teper refused this appeal in his decision entered on 23 November 2024.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked without payment of the parking charge. It was not in dispute that Mr Andrews' car was parked in a bay where there was free parking for up to one hour.
Mr Teper made a finding of fact that the vehicle was parked for less than one hour. It must follow, as a matter of fact, that there was no parking charge due from which it must also follow that the alleged contravention did not occur. In my judgement, it was a mistake on the facts to find that a parking charge was due. The application for review is allowed on that basis and in the interests of justice.
The Council's conditions of use explain to the motorist that a ticket or Ringo session is to be obtained at the time of parking. They do not say that a parking charge is due for the first hour if that condition is not complied with.
It follows that the appeal is allowed.
Thanks - from my reading the first appeal was rejected but the second was allowed it seems?
Is it best for me to draft a response to Redbridge council for the first stage? It would be great if someone could review it.
-
As per
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
Please re-instate or post the Reg Mark and PCN number.
Thanks John - Can I send you the PCN number and Reg mark privately? Or would you like me to still post on the thread?
-
This reviewed case from a few days ago shows that the contravention of not paying for a free hour is a nonsense.
-------------
Case reference 2240378813
Appellant Mark Andrews
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM MJ65ZYB
PCN Details
PCN AF07114746
Contravention date 31 May 2024
Contravention time 12:59:00
Contravention location GEORGE LANE VIADUCT
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 23 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal refused with recommendation
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons The Appellant has attended for his appeal. I find him to be an honest, convincing and consistent witness. I believe what he tells me.
The Enforcement Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge when in the George Lane Viaduct on 31 May 2024 at 12:59.
The Appellant's case is that he was parked at this location to deal with an urgent matter. He looked for a pay machine to purchase time to park, however, the four machines he found were out of order. He then tried to pay using the Ringo App. He has produced clear evidence by way of screenshots of his attempts to purchase time by using the RingGo application - all to no avail. The last message indicated that RingGo could not provide parking time. The Authority has provided statistics to show how many successfully contacted them - presumably many to pay mothing - as the first hour is free to park. The Appellant then attempted to access the Authority's website to pay to park, however, this also failed. He then attended to his chore, which took about 10 minutes, and he then left the location. All this took just under an hour.
I have considered the evidence and I find that Appellant's vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge when in in the George Lane Viaduct on 31 May 2024.
If the Appellant had not attended to his task I would have made a finding that insufficient time was permitted to pay in the circumstances of this case. However, he was not permitted to park for 10 minutes to attend to his chore.
I have accepted the Appellant's evidence because I find it credible and realistic. If he had been able to find a working pay machine or have got through to RingGo there would have been nothing to pay as the first hour is free.
Due to the unfortunate set of circumstances I find this Appellant encountered, there is now a penalty of £80.00 due to parking in a place, which would have been free if he had been able to register his arrival time. All matters raised only go to mitigating circumstances.
In the circumstances of this case, in which the Appellant was unable to register for his 'free period' of parking, I strongly recommend to the Authority that they either cancel this PCN or do not collect the penalty amount.
The appeal is refused with a recommendation for cancelation of this PCN.
Recommendation cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Decision Date 22 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Previous decision Appeal refused with recommendation
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner. The Council is also directed to refund the penalty charge paid.
Reasons Mr Andrews has attended the hearing today by telephone.
Adjudicator Carl Teper refused this appeal in his decision entered on 23 November 2024.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked without payment of the parking charge. It was not in dispute that Mr Andrews' car was parked in a bay where there was free parking for up to one hour.
Mr Teper made a finding of fact that the vehicle was parked for less than one hour. It must follow, as a matter of fact, that there was no parking charge due from which it must also follow that the alleged contravention did not occur. In my judgement, it was a mistake on the facts to find that a parking charge was due. The application for review is allowed on that basis and in the interests of justice.
The Council's conditions of use explain to the motorist that a ticket or Ringo session is to be obtained at the time of parking. They do not say that a parking charge is due for the first hour if that condition is not complied with.
It follows that the appeal is allowed.
-
As per
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
Please re-instate or post the Reg Mark and PCN number.
-
I don't see how the alleged contravention of not paying is valid, because the first hour is free. However, the CEO doesn't know how long you've been there when checking the parked cars unless a free session has been obtained.
Only thing is they are unlikely to give way if you submit reps, so you have to be prepared to stand your ground and take them to London Tribunals.
-
Hi,
So I received a parking ticket at a car park.
I had totally forgotten to pay when I left the car and only remembered when I was shopping about 10 minutes later.
I logged on to the RING-Go app and "paid" for parking. I say "paid" as the first hour is free you just need to register.
Alas when I returned I had already gotten a ticket.
I have yet to appeal as I had a similar issue where the exact same thing happened and I appealed saying I was late in paying but did pay. Someone mentioned last time not to appeal without asking for advice here first.
Is there anyway I can fight this or is it easier just to pay the fine? I am a bit annoyed that they would charge £40 given that the first hour or parking is free and I was there for a total of 45mins. They literally gave me a ticket 5 minutes after parking.
(https://i.imgur.com/wBqrPwq.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BHzcIFf.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/O0N5SvD.jpeg)