Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: marliechiller on September 29, 2023, 01:33:01 pm
-
For future reference, The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (North Kew) (Parking Places) (No. 1) Order 2022 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1B6Ja8jYxk2Bit9lEzAcSsp8Ft94VhcA5).
-
Yes, I made the decision to pay the early repayment today as the grace window was due to expire shortly. I reasoned that the time spent fighting this on my side is not worth £30 at this point although I do feel strongly that I am essentially law abiding citizen thats been wronged here... I just dont have the dedicated resources with other life things going on at the moment
Well now you know why they do this: they have wronged you, and you've rewarded them by giving them £30. Why would they ever stop?
-
Yes, I made the decision to pay the early repayment today as the grace window was due to expire shortly. I reasoned that the time spent fighting this on my side is not worth £30 at this point although I do feel strongly that I am essentially law abiding citizen thats been wronged here... I just dont have the dedicated resources with other life things going on at the moment
-
So it very much sounds that in order to pursue this, you will have to take matters to the tribunal and explain what happened to the adjudicator. I have never had a single case where an appellant has given evidence in person to an adjudicator and the adjudicator has said "I don't believe you", but obviously all litigation carries an element of risk.
I would in the meantime make a request to RingGo for all logs that they are able to provide.
I also had a look on the council website and found this:
(https://i.imgur.com/XO2uEWl.png)
So have you paid the penalty, and if so how much did you pay?
-
As I said previously - I can only dispute it in the sense that I tried to extend during the existing session, got an error from the app (which I only had a split second to screenshot if I tried) and then waited 5 mins or so for the session to expire to book again. The latter of which is the only thing the council see. The only way I would have any proof of trying to extend beyond my saying so, is on the off chance that ringgo provide logs/monitoring of error requests (if it was even a web server issue rather than an app issue)...
-
I did not notice this sentence before:
"Enquiries with ParkNow have confirmed that, after reviewing the activity recorded on your RingGo account, you tried to create a new parking session rather than extend (see below).
Do you dispute this, and if so do you have any screenshots of the ringgo app to support your case?
-
Sure. Heres a direct screenshot from the app and also the receipt
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Can you show us a screenshot of the cashless parking session please?
-
Notice of rejection in full
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
OP, the Notice of Rejection of Reps dated 15 November, not the earlier one rejecting your challenge pl.
+1, we need to see the formal notice of rejection in full.
-
OP, the Notice of Rejection of Reps dated 15 November, not the earlier one rejecting your challenge pl. We don't know whether and for how long they've re-offered the discount and whether it conforms to regulatory requirements.
In any event, if you appeal then IMO the thrust of your argument must change.
The whole essence of the matter is whether if a car is parked at the location with an expired parking charge, may the motorist as a matter of correct construction of the traffic sign and any further stipulations included in the pay-by-phone payment system enter into a new session if:
1. The vehicle has not moved; and
b. This would not lead to the vehicle being permitted to stay beyond a 6.5 hour period since first being parked?
There appears to be common ground between you and the council that their system prevented you from purchasing parking rights prior to the PCN being issued, the question IMO is whether they were lawfully permitted to restrict you in this way.
-
Sorry, you're right, see attached imgur link (https://imgur.com/a/Edhbyk0)
I did not notice this sentence before:
"Enquiries with ParkNow have confirmed that, after reviewing the activity recorded on your RingGo account, you tried to create a new parking session rather than extend (see below). This activated the 'no return' rule in RingGo and accordingly, you were not able to create the session. On this basis, I am satisfied that there were no issues with the app, and find that the issues were cause by user error."
This was indeed the case, however I tried to create a new session because the iOS app wouldnt let me extend my current session so I was left with no choice but to wait for it to expire and then try to create a new session
-
You need to show us the rest of the notice of rejection please. See the instruction here (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/) on how to post images properly.
-
They have finally gotten back to me with the initial missed correspondence and an attached letter. Of note is the following lines:
"The reasons for the rejection are as follows:
The PC was issued because your vehicle was observed parked in a shared use bay during the prescribed hours with a RingGo cashless parking session that expired at
3:13pm. Restrictions are enforced here Monday to Sunday 10am to 4:30pm, including Bank Holidays, Event Days 10am to 11pm.
Please be aware for future awareness, that a set of bays will have its own relevant sign-plate within the length of the bay; and sign-plates are only applicable for the side of the road that they are assembled on.
www.richmond.gov.uk/parking."
This suggests to me that they havent fully understood my reasoning. At this point, should I just pay up or keep pursuing this further? I suppose I could submit the initial reasoning as my formal representation. Whats my best course of action here?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You should email them again asking them to consider your informal representations as your formal representations against the notice to owner.
-
Apologies, the frontend was only letting me upload 4 small files at a time so I thought a zip would be easier. Thanks for doing that. The second email was sent fri 29/09/23
-
A zip file is not an ideal way of sharing documents, so I've re-posted them for you:
(https://i.imgur.com/tVhlwiJ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/x2tbTAt.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GroV1Jc.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rLTV1jo.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/CecAp4J.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/lpdePVK.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/2TW7tXC.jpg)
When did you send the 2nd email? I'm now concerned that they'll treat it as your formal representation.
-
I have attached a zip file containing PCN and notice to owner. The correspondance I've sent via email thus far is below and consists of two emails. I provided a timestamped png with the initial email which had the parking sign visible on page 5 of the notice to owner as evidence. The second email notes the missing correspondance which presumably would contain the informal rejection.
Dear [NAME]
Your form has been submitted.
Your case will be placed on hold until you hear from us.
If you need to contact us in the meantime, please quote your PCN notice number and vehicle registration number. To find out more about the appeal process, visit www.richmond.gov.uk/how_to_appeal_pcn
Your reference: FS-Case-533497665
Notice number: RT38958939
Vehicle registration: GF54YGE
Date of issue: 21/07/2023
Location: KEW GREEN KEW (CPZ KC)
Explain why you think the PCN should not have been issued: // The RingGo app refused us the ability to extend parking by another 15 mins to allow us to return to our vehicle in time //
Upon nearing completion of the 4 hours parking we had paid for, I tried to extend the parking by 15 mins to allow us to return to the car in time. Unfortunately the ringgo app refused this request, possibly as the signage on the other side of the road suggests only 4 hours max duration of parking is permitted. On our side of the road (ringgo area code 52811), the signage indicates 6.5 hours of parking (see attached photo). Upon realising that the parking app would not let us extend our stay a further 15 minutes, we returned to the vehicle for 15:26, saw the ticket time of 15:24 and called the council for further action (which I think the nice man on the phone made a note & reference of). I have also attached proof of receipt for the previous 4 hours in case necessary.
I hope that the ticket can be waived in light of this ambiguity in the app,
Thanks,
[NAME]
Hi,
I have just come off a call with the parking officer regarding this charge. I explained that through the web portal for this charge, I can see the correspondance history. Unfortunately, the only correspondance I have received to my address is dated 21/09/2023. This means I did not receive any of the responses to my initial enquiry for dates listed in July and August and also missed the early repayment deadline. I would like to request the following:
1. Have the missing correspondence provided to me via email if possible
2. Extend the early repayment deadline to 7 days after I have received the contents of (1)
This will allow me to review the correspondance I havent received and action where needed,
Sincerely,
[NAME]
(RT38958939, license plate: GF54 YGE)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Please show us the actual PCN (both sides in full), the informal representation, the informal rejection, and the notice to owner. Only your postal address needs to be redacted.
These are the CEO notes:
(https://i.imgur.com/B8A7ybU.jpg)
Google street view location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/t6J8fzpvGesEG72s9
The traffic order used to be The London Borough Of Richmond Upon Thames (North Kew) (Parking Places) Experimental Order 2021 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=12VjRjz_LrfaBmY2qMw6bm_y98DCosWjI) but it seems that it's been replaced by The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (North Kew) (Parking Places) (No. 1) Order 2022, so I've now requested that order as we don't have it on file.
-
I understand Incandescent's point, but I don't think this would be lawful.
De facto the vehicle did not leave and therefore could not return. The system appears to presume that a new session i.e. one which follows a hiatus from the previous one, must be a returning vehicle when in fact it could simply be, as the OP says in this case, a new session following a period of unpaid for parking during which they were de jure in contravention, albeit that a penalty couldn't be demanded within 10 minutes.
In the good old days we had meters which couldn't be fed, but these are the enlightened days of mobile comms, yeah!
-
Clearly, RingGo has been programmed to reflect what the council say are the conditions for the car park. I therefore suggest you submit representations to the council on the lines that realising you were going to be parked for longer than anticipated, you attempted to extend your parking session before it expired, but were unable to do so. You therefore returned to the car as soon as you could, but received a PCN before you could return.
Other thing to check is the expiry time of your parking session, and the time the PCN was issued. It should be issued after 10 minutes has elapsed since the session expired, i.e in the 11th minute or over..
-
I attempted to extend the session before expiry, rather than pay for a new session after expiry had lapsed
-
Did you attempt to extend after expiry of your previous session or before ?
There is a restriction on "No Return within one hour". So you pay for some time and at the end of that time you have to skidaddle and not return until one hour has passed.
-
Outline:
The RingGo app refused us the ability to extend parking by another 15 mins to allow us to return to our vehicle in time (bug or did I not read properly?)
Upon nearing completion of the 4 hours parking we had paid for, I tried to extend the parking by 15 mins to allow us to return to the car in time. Unfortunately the ringgo app refused this request, possibly as the signage on the other side of the road suggests only 4 hours max duration of parking is permitted. On our side of the road (ringgo area code 52811), the signage indicates 6.5 hours of parking (see attached photo). Upon realising that the parking app would not let us extend our stay a further 15 minutes, we returned to the vehicle for 15:26 (13 mins past expiry). Unfortunately we had a ticket issued at 15:24.
To compound matters, upon appealing this, I never got any correspondance (despite it being detailed on the PCN) until after this discount expiry. I have requested the missing correspondance be re-sent and the discount expiry be reapplied until I receive this, but am awaiting the outcome of this still.
My query really is in relation to the fact that despite my best efforts and every intention to pay for parking, I've still been hit with a fine. I want to understand whether the app issued the request correctly and that I wasnt allowed to extend my stay or if the app glitching cost me a parking ticket. I appreciate any input and time from you all!
PCN viewable here: https://www2.richmond.gov.uk/PCNViewer/PCNDetails.aspx#details with the following details:
PCN #:RT38958939
licence: GF54 YGE
maps location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/8XwCiqetZYqDaFr5A