Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: rsg444 on May 28, 2025, 01:23:31 pm
-
Well done ! We don't see Redbridge giving way very often.
-
Good.
-
Dear Stamfordman and HC Anderson,
Thank you so much for your help and advice in relation to this PCN. I am please to report that Redbridge cancelled the PCN following the submission of formal representations after a NTO was issued. The response is as follows:
Dear Sir/Madam,
Penalty Charge Notice: XXX
Vehicle Registration: XXX
Thank you for your letter regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice.
When using RingGo it is your responsibility to ensure that all the transaction details - including vehicle registration, location code and length of session - are correct before you pay.
When a Civil Enforcement Officer observes a vehicle they check the vehicle registration number with RingGo to see whether a valid session has been paid for. In this case the exact registration number was not registered, therefore they were unable to confirm that a valid session had been obtained.
Please be advised that when parking during a free period using a pay-by-phone system, even a transaction showing a fee of £O is considered a valid payment. This action confirms that the motorist has registered their parking session correctly and is complying with the terms of use for that location. Failure to complete this process, even if no charge is applied, may result in enforcement action as the parking session would not be officially recorded.
I do however note your comments with regards to the suffix used on this PCN, i.e. a 'b', which would not be valid for this location. It is therefore considered that there are sufficient grounds for the notice to be cancelled
No further action will be taken.
Yours faithfully....
Thank you again for your help.
Regards,
R
-
Thank you. My wife has submitted her reps.
-
I would start it off with the challenge not the backstory:
The PCN gives grounds predicated upon the following code and description:
“11b Parked without payment of the parking charge”.
Aside from the fact that the Parking Space was not a Business Bay – which the contravention code used by the CEO indicates, the demand cannot stand as whatever VRM was entered, the Parking Charge due for an elapsed period of X minutes is nil, therefore I complied with the Council’s published requirements and there was no contravention of the Traffic Management Order, therefore this PCN must be cancelled.
-
Do I need to reference any sections of their TMO?
-
Is the above good to go?
-
So my first draft is as follows:
On Wednesday 28th May 2025, I had a GP appointment at the surgery on Mortlake Road and so parked my vehicle in a Parking Space on St Lukes Avenue. My usual vehicle, a grey VW with VRM [redacted] was at a garage for repair so on this day I drove our other family vehicle, a grey VW with VRM ******* to the appointment.
For the administrative purposes for the council, I advised RingGo of my presence using the app on my phone and when I saw the text “Volkswagen (Grey)” on the app, I mistakenly selected the VRM for the car that was in for repairs. Please see the attachments for the parking session that I had initiated.
I arrived at the Parking Space at 12:33PM and left following my appointment at 13:15PM. I was at the Parking Space for approximately 42 minutes. I have dash cam footage that evidences my length of stay which I offered to you as part of my initial challenge.
The PCN gives grounds predicated upon the following code and description:
“11b Parked without payment of the parking charge”.
Aside from the fact that the Parking Space was not a Business Bay – which the contravention code used by the CEO indicates, the demand cannot stand as whatever VRM was entered, the Parking Charge due for an elapsed period of X minutes is nil, therefore I complied with the Council’s published requirements and there was no contravention of the Traffic Management Order, therefore this PCN must be cancelled.
Do I need to do things like quote the TMO or is that for when I go to the Adjudicators (which is likely, knowing Redbridge)
My dashcam is showing the wrong times, it is out by 30mins - so it shows an arrival time of 1303 and a departure or 1345 - not sure how this happened but it stills shows that the car was at the Parking Space for less than an hour.
-
Thank you!
-
My initial thoughts.
I parked my car in the Parking Space at *** and departed at approx. ***, an elapsed period of approx. *** minutes. The Parking Charge required for parking for this period is £0.00. For the administrative purposes of the council, I advised RingGo of my presence but mistakenly entered an incorrect VRM i.e. ***** instead of *****.
The PCN gives grounds predicated upon the following description: Parked without payment of the parking charge.
This demand cannot stand because whatever VRM was entered the Parking Charge due for an elapsed period of **** is nil, therefore I complied with the council's published requirements, there was no contravention of a Traffic Order and the PCN must be cancelled.
NB. I have capitalised Parking Space and Parking Charge as these are the precise terms used in the relevant order.
Yours..
-
Hi All,
We received the NTO yesterday through the post, the NTO can be access using the link below. Please can you assist with writing up some formal representations?
Many thanks in advance.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10C3IRi21S2e2swx3f3K9KbRDY7VW6DWl?usp=drive_link
-
Thank you HCA. I'm going to wait for the NTO. Thanks again for your advice - I'll post up the NTO once we receive it.
Regards.
-
I think my 2 weeks to pay at 50% is up today
Wouldn't know, you didn't post the date of their rejection!
I would carry on, but it's your choice. You've been given examples of successful appeals.
-
I think my 2 weeks to pay at 50% is up today, if you could advise whether its worth waiting for an NTO that'd be great - my understanding from your last message is that I have a good chance to win the appeal at a Tribunal (as we know Redbridge will reject any representations regardless).
-
Thank you HCA.
From your last post, does this mean that my grounds for representations would be something along the lines of:
- TMO states that payment needs to be made. As the first hour is free (schedule 6), it is physically impossible to make a payment - at best all my wife could have done is obtain a virtual parking permit, therefore the contravention did not occur. (I assume the closest contravention would be failing to display a virtual permit).
In addition to the above, my wife gained no advantage by this mistake - we have offered evidence of the parking session for the other car and footage that the car was at the parking space for less than an hour - and then I also feel the LA has fettered discretion - especially when it appears to be that they can make an admin mistake (by the use of 11b) but we can't make mistakes and so must pay.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Many thanks.
-
The exemptions have nothing to do with payment, it's the usual list of delivering or collecting postal packets, loading, police, ambulance, maintenance vehicles, vehicles displaying time-limited dispensations, armed forces vehicles etc. etc.
See 32.....the driver of a vehicle....shall immediately pay the parking charge as set out in Schedule 6.'
Schedule 6.....in every case 'Up to 1 hour.....FREE'.
As for 19...!
-
Sorry for the delay in replying, I was away.
Here is the TMO for the location:
https://store.traffweb.app/redbridge/documents/parkmap/sched/1.%20The%20Redbridge%20(Waiting,%20Loading,%20Stopping%20and%20Street%20Parking%20Places)%20Consolidation%20Order%202021.pdf
-
On its own, this cannot be deciphered:
32(4): Where a vehicle, when first placed in a Parking Space, is exempt from payment of any Parking Charge by
virtue of the provisions of Articles 11(1)-11(5) or 11(7)-11(10) and continues to wait in that Parking
Space otherwise than in accordance with those provisions, the Parking Charge shall be treated as having
been incurred and to be payable at the time when the vehicle ceased to wait by virtue of those
provisions and all the provisions of this Order shall then apply accordingly.
Do you have a link to this Order?
'..exempt from payment of the Parking Charge'. What does this mean? No-one is exempt according to the sign, a tariff of £0 is not an exemption, it's a zero rate(to use the VAT analogy). But the above cannot be resolved without sight of the Order's other provisions.
-
"Additionally, the contravention code 11b applies to the specific circumstances of the violation, regardless of the bay type."
They are saying yes we missed up the contravention suffix but it's still a code 11.
They are also vulnerable on the not paying for a free session in my view.
You could also raise government fairness guidance:
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.
....
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.
This is one where if you do take it to the tribunal it will depend on the adjudicator. It shouldn't be like that but there are increasing divisions among adjudicators on several contraventions and locations.
-
Is it worth waiting for the NTO for this? Is the response adequate - they don't really explain the use of "b".
Many thanks.
-
So an update, as expected Redbridge rejected. Rather than upload a picture of their letter, I have copied the content of the letter which is below. I will be grateful for any advice with how to proceed with this:
Dear Sir/Madam,
Penalty Charge Notice (PCN): AF10290791
Vehicle Registration: GN20ZRC
Thank you for your letter regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice, the content of which is noted.
However, I agree with our earlier observations, and remain satisfied that the notice was issued correctly.
The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked unattended, in an area where a parking session must be obtained via the RingGo system, this is either over the phone or via the app.
While we understand the mistake made in selecting the vehicle registration number on the RingGo app, it remains the responsibility of the driver to ensure the correct details are entered. Additionally, the contravention code 11b applies to the specific circumstances of the violation, regardless of the bay type.
Whilst I note the circumstances you have outlined; this does not warrant the cancellation of the PCN.
On this basis the Penalty Charge must be paid, if paid within fourteen days from the date on this letter the reduced rate of £55.00 will be accepted. After this point the full charge of £110.00 will become due.
Please be advised that no further correspondence received by this department will stop this PCN from progressing. If you wish to appeal this decision you must wait for a Notice to Owner to be sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle at the full charge of £110.00. Once this has been received you will be required to follow the instructions given to make a formal representation against the Notice.
Should your representation be rejected you will be sent a form to appeal to the Independent Adjudicator, whose decision is final.
Yours faithfully,
Parking & Traffic Enforcement
-
Thanks, I'll be in touch when they reject ;)
-
I've edited a few things.
-
Thank you so much. I'll send this out today using their online challenge form.
-
Dear Redbridge,
I am requesting cancellation of the PCN owing to an honest mistake in selecting the car VRM on the RingGo app, and also make two other points, both of which are that the contravention did not in any case occur.
My wife and I have two Volkswagen cars, and on this occasion my wife accidentally selected VRM xxxx (which was parked at xxxx at the time) instead of VRM xxxxx. As both cars are VWs this made it easier to make this error on the app, but it was an honest one that has had no detrimental effect on the council.
I enclose the RingGo receipt showing a parking session was taken out.
The parking session was in any case for the free one hour parking, and as the contravention is parked without paying the parking charge, this cannot have occurred as you can't pay for something that is free! My wife had an appointment at xxx and parked and left within the free hour. We have dash cam footage to show this.
I am also puzzled by the contravention code 11b - b is a suffix for business bay, and this wasn't such a bay, so again this contravention did not occur.
I hope you agree this adds up to reasons for cancelling the PCN on this occasion and look forward to your positive reply.
-
Scratching my head as to where I got purple from...but its the sign that is under the main sign plate at the location where my wife parked the car.
-
What purple sign?
This one - but no idea where I got Purple from :-):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G8vS73hIELhe4f0G3RoRLfyKIh3ApXfU/view?usp=drive_link
Regards,
R
-
What purple sign?
-
Hi HCA and Stamford Man, does the Purple Sign that I have uploaded help my challenge? Many thanks.
-
Totally agree - sadly from my previous experience, Redbridge aren't ones to back down or offer good will.
Thank you, I've seen a number of cases where the Adjudicator has allowed the appeal on the basis that the parking is free for the first hour - but then theres many other threads with the same contravention but no conclusion so its hard to judge as to whether an Adjudicator will allow an appeal (I know it will come to that as Redbridge will sent their "we've considered your points. The PCN was issued correctly" at both the informal challenge and NTO stage.
-
You've probably found the cases I've posted where adjudicators have said a contravention of not paying for something that is free is a nonsense.
We'd like to think that making an honest mistake with a pay by phone session that has no adverse affect on the council would be a shoo-in for a first time PCN cancellation but more councils are turning down this opportunity to show what nice people they are, hence the pursuit of other avenues as secondary measures.
-
Hi HCA, I had the same question for my wife. Luckily she had another appointment today in the same area and so has just sent me a picture of the mentioned sign. I have uploaded it to the following location:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G8vS73hIELhe4f0G3RoRLfyKIh3ApXfU/view?usp=drive_link
-
OP, can I clarify some facts pl.
The sign states that payment is required. The tariff details are included in the lower, non-traffic, sign....but they're illegible.
What are these details?
IMO,
For info, a PCN is not required to include a code(notwithstanding a recent decision by an adjudicator..the regs are the regs!), but must state the grounds on which it is believed that a penalty is payable. Codes are not included in the Highway Code.
The penalty matches the contravention description, but...
..do the traffic sign and further details together give rise to the contravention description?
Won't know until what on the lower sign is clarified.
-
I've been reading through other cases on the forum for similar alleged contraventions.
Should the code used actually be:
Code 06 Parked without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket or voucher
6? But then this isn't a Pay and Display bay so not sure it applies......
But, it can't be 11 (or 11b) because payment can't be made for something free. London councils confirms that b indicates a business bay - which this clearly isn't.
-
I'll do something later. No rush as it was only yesterday.
Thank you
-
I'll do something later. No rush as it was only yesterday.
-
We have a screenshot of the RingGo session for the wrong car and hopefully still have dashcam footage of the car leaving within the hour (hopefully it is not overwritten) but there were still 23 minutes remaining for the free parking session.
My mum parked in a disabled bay once but forgot to display her blue badge, CP helped massively with the appeal, it went to tribunal as Redbridge refused to back down. The adjudicator refused to allow the appeal but recommended that Redbridge cancel it, they didn't.
Update: We still have the dashcam footage but the time is out by 30mins for some reason however despite this, the car being parked to the next footage of it being moved is well within 1 hour.
-
It's a permit parking area except in signed bays and this is a signed pay bay.
What is the session that was taken out - was it a free 1 hour and can you prove your wife was there for 1 hour or less.
Reason being we've seen appeals won on the ground that you can't have a contravention of not paying for something that is free.
Redbridge ought to consider a first time honest mistake in any case but councils are tending to play hardball these days.
The 11b isn't a winner on its own IMO but can be added.
(https://i.ibb.co/tw1FyYQ8/r1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/HfLdfCSK/r4.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/ymkR5S8D/r3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/C5v14TbN/r2.jpg)
-
Council have now uploaded the pictures, I have re-uploaded the PCN too. The photos show that it is not a business bay.
I have a question, should the contravention code not be 12? St Luke's Avenue has signs on entry indicating that it is a CPZ and that "past this point" only permit holders may park. Underneath there's another sign that states "Except in Assigned Bays". As it is one hour free, there is no payment to be made therefore is the contravention "not having a valid virtual voucher?" or am I clutching at straws?
Redbridge's order states:
32(4): Where a vehicle, when first placed in a Parking Space, is exempt from payment of any Parking Charge by
virtue of the provisions of Articles 11(1)-11(5) or 11(7)-11(10) and continues to wait in that Parking
Space otherwise than in accordance with those provisions, the Parking Charge shall be treated as having
been incurred and to be payable at the time when the vehicle ceased to wait by virtue of those
provisions and all the provisions of this Order shall then apply accordingly.
So therefore my conclusion as a (lay person) is the contravention cannot be related to payment, is this right?
-
St Lukes Ave is in a CPZ however there are parking bays - non business ones for the public to use provided they "pay by phone" according to the sign. Could the wrong contravention code be enough for an appeal?
-
I want to check the council's pics but they aren't up yet.
Code 11b means a business bay but I expect this is a mistake.
-
You've blanked the PCN details.
Sorry I didn't realise they were needed too, I've DM'd you the details. Will change the picture when I get back home this evening.
-
You've blanked the PCN details.
-
Permissions updated, sorry about that.
Its under contravention code 11b which I'm not familiar with - maybe that should have been 11?
We also have proof of the RingGo Transaction for the other car at the same time. The other car is actually in for repairs and its the one my wife usually drives, hence the autopilot mode when booking the parking - I can maybe ask the body shop for proof of this fact too?
-
You need to post with public access.
Depending on the contravention and proof of stay it may be possible to have a go at this.
-
Dear all,
Wondering if you can advise. My wife parked near Ilford Lane this afternoon and using the RingGo app registered for the 1 hour free parking - however for some reason she selected the wrong car for the parking - they're both VWs so she assumed she had selected the right car but sadly didn't double check before she walked away. Came back from her appointment to find a PCN affixed to the windscreen. Should we just pay up at 50% discount or is this worth appealing?
PCN can be viewed using the following link:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10C3IRi21S2e2swx3f3K9KbRDY7VW6DWl?usp=drive_link
Thanks all.