Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Brighthorizon on May 29, 2025, 06:37:50 pm
-
The adjudicator didn't report anything but the poor evidence from Redbridge - they really don't like it when copies of orders aren't provided, only links.
I'm not happy it wasn't upheld immediately on the late service and breach of tribunal direction.
Yes I agree. I was surprised aswell .
-
The adjudicator didn't report anything but the poor evidence from Redbridge - they really don't like it when copies of orders aren't provided, only links.
I'm not happy it wasn't upheld immediately on the late service and breach of tribunal direction.
-
Case reference 2250344964
Appellant xxxxxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM GY70GCZ
PCN Details
PCN AF08947587
Contravention date 05 Apr 2025
Contravention time 17:02:00
Contravention location Cranbrook Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 21 Oct 2025
Adjudicator Herjinder Mann
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
1. This is a personal appeal against a penalty charge notice.
2. The Appellant states that they made a payment using Pay By Phone using location 7180. They submit that the signage did not refer to payment via Ring Go.
3. The Enforcement Authority have not provided the Traffic Order only web addresses for a links of various Orders. It is for them to establish that there was a contravention and provide the valid Traffic Order. As they have failed to do so, I am allowing the appeal.
Oh wow that’s published now. Yeah That was the case. Thank you for sharing @stamfordman . Truly appreciate all responses and support provided here. This forum is great help to community. Positive or negative outcomes we learn a lot from passionate legal community .
-
Case reference 2250344964
Appellant xxxxxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM GY70GCZ
PCN Details
PCN AF08947587
Contravention date 05 Apr 2025
Contravention time 17:02:00
Contravention location Cranbrook Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 21 Oct 2025
Adjudicator Herjinder Mann
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
1. This is a personal appeal against a penalty charge notice.
2. The Appellant states that they made a payment using Pay By Phone using location 7180. They submit that the signage did not refer to payment via Ring Go.
3. The Enforcement Authority have not provided the Traffic Order only web addresses for a links of various Orders. It is for them to establish that there was a contravention and provide the valid Traffic Order. As they have failed to do so, I am allowing the appeal.
-
They are as thick as **** aren't they.
“i confirm that Appellant has been sent copies of all evidence in accordance with Adjudicator’s requirements- Date sent 15/10/2025 and signed.
So deemed served 17 October.
Today is 21st.
Adjudicator's requirements (AKA Practice Direction) are that evidence must be served 'no later than 5 days before the first scheduled hearing..'.
21-17 = 4.
Oh well!
Ya Yes they are and I haven’t seen them
On the call. Unless they were before me .
I have mentioned to adjudicator that the evidence pack was received yesterday late afternoon and referred to recent cases @stamfordman mentioned.
Instead of considering that ,(I’m surprised why that wasn’t considered , I have given case references aswell) ? Adjudicator asked me if I needed more time to go through the evidence pack and do I want to postpone this hearing.
I have requested not to postpone, as I didn’t want to spend more time on thinking about this.
She then proceeded with questions , asking me to explain the situation and reasons behind the appeal. I have explained everything that I wrote here clearly and best as I could.
She mentioned , council Did Not submit proper evidence, but asked her to check the links to see the evidence. Adjudicator also mentioned , she would t open any such links for security reasons.
Looks like she had multiple reasons to allow my appeal. I’m pleased and grateful for the advice provided here.
Writing this for awareness for people like me.
Meeting is recorded.
-
They are as thick as **** aren't they.
“i confirm that Appellant has been sent copies of all evidence in accordance with Adjudicator’s requirements- Date sent 15/10/2025 and signed.
So deemed served 17 October.
Today is 21st.
Adjudicator's requirements (AKA Practice Direction) are that evidence must be served 'no later than 5 days before the first scheduled hearing..'.
21-17 = 4.
Oh well!
-
Well done. Redbridge insults you and the tribunal by leaving things to the last moment and supplying inadequate material and notice.
Try a modest costs application. They wasted your time.
Yes they did , and the effort , the stress , the time , and a day off from work today to attend. Everything adds up . It’s all ok now.
-
Huge thanks to
@stamfordman , @HC Andersen and John .
-
Well done. Redbridge insults you and the tribunal by leaving things to the last moment and supplying inadequate material and notice.
Try a modest costs application. They wasted your time.
-
Appeal is allowed . I will get a written letter saying not to pay.
I was asked the explain the situation and why I think the appeal should be allowed.
I was given good time to present my case.
The authority did not attend.
The authority did not submit the evidence properly, but sent the links to evidence. The adjudicator said , she wouldn’t open the links and it’s for the authority to represent and send the evidence properly.
I’m really pleased and so glad I came here to take advice.
I was advised to check sinage and follow decision . Which I’m ok to do going forward.
Finally , I’m modest but just wanted to say - We won yay 🥳
-
Joining call now . Good luck to me . Thanks for your guidance.
-
Sure ,
Also kept these cases numbers you shared handy -
2240405891
2240397035
2250065869
2250059924
-
OK so it was yesterday. This doesn't meet the tribunal direction no matter when they sent it and in any case if they sent it on 15 October with a hearing of 21 October then with postal service allowance of 2 days this busts the 5 days.
-
Hi @stamfordman ,
If for any reason this case proceeds ,do I ask for adjournment to review evidence? Or proceed with representing with my argument?
In the latter circumstances, I’m trying to gather cases you referenced by yourself. Are there any new allowed appeal cases please ? TIA
-
Just to update you - On the evidence pack , I just saw -
“i confirm that Appellant has been sent copies of all evidence in accordance with Adjudicator’s requirements- Date sent 15/10/2025 and signed.
But we received this yesterday .
-
Sure , I will . Thank you .
-
Just say to the adjudicator that the pack only arrived this morning and you understand this breaches the tribunal direction of at least 5 days before the hearing and would he/she allow the appeal.
You can add this seems to be a pattern with Redbridge as can be seen with the recent allowed appeals 2250338371 and 2250295803.
-
I wouldn't even look at the pack. They are out of time and considering it would be prejudicial to you and the Tribunal's Practice Direction is clear on this.
------------
Case reference 2250338371
Appellant Maureen Medley
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM ET06VUX
PCN Details
PCN AF08936412
Contravention date 03 Apr 2025
Contravention time 11:47:00
Contravention location Malcolm Way
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 13 Oct 2025
Adjudicator Cordelia Fantinic
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons 1. The Appellant attended in person. The Authority did not attend and had not been expected to.
2. The Appellant told me that she received the Authority's evidence pack by post on Saturday 10 October 2025. The Evidence Checklist confirms that the evidence was posted to the Appellant on 9 October 2025.
3. The Tribunal's Practice Direction no. 2 of 2025 states that Authorities must serve their evidence no later than five days before the first scheduled date of hearing of the appeal. The five days take into account weekends and Bank holidays. This is to ensure that an Appellant receives the evidence three clear working days before the hearing.
4. The Authority was notified of today's hearing date on 24 July 2025. It is unclear why the evidence was not sent before 9 October. The Authority has failed to comply with the Practice Direction and there is no explanation before me as to why the Authority was unable to comply.
5. The Appellant has attended the hearing centre today and I do not consider it appropriate to direct an adjournment of today's hearing to enable three clear days' service, and to then require the Appellant to attend again due to the Authority's failure to comply with a practice direction.
6. The Authority has not complied with the practice direction. The Authority has not put forward any explanation. An Appellant is prejudiced by late service of evidence as it does not provide adequate time for them to prepare their case. In the circumstances I find that the appeal should be allowed.
Sure both , thank you somuch . Will do.
I have a question .
Would I be given a chance to speak about evidence pack ? Or Should I mention about the late arrival of evidence pack ahead.
When can I mention case references you have helped with ? Would there be enough time to discuss the below case references?
-
I wouldn't even look at the pack. They are out of time and considering it would be prejudicial to you and the Tribunal's Practice Direction is clear on this.
------------
Case reference 2250338371
Appellant Maureen Medley
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM ET06VUX
PCN Details
PCN AF08936412
Contravention date 03 Apr 2025
Contravention time 11:47:00
Contravention location Malcolm Way
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 13 Oct 2025
Adjudicator Cordelia Fantinic
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons 1. The Appellant attended in person. The Authority did not attend and had not been expected to.
2. The Appellant told me that she received the Authority's evidence pack by post on Saturday 10 October 2025. The Evidence Checklist confirms that the evidence was posted to the Appellant on 9 October 2025.
3. The Tribunal's Practice Direction no. 2 of 2025 states that Authorities must serve their evidence no later than five days before the first scheduled date of hearing of the appeal. The five days take into account weekends and Bank holidays. This is to ensure that an Appellant receives the evidence three clear working days before the hearing.
4. The Authority was notified of today's hearing date on 24 July 2025. It is unclear why the evidence was not sent before 9 October. The Authority has failed to comply with the Practice Direction and there is no explanation before me as to why the Authority was unable to comply.
5. The Appellant has attended the hearing centre today and I do not consider it appropriate to direct an adjournment of today's hearing to enable three clear days' service, and to then require the Appellant to attend again due to the Authority's failure to comply with a practice direction.
6. The Authority has not complied with the practice direction. The Authority has not put forward any explanation. An Appellant is prejudiced by late service of evidence as it does not provide adequate time for them to prepare their case. In the circumstances I find that the appeal should be allowed.
-
I have received the evidence pack in post. . . .
This morning, I presume.
In your position I would tell the adj. that the Evidence Pack had been delivered this morning, see what the reaction was, and if he was then minded to press on ask him to grant an adjournment so I could consider the evidence.
But see what others say.
EDIT - crossed with Stamfordman - I agree with his advice.
Any date on Redbridge's letter with the Evidence Pack?
-
They are required to serve the pack at least 5 days before the hearing so I would expect the adjudicator to allow your appeal. But you must say so!
--------
Case reference 2250295803
Appellant Lynda Syalon
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM DA64WOY
PCN Details
PCN AF30963793
Contravention date 30 Apr 2025
Contravention time 15:12:00
Contravention location Waterloo Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 02 Sep 2025
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons Mrs Syalon has attended the hearing today by telephone link.
The Council is required to serve its evidence for the appeal on the appellant no later than 5 days before the hearing. The Council sent a letter to Mrs Syalon on Friday 29 August 2025 enclosing the evidence pack. Mrs Syalon has confirmed that, as of today, she has not received the evidence from the Council. That is unsurprising as the earliest deemed date of service would have been today. The Council has failed to comply with the service requirement. It would clearly be unfair and prejudicial to Mrs Syalon to proceed with a hearing in these circumstances and the appeal is therefore allowed.
-
I have received the evidence pack in post. I the evidence They mentioned that, “when I try to pay the pay by phone would have shown location name , which I missed. “
Which I must have , I’m
Not sure. I’m new to that location , we parked to eat , with 2 kids I must have I’m not sure I saw that 1st time. It doesn’t show in the receipt . But when I was extending the parking , it did show location , I went out to cross check the location number. I genuinely wasn’t aware that location numbers could be same.
-
Redbridge site showing £80 outstanding.
I think you should just attend the hearing online and say no pack was received. I guess the adjudicator will either adjourn the case if Redbridge did send it or find in your favour.
Morning Stamfordman , John , HC Andersen ,
I have received the evidence pack yesterday in post.
-
OP, this is the Practice Direction issued by the Chief Adjudicator:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Practice%20Direction%2002-2025%20on%20behalf%20of%20ETA%2019%20August%202025%20-%20Service%20of%20evidence%20by%20Enforcement%20Authorities.pdf
It is unlikely that the adjudicator would adjourn should an evidence pack not have been served either on you, by post, or to the Tribunal. Their normal line is that as the Tribunal has overriding obligations to dispose of appeals efficiently and fairly, having regard to the use of the Tribunal's resources and parties' conduct, then it would not be in the interests of the former to adjourn.
Remember, the adjudicator's position is NOT that they side with the authority so what's your excuse, it's a neutral position which starts with the authority having to prove to the adjudicator's satisfaction on the balance of probabilities that a contravention occurred and that the penalty has been enforced properly.
-
Hi , what would be the tribunal process ? Should I be preparing anything in advance ?
-
Redbridge site showing £80 outstanding.
I think you should just attend the hearing online and say no pack was received. I guess the adjudicator will either adjourn the case if Redbridge did send it or find in your favour.
Sure , I will attend tomorrow and say I haven’t received any evidence pack.
If the council website is showing the 80£ , does that mean we don’t have a chance ? Or the council is assuming they will win ?
Either way I’ll post the outcome tomorrow.
-
Redbridge site showing £80 outstanding.
I think you should just attend the hearing online and say no pack was received. I guess the adjudicator will either adjourn the case if Redbridge did send it or find in your favour.
-
If they haven't sent anything then you'll win this by default. They must send the pack in advance of the hearing - someone else will know the deadline.
Do not ask for a postponement.
But I guess it could have gone missing.
-
Telephone the Tribunal and explain no evidence pack has been received - ask for cancellation or adjournment.
Please also repost the email giving hearing date.
N>B>
As Imgur is no longer available in the UK, you will need to use
ibb.co (https://imgbb.com/) or https://imgpile.com/
for posting images.
Wherever possible, use the BBCode
-
The first step is to register the appeal with London Tribunals, and if I were you I'd request a Microsoft Teams hearing if you can or a telephone hearing so you can speak to the adjudicator.
The instructions should be on the rejection letter.
You can upload material later and I'll help you with that and you already have some cases to cite - it's the absence of signs saying you must use RingGo that is key here.
Hi @stamfordman , I haven’t received any instructions to update any thing or send anything as evidence.
Do you think that it ok ? Or have I missed something?
-
I would wait until you get their evidence pack and then post the summary here, that is if they contest.
I have not received any pack from them. I waited as you mentioned but we didn’t receive any.
-
Hello @stamfordman and @H C Andersen ,
I have received a hearing date for 21st October at 12:15 .
Is there anything I need prepare for tomorrow please ? This is my first court case. I’m a little nervous. I have an important question.
Please can you suggest asap .
I have filed this on behalf of my husband. I haven’t submitted the consent from my husband as it wasn’t specified anywhere. How should I submit that ?
-
Sure will do Stamfordman . Thanks
-
I would wait until you get their evidence pack and then post the summary here, that is if they contest.
-
Hi H C Andersen , an appeal has been submitted. I received an email with hearing date , to registered keeper . sharing the document here. Please can you suggest the next step ? Do we need to submit anything ? I have uploaded paid parking resposes and signage .
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You have submitted an appeal acting on behalf of the registered keeper, yes?
Have the tribunal confirmed that it has been registered - the keeper(through you) would be notified and allocated a Case Number?
One step at a time. Pl confirm an appeal to the adjudicator has been registered.
-
Ok I understood what you meant .
What should I do mos to make this right ? Can you advise please ?
I have a written consent . Is this enough ?
Please advice thank you. 🙏🏼
-
I had represented as I have been given the consent
This is a legal procedure. Getting a nod or a wink from your husband doesn't meet the legal test for authorisation!
And clearly the council did not consider the 'reps' as if they'd been duly made by or on behalf of the addressee otherwise they would not have worded the NOR as they did. IMO, the council have acted grossly improperly and the keeper's appeal should be allowed on these grounds alone.
I cannot conceive of any mitigating reason why the council, in FULL KNOWLEDGE that 'reps' had been submitted by someone other than the addressee (they say as much in the NOR) should consider these and issue a NOR.
-
Hi HC Andersen ,
Yes my surname and Address is same as registered keeper.
I had represented as I have been given the consent , we both were in the car , I drove the car for sometime that day and I paid the parking. Registered keeper is my husband. I felt whole situation was unfair. Initially we both submitted appeal together . Later I took full inchare. I do have consent , but I didn’t post anywhere.
-
This is procedural. All that you are doing is registering an appeal. It's stage 1 of a 4-part process:
You register;
The tribunal notify the council who decide whether to contest your appeal and if so they would notify the tribunal and upload their evidence, a hard copy of which would be posted to you as well as being available to you online;
You add to your appeal based upon further points which arise from the council's evidence;
The hearing takes place.
Many, many appeals are won on procedural as opposed to substantive grounds so we've moved on from the events of the day to procedure which the forum posters know inside out.
While you're waiting for stage 2....
Is your surname and address the same as the registered keeper's? How did you submit these 'reps'? Sorry if this sounds intrusive but procedurally the authority SHOULD NOT have issued a NOR because they had not received reps from the person to whom the NTO was addressed:
Notice to owner
20.—(1) Where—
(a)a penalty charge notice has been given with respect to a vehicle under regulation 9, and
(b)the period of 28 days specified in the penalty charge notice as the period within which the penalty charge is to be paid has expired without that charge being paid,
the enforcement authority concerned may serve a notice (a “notice to owner”) on the person who appears to it to have been the owner of the vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred.
Duties of an enforcement authority to which representations are made under regulation 5
6.—(1) This regulation applies where an enforcement authority receives representations from a recipient under regulation 5.
The council had NO power to consider the 'representations' submitted by you and to issue a NOR. My question above are designed to see what possible excuse the council might have in the eyes of the adjudicator for such a gross procedural impropriety.
There are other faux pas in the 'NOR', but one step at a time.
-
Hello Stamfordman and HC Andersen , just to inform you that I have submitted an appeal application which I had to submit before 14th. All done now. Awaiting response.
-
Hello Stamfordman and Hc Andersen , I’m filing case to London tribunal. Should I include the example cases you mentioned here on my appeal ? Is this required now ? Please can you reply thanks
-
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/
'Online appeals'
'Open appellant portal'.
......
-
https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-a-penalty-charge-notice
Would it be ok to appeal using above link ?
-
Ok Sure I shall register the appeal today.
Thank you
-
The first step is to register the appeal with London Tribunals, and if I were you I'd request a Microsoft Teams hearing if you can or a telephone hearing so you can speak to the adjudicator.
The instructions should be on the rejection letter.
You can upload material later and I'll help you with that and you already have some cases to cite - it's the absence of signs saying you must use RingGo that is key here.
-
Hello Stamfordman ,
Registered keeper is my husband. We both drive this car. On the day , I was driving and I have paid the parking , hence I assumed I need to make representation.
Sure , I will get in writing to hand this over to me.
I’m very grateful you are helping me with the appeal.
What are the next steps ? How should I proceed please 🙏🏼
The two cases you have posted are exactly shows dot to dot relevance. I’m very hopeful this PCN will be cancelled.
Could we start the appeal representation process please ?
Many Thanks 🙏🏼
-
No discount on offer so you should register an appeal with the tribunal.
There seems to have been confusion with the representations - only the owner/presumed keeper could make reps unless handed to someone else in writing.
They are obviously trying to prepare for the tribunal by saying you should have noticed the actual location (a rugby club in Newbury) you paid for, and say you should have called the number to determine the provider as RingGo but I think they've shot themselves in the foot as this looks like they admit there was no RingGo signage and it's now common ground among some adjudicators that people go to apps to pay for parking.
I'll help you with the appeal.
Meanwhile here are two more.
-------------
Case reference 2250065869
Appellant Asma Esmail
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM YD13XSC
PCN Details
PCN AF08244703
Contravention date 13 Nov 2024
Contravention time 10:46:00
Contravention location IIFORD LANE
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 17 Apr 2025
Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons At this scheduled person hearing the Appellant appeared in person, assisted by Mr Arshad Msallam, via MS Teams.
The Enforcement Authority did not attend and was not represented, either in vision, by telephone, or in person.
A contravention can occur if a vehicle is parked in an on-street payment parking bay during controlled hours, without payment of the parking charge.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was parked in this bay, or that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued to it, as shown in the photographs/digital images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Appellant’s case is that she arrived at the bay and saw the sign advising ‘pay by phone’ and did so using the PayByPhone mobile phone application, of which she produced proof. Payment appears clearly to have been made.
The Enforcement Authority’s case is that the provider is actually RingGo and no payment was made using that surface.
This is not an unknown occurrence and the Enforcement Authority can usually by reference to a nearby sign, for example on the timeplate post, which provider should be used.
In this case there is no such evidence produced by the Enforcement Authority and although the civil enforcement officer’s images are of poor quality I have looked at them closely and can see no sign or notice as to which provider should be used.
It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully on each occasion before leaving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they do so only as permitted and that this will remain the position for as long as the vehicle will be there. This includes making sure that they comply with all restrictions and prohibitions indicated by the signs. However, it is also the responsibility of the Enforcement Authority to ensure that restrictions and prohibitions are clearly signed so as adequately to inform the motorist of the requirements.
The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence actually produced by the parties and applying relevant law.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
---------
Case reference 2250059924
Appellant Kim Stallard
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM K5 AHE
PCN Details
PCN AF08279424
Contravention date 20 Nov 2024
Contravention time 12:41:00
Contravention location Ilford Lane
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 06 May 2025
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge.
This council uses RingGo to process its parking payments.
There is no dispute that the appellant purchased a parking session via his payphone app, he explaining the reasons why he did so.
I accept the council's submission that the 'pay by phone' instruction given on the bay sign is not an instruction to make payment by a different service provided, paybyphone, and I note all of the other points it makes in support of its case. There is however no evidence before me to support the council's claim that the RingGo payment option was clearly stated on signage on a machine, (the appellant saying that the machine had been removed), and I am not accordingly satified that the requirement to purchase the parking charge via RingGo was clearly communicated to the appellant. The contravention has not therefore been proved and I allow the appeal.
-
The information to appeal
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Sure Andersen , I’ll upload again
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Can't see the NOR.
-
Hello Stamfordman and HC Andersen, I have made a representation to Redbridge council and received a rejection letter which I have uploaded here.
I would like to give myself one more chance and go ahead with appeal. I need help with writing a nice appeal please. Could you kindly advice please. Thank you in advance . Regards .
-
Hello stamfordman , HC Andersen
Today I’m thinking to appeal using the facts below.
Could you advise please if I do using the letter I received ? Is there a formal process ? please could you kindly sugggest . Many thanks . 🙏🏼
-
There are appeals allowed for the pay by phone app assumption. Another one below.
Plus one where the appeal was refused in line with Mr Andersen's intervention.
-------
Case Details
Case reference 2240397035
Appellant Athinoulla Antoniou
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM EA71HKT
PCN Detailsfree
PCN AF07531492
Contravention date 14 Jun 2024
Contravention time 11:20:00
Contravention location The Shrubberies
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 16 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Belinda Pearce
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons A Telephone Appeal Hearing was scheduled for 9.30 a.m. today, 16th November 2024; I spoke with the Appellant on the contact number provided.
1. The Enforcement Authority assert the whereabouts of the said vehicle, at the relevant time on the material date, to be at a location subject to a restriction requiring the purchase of time to park and facilitating the purchase of parking time by telephone payment.
The Enforcement Authority assert the absence of payment in respect of the said vehicle.
2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and challenge as stated in her written representations, supported by screen-shots and photographic capture, which she reiterated and comprehensively detailed during the Telephone Hearing.
3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so parked contrary to an operative restriction is obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises copy Penalty Charge Notice and contemporaneous notes attributable to the Civil Enforcement Officer together with contemporaneous photographic evidence: images showing the said vehicle in situ, unoccupied and unattended, and the applicable signage notifying motorists of the restriction.
The Civil Enforcement Officer confirms the absence of payment receipt by the telephone service provider at the at the point of enquiries.
The Enforcement Authority also adduce:
i) Inactive links to governing Traffic Management Order provisions which, as I have expressed in other Appeals, I find unsatisfactory.
ii) A map/plan of RingGo locations plotting the location in question; this is of limited, if any, evidential value.
iii) sample images of an out-of-use voucher-dispensing machine, charges information and conditions of use; this too is of limited evidential value.
No contemporaneous photographic evidence is adduced to demonstrate the presence, position and visibility of any voucher-dispensing machine in the vicinity of the said vehicle.
4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was examined to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations.
The image of the sign at the location, as submitted by the Civil Enforcement Officer, is at such angle that the capitalisation in the legend, despite zoom enhancement, cannot be clearly discerned; the 'P' of ''Pay' can be seen as capitalised.
The image submitted by the Appellant, of the sign consulted by the Appellant, clearly demonstrates the capitalisation of both words 'Pay' and 'Phone.'
Neither sign references the telephone service provider upon whom the Enforcement Authority rely for operation of the telephone payment facility.
5. The Appellant described the sequence of events on the date in question, and emphasised that she had diligently complied with the parking regime; she was surprised to receive the Penalty Charge Notice and is of the opinion that the fault lies with the Enforcement Authority for lack of clarity regarding the need to use only the RingGo service.
I had the opportunity to assess and question the Appellant during the Hearing, I found the Appellant's evidence to be cogent and credible, and I accepted it in its entirety.
The Appellant interpreted the legend on the sign to indicate the 'Pay by Phone' service with which she was acquainted and had the App; she duly utilised that service.
Being unfamiliar with the area the Appellant interpreted the reference 'Eight Bells' to be a local landmark; the name of the council was also of no consequence to the Appellant.
6. In light of the fact that a telephone payment service exists bearing the name 'Pay by Phone' which mirrors the pay by phone words on the sign, and that motorists having 'apps' no longer need to make telephone connections nor attend voucher-dispensing machines, it would be prudent of an Enforcement Authority to ensure that signage unambiguously specifies which system is to be used on the sign so as to avoid such situations.
I find the incorporation of the words 'pay by phone' to cause ambiguity and thereby render the sign inadequate.
Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to consult signage and comply with restrictions, it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure the signage implementing the terms of a Traffic Management Order is adequate to communicate the nature of the restriction to motorists.
I do not find that to be the case in this instance.
The legend on the sign lacks clarity and is open to ambiguity.
Evidentially I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.
-------
Case Details
Case reference 2240435553
Appellant Khadijha Rahman
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM GU15BYR
PCN Details
PCN AF07525911
Contravention date 11 Jun 2024
Contravention time 11:52:00
Contravention location Eastwood Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 28 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Herjinder Mann
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons 1. This was a personal appeal via the telephone.
2. The Appellant states that she made a payment via the PaybyPhone system. The confirmation that she received did not display the location details. She now understands that payment should have been via RingGo. She says that there is a lack of clarity and the sign does not state that payment must be via RingGo.
3. The Enforcement Authority submit that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked without a valid parking ticket or payment registered on the Ring Go system on the 11th June 2024 in Eastwood Road, Goodmayes. The civil enforcement officer states that they checked the RingGo system three times. They submit that the appellant paid by the PayByPhone company which is not the permitted method at this location. They say that the sign provides a phone number by which payments are to be made. They have provided a photograph of the signage at the location.
4. I have seen photographic evidence of the road sign indicating the methods of payment. The sign gives the times of operation and states “Pay by phone” followed with a telephone number. I find that the method of payment is clearly specified.
5. I find that the sign is clear in relation to the method of payment by making a payment by calling a phone number. There is no reference to using the PayByPhone company.
6. I accept that the Appellant did make a payment via the Pay By Phone app and she did intend to pay for the parking. The circumstances that the Appellant found herself in and her assumption amount to mitigation which I am unable to take into account. Although the Appellant did make a payment for parking, she did not pay via the telephone number provided. The Pay by Phone app is not used by the enforcement authority at this location.
7. As the payment was not made in the manner prescribed, I find that there has been a contravention. It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that they follow the instructions on the road sign. It is not for the Appellant to choose the app by which to pay and in these circumstances the payment was not made to the Enforcement Authority.
8. I therefore refuse this appeal and determine that the penalty charge is payable by the Appellant.
-
A motorist does not know the contents of the Order when they park. The essential elements are conveyed by traffic signs which are of either a standard(prescribed) form specified in the Traffic Signs etc. Regs or as authorised by the Secretary of State.
In this case, the motorist would have a defence if they complied with the sign.
Telephone Payment Parking System" means a system to facilitate and monitor the payment of the
Parking Charge using the telephone or internet enabled device via communication with the service
provider, in accordance with instructions indicated on signs located at or in the vicinity of each Parking Place.“
As the OP has demonstrated, the tel. no. instructs 'the caller to pay via Ringo app using same location number.'
But they didn't.
The OP must make up their own mind as to how far to take this matter as regards the contravention itself.
-
This definition “
"Telephone Payment Parking System" means a system to facilitate and monitor the payment of the
Parking Charge using the telephone or internet enabled device via communication with the service
provider, in accordance with instructions indicated on signs located at or in the vicinity of each
Parking Place.“ specifies ‘internet enabled device’ in which case the signage is not very clear to motorists, hence could be understood wrongly? The single Need to specify “RINGO app“ somewhere .
Is this argument CORRECT from a user standpoint please ?
-
I take the point about signage. In the absence of anything else you seem to be saying there is no provision for any other payment mechanism than direct calling the number, a point you've made before. But traffic orders make a broader definition of 'telephone payment system,'.
The traffic order for this location in Redbridge says:
Payment Parking Places
18. At all times during which a vehicle is left in a Payment Parking Place, or a shared use Payment Parking
Place, during the Permitted Hours identified in the Map Schedule, there shall be displayed in a conspicuous
manner on the said vehicle a Valid Parking Ticket, an Essential User Permit and disc or a Valid Parking
Dispensation, or in respect of which there has been granted a Valid Virtual Essential User Permit or Virtual
Parking Dispensationw n i e n exempts them from displaying an Essential User Permit or Parking
Dispensation, issued in accordance with Articles 11(1)-11(5) or 11(7)-11(10) of this Order.
19. Where a vehicle has been left in a Payment Parking Place without displaying any of the indications in Article 18, an indication that payment of the Parking Charge has been made using the Telephone Payment Parking System shall appear on a Hand-held Device.
Definition:
"Telephone Payment Parking System" means a system to facilitate and monitor the payment of the
Parking Charge using the telephone or internet enabled device via communication with the service
provider, in accordance with instructions indicated on signs located at or in the vicinity of each
Parking Place.
-
Whether 'it's understood' (by whom?) or not would not IMO cut any ice with an adjudicator.
OP, you did not comply with what was conveyed by the sign, this is an objective fact. IMO, the burden then falls to you as regards why you did not.
See Item 7, Part 4: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/4
(h) “Pay by phone” and a telephone number and “quoting location” and a location number
Is the prescribed variant for this sign.
-
The facts are:
- Two main providers are used by London boroughs for virtual payment, RingGo and PayByPhone
- Signs tend to just say Pay by phone, with a number and location code, but it's understood by many now that the location code can be selected either manually or auto-filled by geo location on the appropriate app for RingGo or PayByPhone
- The information about which provider is operational at the location is often given on separate post signs and/or on pay machines, but machines are being phased out
- Because of the confusion about Pay by phone and the PayByPhone app, there are a significant number of adjudications that find for an appellant who should have used RingGo but there was no obvious signage to tell them so
- Further, one can move a few metres from one street to another and see the same type of sign but choose the wrong provider as you crossed a borough boundary (eg here Redbridge = RingGo but neighbouring Waltham Forest is PayByPhone)
- Absent other signage you'd have to spot that the telephone number on the sign is different, a number you probably never called if using apps
- The PayByPhone home screen actually has the name in all lower case - paybyphone.
In Redbridge we also have the one hour free in all pay bays but not relevant here I think.
-
Hi Andersen ,
I called that number just now , it’s asking the caller to pay Bia Ringo app using same location number.
-
Hi HC Andersen ,
I didn’t understand what you have said.
Please could you kindly advise .
Did you want me to call the number ? I didn’t get that. I thought you were asking full 020 number 😊 sorry if I misunderstood.
My argument is “No where was it mentioned to pay via Ringo app.
We live out of London and we’re visiting this place . We wouldn’t know if it’s not mentioned . “
That’s my argument. “And fact that I already paid for parking using that location number.”
I felt that info displayed is misguiding.
If you think this is legally not acceptable please advise. If you say I can give a go then,
I need a formal format to appeal please . Can you kindly help ?
Thank you in advance.
-
I'm not going to phone it, I leave this to you!
-
Hi HC Andersen , here is the number - 02030460010.
I’m still not sure why went online to pay via Pay by Phone. But I subconsciously went to pay online.
-
OP, both you and the council are wrong.
You, because you did not comply with the clear requirements conveyed by the sign:
Pay by phone 020........
Only by phoning this number could be you advised of the tariff and purchase parking rights.
Instead, you chose to use an app. You failed to comply with the sign.
The council, because they think that the sign DOES convey an option to use an app, in this case RingGo.
What is at the end of telephone number 020.....?
How could you use their response (which I'm certain would be repeated verbatim in a NOR unless your reps prompted them otherwise) to your advantage in formal reps?
-
Their letter also falls into the same trap, as they also write "Pay by Phone
-
Hello stamfordman and HC Andersen , below I’m attaching the first PCN I received and the communication letter. Hope this is helpful to help me out with your advice.
In the communication , it’s mentioned -“ Pay by Phone informs drivers that they must use their mobile phone to purchase parking session “ - which I did .
It then continues to say - “location codes assigned by different providers, such as Pay by Phone would correspond to entirely different locations “ - this statement is absolutely an unclear statement that’s infuriating because the council has put up those sign’s , how would a visitor know that that location number 7180 corresponds to a different location. This is purely misleading information. I’m very confused and seriously considering to fight. Is this worth it ? Could you please advise on legal wording and any legal advice that would really help . Thank you somuch
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The challenge and rejection don't amount to anything.
NTO date 14 may.
I see no RingGo sign in council pics.
OP's receipts also don't show a wrong location.
(https://i.ibb.co/CDf6m0v/IMG-0178.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/bjVywCLH/IMG-8436.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/vCc6HHg5/IMG-8440.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/gMgxVS0f/IMG-0170.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/fY3Ng4qq/IMG-0171.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/jP7hFcrJ/r3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/mCWhFtm6/r2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/q3sycH6W/r1.jpg)
-
OP, the correspondence and notices are scattered through this thread, could you pl bring them together. We need the PCN (both sides), confirmation of your payment, your initial reps, their rejection and the NTO. IMO, we don't need the other exchanges.
NTO dated 14 May gives a 28-day period ending on 12 June.
As I understand it, the sign directs motorists to 'Pay by phone' by calling a specified telephone number and quoting a stated location.
You did not phone the telephone number but instead chose a method of your own, namely an 'app'.
-
These cases often turn on detail and here 'Pay by phone' on the sign does not have the p for phone capitalised. There are cases where adjudicators have allowed the assumption it is the PayByPhone app as below and maybe not just if there is a cap P but we need to look at this to see if RingGo was clearly flagged say on the post.
-------
Case reference 2240405891
Appellant xxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM R17JAJ
PCN Details
PCN AF07349477
Contravention date 04 Jun 2024
Contravention time 14:30:00
Contravention location Westwood Road
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 21 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The Appellant has attended with his daughter.
The Enforcement Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge when in Westwood Road on 4 June 2024 at 14:30.
The Appellant's case is that he parked and saw the sign plate that indicated a motorist should pay by phone. He then proceeded to use the pay by phone app on his mobile to pay for parking time - a receipt is produced in evidence.
I have considered all the evidence in this case and I find, on a balance of probabilities, that this PCN cannot be upheld.
I have preferred the evidence of the Appellant to that of the Authority's in relation to signage, and I find that the location where the Appellant had parked his vehicle is confirmed by the photograph he has submitted. This is also confirmed by 'Google Maps' to the extent that the '2' on the pole is the same as that on the Appellant's photograph.
Further, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the CEO's photo shot of a sign plate was on the other side of the road to where the Appellant was parked.
The point here is that I find that the pole with the 'RingGo' sign on it was on the other side of the road to where the Appellant's vehicle was parked, and therefore, not relevant to his parking.
It may well not be the Authority's fault that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 uses the same words as the pay by phone app, to indicate that payment by phone is required. However, it is also not the Appellant's fault.
I find that the scenario in this case is even more convoluted due to the similarity of Westwood Road and West Street. I also note that the location number is the same in relation to both locations, which is 7178. Parking is not supposed to be an IQ test or requiring some sort of academic research.
Accordingly, I find that in the rare circumstances of this case, as detailed above, that there is justifiable confusion and ambiguity in relation to this parking incident in Westwood Road on 4 June 2024.
The law, in relation to where an Adjudicator finds that there is an ambiguity, is that it cannot be enforced against the party it disadvantages.
The appeal is allowed.
Hello Stamfordman , thank you for this reference case. On those grounds it does look like there is fair ground of chance I might get this PCN cancelled.
How should I go about this please ?
I have untill 10th June to appeal . I’m looking for a template that I could use ?
I have received this 28day letter , there is a section where I could represent. should I be using that?
Thank you for the advice
Regards
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
These cases often turn on detail and here 'Pay by phone' on the sign does not have the p for phone capitalised. There are cases where adjudicators have allowed the assumption it is the PayByPhone app as below and maybe not just if there is a cap P but we need to look at this to see if RingGo was clearly flagged say on the post.
-------
Case reference 2240405891
Appellant xxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM R17JAJ
PCN Details
PCN AF07349477
Contravention date 04 Jun 2024
Contravention time 14:30:00
Contravention location Westwood Road
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 21 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The Appellant has attended with his daughter.
The Enforcement Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge when in Westwood Road on 4 June 2024 at 14:30.
The Appellant's case is that he parked and saw the sign plate that indicated a motorist should pay by phone. He then proceeded to use the pay by phone app on his mobile to pay for parking time - a receipt is produced in evidence.
I have considered all the evidence in this case and I find, on a balance of probabilities, that this PCN cannot be upheld.
I have preferred the evidence of the Appellant to that of the Authority's in relation to signage, and I find that the location where the Appellant had parked his vehicle is confirmed by the photograph he has submitted. This is also confirmed by 'Google Maps' to the extent that the '2' on the pole is the same as that on the Appellant's photograph.
Further, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the CEO's photo shot of a sign plate was on the other side of the road to where the Appellant was parked.
The point here is that I find that the pole with the 'RingGo' sign on it was on the other side of the road to where the Appellant's vehicle was parked, and therefore, not relevant to his parking.
It may well not be the Authority's fault that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 uses the same words as the pay by phone app, to indicate that payment by phone is required. However, it is also not the Appellant's fault.
I find that the scenario in this case is even more convoluted due to the similarity of Westwood Road and West Street. I also note that the location number is the same in relation to both locations, which is 7178. Parking is not supposed to be an IQ test or requiring some sort of academic research.
Accordingly, I find that in the rare circumstances of this case, as detailed above, that there is justifiable confusion and ambiguity in relation to this parking incident in Westwood Road on 4 June 2024.
The law, in relation to where an Adjudicator finds that there is an ambiguity, is that it cannot be enforced against the party it disadvantages.
The appeal is allowed.
-
“Cp8759” the gsv link as below https://maps.app.goo.gl/UqCuGocUQYtYNYXXA?g_st=com.google.maps.preview.copy
Could you please kindly help. Many thanks
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Attaching pay by phone receipt and ticket evidence
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Below is the email communication attachment
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hi my PCN AF08947587 ,
Redbridge Council , ilford. I’m attaching relevant photo Evidence
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Please to 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 post up here both sides of the PCN and all sides of the subsequent correspondence to and from the Council, with a GSV link to the location.
Only redact yr name & address from documents - leave all else in.
-
Hello , Need some advice please.
Parked and have paid for parking on road in Redbridge area. The sign post says Pay by Phone with a location number. I paid by phone using the same location number.
I have received the confirmation on my mobile that the parking is valid for an hour.
I cam back to the car before an hour , and found a parking ticket. We immediately appealed using the screen shots i received on my mobile that the parking ticket was paid . After few days , i received a ticket to home saying the appeal has been rejected on the ground that i should have used Ringo app rather than pay by phone. I do have Ringo app aswell , But i followed the sign post and paid via Pay by phone.
I have mentioned the same and written to council that the Parking was paid , along with the proof and along with the sign post picture. Still that was rejected saying they have already replied to me in earlier communication that the appeal is rejected.
The council parking officer mentioned , no further appeals can be accepted before full 28days and asked me to wait for final ticket of 80£ . Then i am eligible to appeal further.
Now i have received the full Notice ticket . I am thinking to appeal now with all the evidence i have. Can you advice on this matter please? I am not happy to pay but want to fight as i have paid the parking charge and i have the evidence. Kindly suggest.Many regards and Thank you In Advance.
[attachment deleted by admin]