Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: LondonTraveller84 on September 20, 2025, 11:47:50 pm
-
Also, could the council appeal, reason being if it is 3 days as the ajudicator has mentioned in his outcome, they can argue it was emailed across with 3 days clear?
-
You beat me to it, on my to do list today, to provide an update.
Yep I won, although purely on that delay of evidence otherwise even the adjudicator said I was at wrong and the accidental keying error woulnd't have cut it. He asked at first why they delayed it, to which I said no idea, I can only assume my call to the tribuanl to check if evidence had been posted, may have triggered it.
What is odd is that he referred to 3 days, when the directive says 5, but 3 for adjourment :/.
Lastly, I tried to use the opportunity to ask about the zero payment element, but he siad you'd have to get another ticket to find out and that i'm lucky his been kind today to allow this.
-
Outcome.
---------
Case Details
Case reference 2260027822
Appellant xxxxx
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM GK16BKY
PCN Details
PCN AF11171324
Contravention date 08 Sep 2025
Contravention time 13:31:00
Contravention location Connaught Road
Penalty amount GBP 110.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 09 Jul 2026
Adjudicator Gerald Styles
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The appellant did not attend the on-line hearing arranged for 9 July. The Council was not expected to attend and did not do so.
The appellant case was presented on-line by Mr xxx husband of the appellant. It was he who committed a keyboard error and was one digit out when registering and paying for three hours.
His first point was that the Council papers for the appeal which were certified by the Council as being sent to the appellant on Monday 6 July were delivered by post only today Thursday 9 July.
Mr xxx commented upon having little time to digest and research points as made in an extensive Council case summary.
I have a duty to ensure a fair hearing and the tribunal requirements for service of Council evidence in advance of the hearing are there to assist that. I refer to Tribunal Practice Direction 02-2025 which aims to provide an appellant with three clear days in advance of the hearing.
I have decided against ordering an adjournment given this is a single PCN without issues that have major bearing on the parties. I have decided in this particular case and the late service described to treat Council evidence as excluded with the consequence that the Council cannot rely on it. I have directed Council cancellation of the PCN.
-
In my view there's a point at which the authority's duty to consider comes up against requiring people to conform to onerous conditions.
Let's say they keep on adding an extra digit to the location codes and an increasing number of people make mistakes.
At 7 digits my feeling is that this point has already been reached, and goes beyond mitigation.
-
I haven't had time to look at this but one thing I'd also ask the adjudicator to do is check that the traffic order really does mandate a location code or words to that effect, in what the council has put in the pack.
Forgive me if this is a silly question, maybe I'm being slow, but what as the case or argument here - that a location code is not needed?
Also on a seperate point, I can see the LA have referenced a case 'London Borough of Barnet v The Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin): “Where a TMO defines the mechanism of payment, compliance with that mechanism is mandatory.”'
Would it aid my case to reference to the case (Case reference 2250684736) for the days, to the adjudicator (i assume I'd have to submit online today to allow sufficent time for him to read up on them), as presenting the case title on the day will not suffice.
-
Yours is for failing to pay for parking when no parking charge was due when the PCN was served.
I struggle with this, as I can see it and makes sense, but then when the council put their arugment against this, then I go into a limbo.. ie if i said that to the ajudicator, its 0 payment so how can you pay, its a contradiction, he may disagree or say something else and i'll be stumped! maybe my understanding or grasping the technical reality behind it isn't there.. :(
-
Mr Teper is one of the thoughtful ones who goes the extra mile.
I haven't had time to look at this but one thing I'd also ask the adjudicator to do is check that the traffic order really does mandate a location code or words to that effect, in what the council has put in the pack.
I think though this bit does do it.
https://store.traffweb.app/redbridge/documents/parkmap/sched/1.%20The%20Redbridge%20(Waiting,%20Loading,%20Stopping%20and%20Street%20Parking%20Places)%20Consolidation%20Order%202021.pdf
(https://i.ibb.co/h1hMmSN7/Screenshot-2026-07-08-at-11-10-04.png)
-
Hi Stamfordman,
Interesting, oh man! thats recent as in two days, same LA, if i get that adjudicator i'm done for!
Although with the appeal refused, why would the council consider a recomendation on close to the same points/reasons that would have been forward in the first case by the appealant. They get no brownie points for doing so and would just go against their original case.
Although I can see a recomendation as such to provide the discounted rate instead more likely?
Not necessarily ! The case cited here is for a different contravention. Yours is for failing to pay for parking when no parking charge was due when the PCN was served. Appeals based on this have succeeded. What the council should do is get their CEOs to record car registrations in the car park, and to then check for payment when the free time has expired, but they don't. They just whack the motorist with a PCN, knowing that >95% of people then just cough-up.
-
Hi Stamfordman,
Interesting, oh man! thats recent as in two days, same LA, if i get that adjudicator i'm done for!
Although with the appeal refused, why would the council consider a recomendation on close to the same points/reasons that would have been forward in the first case by the appealant. They get no brownie points for doing so and would just go against their original case.
Although I can see a recomendation as such to provide the discounted rate instead more likely?
-
A case on location - we know this adjudicator is frustrated by councils not using discretion for trivial errors but feels his hands are tied. But with parking PCNs they can make non-binding recommendations and I'd say if it looks like you are going to lose in cases like this you should prompt the adjudicator to consider a recommendation.
----------
Case reference 2260020878
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM LL63 YWF
PCN Details
PCN AF11799455
Contravention date 13 Oct 2025
Contravention time 13:55:00
Contravention location Snakes Lane East
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 06 Jul 2026
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 the video linked hearing; the Authority was not in attendance.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required, or without payment of the parking charge when in Snakes Lane East on 13 October 2025 at 13:55.
The Appellant's case is that she paid to park correctly using the RingGo application.
I have considered al the evidence and I find that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required, or without payment of the parking charge when in Snakes Lane East on 13 October 2025
I find the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO) record to be accurate and credible. I have reached this conclusion bearing in mind that it is contemporaneously recorded and is supported by photographic evidence.
I find that by a genuine mistake that the Appellant who is elderly made a one digit error in relation to the location as 6081248 instead of 6081246.
This genuine error by the Appellant goes to mitigating circumstances, it does not provide a defence or raise an exemption.
The Adjudicator decides appeals by making findings of fact and applying the law as it stands. The Adjudicator has no power to quash a penalty charge on the basis of mitigation submitted.
That said I recommend to the Authority that they cancel the PCN in this particular case for the following reasons:
First, I find the error in this case to be an understandable and a genuine case of human error.
Second, this is the first time this Appellant has made such an error in over 10 years;
Third, I find that this is not a case of reckless parking with a total disregard for parking regulations.
Fourth, this Appellant had paid to park albeit with a one digit error, in such circumstances I find that there is little or no real parking management purpose achieved by upholding this PCN.
This recommendation is advanced strongly by the Adjudicator.
The appeal is refused with the above recommendation.
Recommendation
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
-
Also, when i checked the case yesterday, there was 0 notes, ie nothing was submitted by council, until after., My case appeal was just a one line response referring back to my previous formal appeal.
Should I reattach my formal appeal in word doc, as the adjudicator will only have this in their evidence pack and it'll be viewed as follows: https://ibb.co/cckykYrq
-
Okay, so I can see it does say 3 days, but that seems to be for adjournment and if they have a valid reason for the delay , which I dont see they can, below is the extract from the 'Practice Direction no. 2 o'
Service of evidence generally
3. The Chief Adjudicator has directed that authorities must serve their evidence no laterthan five days before the first scheduled date of hearing of the appeal.
4. The five days take into account weekends and Bank holidays.
5. Service means the evidence pack reaching the appellant. Where evidence is served by post, the deemed service date is the second day after it was posted provided that day is
a working day; or if not, the next working day after that day.
6. The adjudicator must ensure a fair hearing. If the service date is not met, the adjudicator
may consider that this has prevented a fair hearing and allow the appeal accordingly. Where there are genuine reasons causing a delay to service, the authority may apply for an adjournment to give effect to the three clear days.
7. Service by email should be indicated in the case summary or the evidence checklist.
8. While some appellants are able to access the authority’s evidence via London Tribunal’s appellant portal, the obligation to serve evidence is not replaced.
Would the email override postal, even if postal hasnt arrived, as technically its in my inbox, while it is still short of 5 days on both fronts, postal and email.
Silly question, but would I go into adjudication and say the following (AI reworded)
"I'd like to highlight Practice Direction No. 2 of 2025, which states that parties should have 5 days. I haven't been given sufficient time, particularly with work and family commitments, to properly review the claimant's response. If you still believe the case should proceed today, I'll leave it to you to consider my defence alongside their submissions.
While I've raised several points in my defence, the key point I stand by is that this was a genuine mistake.
The claimant argues that I had three opportunities (I assume within the app) to check the parking code. However, if I believed I'd entered the correct code the first time—especially as the incorrect code was very similar to the correct one—then I would naturally have assumed the subsequent confirmations were also correct."
Just very frustrating, they can get away with all this in most cases, by their argument above that one would see the code x number of times, one can never have a minor keying error ever.
-
Ah yes, evidence submitted late. I had thought it was 3 days, but no, it is 5 days so the case should be won on this alone, but make sure the adjudicator is reminded of this Practice Direction !
-
Case reference 2250684736
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
VRM LL74KVV
PCN Details
PCN HZ78920571
Contravention date 28 Jul 2025
Contravention time 20:01:00
Contravention location HOPGOOD STREET
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked in permit space without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 18 Jun 2026
Adjudicator Lola Moses
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons Introduction
1. This appeal concerns a Penalty Charge Notice issued for parking in an electric vehicle charging bay during permit-holder only hours. The appeal was listed for a personal hearing via Microsoft Teams on 18 June 2026 at 11:30. By 11:40 there was no attendance and no communication from the Appellant. I am satisfied that proper notice of the date, time and method of the hearing was given. The Notice of Hearing explained that, in the event of non-attendance, the appeal may proceed in the Appellant’s absence. In the circumstances, I proceeded to determine the appeal in the Appellant’s absence on the basis of the evidence before me.
Enforcement Authority’s Evidence
2. The Enforcement Authority’s evidence checklist and covering letter record that its evidence was sent to the Appellant on 15 June 2026. The covering letter states that the evidence was enclosed.
Findings and Conclusion
3. Practice Direction No. 2 of 2025 required the evidence to reach the Appellant no later than five days before the hearing. Evidence posted on 15 June 2026 could not have complied with that requirement. There is no explanation for the delay and no application to extend time or adjourn.
4. The Appellant’s absence does not establish that the evidence was received in sufficient time, that he had an adequate opportunity to consider it, or that he agreed to waive the late service. Given the timing and extent of the evidence, I find that admitting it would not provide the Appellant with a fair hearing. I therefore decline to admit the Enforcement Authority’s evidence.
5. The burden rests upon the Enforcement Authority to prove the contravention. Without its evidence, it has not discharged that burden.
Decision
6. The appeal is allowed.
-
I think you should go for failure to consider mitigation, bearing in mind that no parking charge was due, so their point about other car parks with different tariffs and conditions is false, and the decision does NOT comply with their public duty to act fairly and proportionately.
Asking for a substantial sum of money for what is not a contravention, i.e. how can one fail to pay a non-existent charge, is just rapacity and venality.
-
Hi All,
So adjudication date in 3 days, the council have just sent across their response and its a damn thorough one, leaving little to no room for me to argue my case, as all my points I had used they've countered, so its a matter of jumping on the call, and just letting the adjudicator give a verdict it seems - Feel free to suggest anything I can or should bring up
https://ibb.co/tp2fXzhr
https://ibb.co/SDbjzVyg
https://ibb.co/Kxp3yJrj
https://ibb.co/Q3SYMDn9
-
You can't rely on up something like that in the appeal as you've not given them a chance to consider it but it could add weight to adjudicator if you highlight the 7-digit code being more prone to mistakes.
-
It will be interesting if the adjudicator finds they did not address your point about the statutory guidance.
Yep, got a date for adjudication 9th July,.
Hoping that the statuary guidance ground to go in my favour, as the sky news article also said that BPA (British Parking Association) say the same that on minor errors the tickets should be cancelled, although I assume thats more for private parking.
I just need to decide if I add the bit around my ticks or if it'll be seen as 'why am I adding it now'
-
It will be interesting if the adjudicator finds they did not address your point about the statutory guidance.
-
I was reading a tips and news post on SkyNews on how to avoid and appeal tickets, which mentioned a lot of the points from these forums that I've learnt.
On similar cases with incorrect digits etc, they had suggested things like dyslexia could be used and they would have to overturn without any proof. Would the same apply for ticks/touretttes, ie I have ticks, which could have contributed to the wrong digit being typed etc)
-
It let me submit the appeal and got a automated case ref, but I would have thought the appeal could still be submitted past the 28 days, but the the council will increase the fine - unlesss its one or the other, ie if past appeal will not work and you'll get increased fine.
The council will be informed of your appeal, and then must immediately cease any further enforcement action.
-
It let me submit the appeal and got a automated case ref, but I would have thought the appeal could still be submitted past the 28 days, but the the council will increase the fine - unlesss its one or the other, ie if past appeal will not work and you'll get increased fine.
-
If London Tribunals has accepted your appeal request, then only the full PCN penalty is payable if you lose.
-
Hey all,
Received the NOR, which I was supposed to post a few weeks ago but procrastianted heavily, as expected ignored reasons i mentioned in my appeal from the previous post - See attached.
https://ibb.co/pvwWhsKb
https://ibb.co/ymHBx38Q
As I was checking I noticed I may have gone over the 28th days to respond to appeal in the tribunal, which I did today (14/01/26), letter was dated 17/12/25 - Can someone confirm if I'm ok or they'll now increase the charge by 50% or if that +2 day rule applies that I've only heard being mentioned on this forums, as it was a letter received.?
For now I've appealed with no extra reasoning other then stating that same reasons as before - Is there anything else I can add or counter based on the NOR response above?
-
Responded with a lengty response, hopefully it'll do the job if not here then at ajudication
1. The Contravention Did Not Occur
1(a) A payment was made – therefore the alleged contravention is factually incorrect
Contravention 11 requires the motorist to have failed to make a payment. The enforcement authority’s rejection letter confirms that a parking session was created and that a payment was made, but under the wrong location code. This means the contravention as stated on the PCN is factually incorrect.
If the authority believes the issue was that the payment was allocated to the wrong location, that is a different contravention entirely, and not the one stated on the PCN. A PCN must match the facts alleged; if it does not, it is unenforceable - Therefore, the contravention as stated did not occur.
1(b) Additional point: the parking charge was £0.00 – no monetary payment was due
This is a crucial point, the location in which the vehicle was parked carried a £0.00 parking charge during the relevant period.
Where the required payment is £0.00, it is impossible to “fail to pay the parking charge” because:
* No monetary payment is required,
* No monetary payment is possible, and
* A charge of £0.00 cannot logically be “unpaid.”
If the authority’s position is that a free session was not correctly registered due to a location-code error, then that is not the contravention on the PCN. Code 11 explicitly requires non-payment of a charge, but when the charge is £0.00, the contravention cannot occur in law or in logic - It is therefore impossible for the alleged contravention to have taken place.
2. Failure to Consider Circumstances and Exercise Discretion
The Traffic Management Act 2004 statutory guidance requires councils to properly consider representations and exercise discretion fairly and proportionately. My error was a genuine and minor human mistake — a single incorrect digit/location code input while using the RingGo app. I made a good-faith effort to comply and made the required payment (even though the charge was £0.00).
[**** Intersted your extract from the General Guidance Here *****]
The rejection letter does not indicate that due consideration was given to mitigation or discretion. It uses a standardised explanation of policy rather than addressing my specific circumstances. The purpose of parking enforcement is compliance, not punishment. Penalising a minor clerical mistake — especially when the charge was £0.00 — is disproportionate, with my intention to comply being clear, this is precisely the type of situation where statutory discretion should be applied
Conclusion -
* The contravention as stated did not occur,
* It is logically impossible to “not pay” a charge of £0.00,
* The authority’s own evidence confirms a payment was made,
* The authority failed to consider the cirsumstances and fairly and proportionately
* And the enforcement action is disproportionate and unreasonable.
-
This is from the statutory 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.
Enforcement authorities have a duty not to fetter their discretion, so should ensure that PNCs, NtOs, leaflets and any other advice they give do not mislead the public about what they may consider in the way of representations.
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.
Authorities should formulate (with advice from their legal department) and then publish their policies on the exercise of discretion. They should apply these policies flexibly and judge each case on its merits. An enforcement authority should be ready to depart from its policies if the particular circumstances of the case warrant it.
-
Received the NTO,
https://ibb.co/yJv0bZm
https://ibb.co/CK44t898
Any advice or guidance on drawing up a appeal for the formal rep that can win over the adjudication, as the council stance is clear, the fact that they literally ignore the point about non payment says it all also.
I believe the first formal rep will go to LA again?
I have another thread open for a similar where @Hippocrates posted a recent adjudication for a similar wrong code scenario, and it was rejected :(
-
In formal reps the question about fairness can be put, as to how this meets the statuary guidance to act fairly in the public interest, and any or no response can be taken to the tribunal.
One outcome that is possible is an adjudicator can refuse the appeal but recommend cancellation.
-
the contravention is not paying, not for not having a valid or invalid session.
I've heard about this point in a number of other posts on FTLA and one where its mentioned that its a free charge so how can one pay, while it logically makes sense, I've never gone with this ground and am worried I would not be able to argue my case other then just make the statement, with the ajudicator going with the point the ticket was not there, ie not paid (even though its free)
We should also start putting councils to the test of duty to act fairly - this is set out in statutory guidance.
How though? councils clearly don't care, teh reasoning makes no difference in an email, an email won't make a difference, the ajudicators can't do nothing other then look at the case on the day.
-
They say the wrong location renders the session invalid but the contravention is not paying, not for not having a valid or invalid session.
We should also start putting councils to the test of duty to act fairly - this is set out in statutory guidance.
I would go on with this. The 7-digit code is also getting silly now.
-
Hi All/@stamfordman,
As expected, received a reply from the council, not excersising any discretion considering the circumstance.
See attached response - how best to proceed or what should I reply with?
I guess from a perspective of the regulations the code is incorrect even though it's by a single digit - Would the adjudicator take the same view, as I was once told her they go based on the law/rules/regulations and not assumption etc. If this is the case then I stand little chance at ajudication.
https://ibb.co/HDNDRFt0
https://ibb.co/WvgfKWrp
-
I have replied with the following, await their rejection :)
"This was an honest mistake, which your warden would have seen as I had purchased a permit as required prior to leaving the car, which was still active when the warden issued the ticket, please see attached. However the issue that has result in this, is that the ticket was for another location while still in the Redbrdige borough, this was due to the fact I had a digit incorrect for the location code when booking, this can clearly be seen by the code used against the code at the location in question.
Also there is technically no payment due for the first one.
I am hoping you can review this case on it's own basis and see that this was a genuine mistake an the intention were correct, as a result I ask you please cancel this ticket."
-
We see plenty of these from Redbridge, which like some other councils is now rejecting challenges for honest mistakes on location codes - and now it's created longer codes which must be a factor.
Also not paying for free parking is a nonsense contravention but some tribunal adjudicators just go with the wrong code without even checking the traffic order.
Just send a polite challenge saying it was an honest mistake on a 7 digit location code that was for another Redbridge location and there was in any case no payment payable for the half hour you were there.
-
Hi Guys!
Silly mistake, I parked up, the first hour is free, if you book in via RingGo, which I did, on my return noticed a PCN! Double checked incase I had forgotten to make the booking, but it was there with half an hour remaining, on further inspection the code was '6081226' instead I had booked it under '6081222'
They've hit me a Contravention 11 - Parked without payment of the parking charge
See attached - https://imgur.com/a/6OOuSjJ
Both codes are for the same borough, would it not be sufficient?
I will reply tonight stating the typo in booking being genuine, as there is a valid booking, hopefully the council will make an exception, or i have a feeling they'll be heartless and still reject!