Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Captainships1 on September 24, 2025, 11:25:40 am
-
Well, first, if you're going to take them to London Tribunals, is to register an appeal with them, and in the reps box, you put "I rely on my formal representations". This can be added-to later before the hearing. Do NOT opt for a papers-only adjudication as we see these lose more often than not. Hearings are by phone or video.
-
Thank you mate. Please let me know what to do.
-
I'll help.
This case from yesterday references the statutory guidance. It concern a removal but the principle is there.
------------
Case reference 2250395772
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM CN64OFT
PCN Details
PCN PN22739440
Contravention date 06 Jun 2025
Contravention time 10:45:00
Contravention location Jedburgh Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 12 Jan 2026
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction refund the release charges paid.
Reasons The Appellant’s case is essentially that the resident was unable to purchase a permit I until 12 51 as a result of a poorly performing computer system.
On parking a vehicle in any type of bay the motorist is allowed a reasonable time to f do whatever is necessary to validate the parking, in this case to obtain a permit. In these days of virtual permits it seems to me one should take a fairly generous view of what is a reasonable time in cases where the motorist is experiencing IT difficulties of some kind. However the point has eventually to be reached after a few minutes where the motorist has to accept that the attempt to obtain a permit has failed , and move the vehicle elsewhere, inconvenient and irritating though that would obviously be.
I see no reason at all to doubt the evidence in this case as to the difficulties experienced with computer system. However as the Appellant is unable to state the time the vehicle was initially parked It is impossible to make say how long the vehicle had been parked, attempting to obtain a permit , prior to the issue of the PCN. It sounds as if it might well have been some considerable time and I am not satisfied that this is a case of a PCN being issued to a vehicle prematurely within the few minutes allowable for permit to be obtained. The vehicle was therefore in contravention and it cannot be said the PCN was issued anything other than lawfully. The circumstances of course amount to mitigation, but as an Adjudicator I have no power in law to allow appeals on the basis of mitigation, the exercise of discretion on that basis being a matter for the Council, not an Adjudicator.
The vehicle was , however , subsequently removed. The Appellant contends this was unnecessary ; and there seems to be no obvious reason for it. I therefore adjourned the case for the Council to “ to demonstrate that in removing the vehicle it has complied with its statutory duty to have regard to the guidance of the Secretary of State.”. The Council, in its response has re-stated my request as “The Adjudicator has directed that the Enforcement Authority to provide details of the removal” which is not what I directed ; and the Council’s response in this form rather suggests that it is completely unaware of the Guidance and its statutory duty to comply with it , let alone having any evidence that it has done so. As I am unable to be satisfied the Council has complied with its statutory duty I am not satisfied that the removal of the vehicle was lawful.
The Appeal is therefore allowed to the extent of requiring the Council to refund the release fees (only ) leaving the Appellant to bear the cost of the PCN as a more proportionate penalty for the contravention
-
I agree. It's a disgraceful letter from the Council. I'm happy to take it to tribunal if anyone here is able to help with the appeal?
-
They say the use of 7 digit codes is standard practice - well it isn't. They are mostly 5 digit in my view.
The problem with the rejection of acting fairly is the tribunal can't act fairly and will probably record that the council chose not to use discretion and is entitled to enforce. But we need to see this tested properly as it is statutory guidance.
But I would have a go as if you get the right adjudicator the ground of not paying for a free thing is sometimes allowed, and you could also get a recommendation to cancel even if appeal refused.
They also say the code rendered the session invalid - but this is not the contravention on the PCN.
-
I would take them to London Tribunals; their letter of rejection is a disgrace and shows their venality and rapacity in neon lights ! OK, you've got to risk the full penalty, but appeals have been won in the aspect of how can one pay for a free parking period.
-
Hi all,
They sent the Notice of Rejection just before Xmas, dated 22/12/24. They rejected the rep despite the letter:
-acknowledging that it was a genuine mistake and no financial loss occurred
-acknowledging that the car was indeed parked for less than an hour (within the one hour free parking)
-acknowledging "payment was made" for a session, albeit in a different location (NB no payment was made, it was a Ringo booking for a one hour free parking).
Additionally, the letter responds to my request for discretion by saying:
"Regarding your request for discretion, enforcement authoritles are required to act fairly and proportionately. While we appreciate that this was a genuine mistake and that no financial loss occurred to the Council, the contravention is enforceable under the Traffic Management Act 2004. After reviewing the circumstances, we are satisfied that the contravention occurred....and remains payable"
Please can you advise what to do next?
Here is a link to the full NoR letter:
Page 1: https://freeimage.host/i/fvZb73J
Page 2:
https://freeimage.host/i/fvZbR4a
-
I would repeat the challenge adding you are disappointed they did not address the statutory guidance to act fairly and request they address this if they reject again.
And saying again that the contravention of not paying a charge could not have occurred in the less than 1 hour you showed you were there.
-
Hi all,
I forgot to update:
1. They've cancelled one of the pcns (the one that had the incorrect road name) saying "Thank you for your letter regarding the above Penally Charge Notice.
The matter has been considered and as a resultit is considered that there are suffcient grounds for the notice to be cancelled. No further action wilbe taken."
2. For the PCN that had the correct road name (which is what the original post here is about), we recieved the NtO giving the reason as" parked without payment of the parking charge". Here is the NtO: https://freeimage.host/i/faL1lZx
I have only until tomorrow I believe to submit a rep (however the NtO says 28 days from when the letter was served, which would mean I have another two days or so).
I've lost the discount so can someone help with the rep? Should I just re submit what I sent for the challenge?
Many thanks
-
OK thanks, will shorten and send.
-
It's much too long and confusing - you could cut it down to a few sentences.
The contravention did not occur.
This appears to be an NTO for a PCN that the CEO did not serve and failed to cancel before issuing PCN xxxx a few minutes later at xxxx.
The reason is likely the CEO realised it is for the wrong location - xxxx instead of xxxxx.
As this NTO has been served in error I look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
-
OK so I've drafted the following for the NtO that seems to have been issued in error :
I make this representation against the Notice to Owner on the grounds that the penalty charge is not payable due to procedural errors and duplicate enforcement.
1. No PCN Was Served on the Vehicle
I did not receive any PCN relating to the alleged contravention recorded at 15:04. The only PCN that was physically attached to my vehicle was issued at 15:08, which was at the same location, for the same alleged contravention, by the same enforcement officer. I have already challenged the 15:08 PCN (AF11197984) and will make formal representation in due course.
2. Incorrect Location Stated on the Notice to Owner
The Notice to Owner states that the vehicle was parked on Hamilton Road. However, the Council’s own photographic evidence clearly shows the vehicle parked on Mildmay Road. This is a substantive error which undermines the validity of the PCN.
Under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, a PCN (and any subsequent Notice to Owner) must accurately state the grounds on which the enforcement authority believes the penalty is payable. This includes the correct location of the alleged contravention. If the location stated is inaccurate, the PCN fails to properly identify the contravention and therefore cannot be enforced.
3. Duplicate PCNs for the Same Incident
As stated above, I am currently in the process of appealing a PCN/NtO for this very same incident, i.e. the 15:08 PCN (see PCN no. AF11197984). That PCN correctly stated Mildmay Road as the location and was the only PCN I found attached to the car. The PCN referenced in this Notice to Owner (issued at 15:04) relates to the same incident and was issued by the same Civil Enforcement Officer just four minutes earlier.
Therefore two PCNs have been generated for the same alleged contravention, which is both procedurally improper and unfair. London Tribunals and other adjudications have consistently confirmed that only one PCN may be issued for any one continuous contravention.
4. Likely Error by the Civil Enforcement Officer
The timing, location discrepancy, and the absence of the 15:04 PCN on the vehicle strongly indicate that the officer mistakenly recorded the contravention incorrectly at 15:04, realised the error, and then issued the corrected PCN at 15:08. However, it appears that the earlier, erroneous PCN was not cancelled on the system, resulting in this Notice to Owner being issued incorrectly.
For the reasons above, I request that the Council cancel this PCN in full. It was:
Not properly served,
Incorrectly recorded,
And amounts to duplicate enforcement for the same incident, which is contrary to established adjudication principles.
I look forward to your confirmation that the Notice to Owner has been cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
-
That NTO seems to be a mistake and generated because the CEO realised they were about to issue a faulty PCN but didn't cancel it.
You can see the location on the NTO is Hamilton Road not Mildmay Road as per this pic associated with the NTO.
You must make reps soonest pointing out that no windscreen PCN was found for this NTO and was probably supposed to have been cancelled by the CEO as the location is wrong and was also just a few minutes before the other PCN no xxxxx.
As for the other PCN I would be inclined to go on with it and if they reject have it out at the tribunal on the not paying for a free thing and possibly tying it to the traffic order is there is scope there.
I would also remind Redbridge of its duty of fairness over a long location code that cause them no loss.
(https://i.ibb.co/NggLntJF/red1.jpg)
-
Hi all,
We received a postal reply to the challange (a rejection) dated 13/10/2025.
Images of the letter here:
Page 1: https://freeimage.host/i/Ktaepaf
Page 2:
https://freeimage.host/i/Ktak9yl
Page 3
https://freeimage.host/i/KtakJu2
On the same day (through the post) We received another letter (also dated 13/10/25) which is a Notice to Owner, for the same incident BUT WITH A DIFFERENT PCN NUMBER.
Here is the image of this Notice to Owner (for which a PCN was never issued): https://freeimage.host/i/KtaPWVR
Both PCNs were issued by the same parking attendant:
1. The one I challenged and which was attached to the windscreen was issued at 15:08.
2. The one for which I only now recieved a Notice to Owner and which appears to be for the same incident was issued at 15:04.
I have not seen any images where two PCNs were attached to the car.
Please can you advise what I need to do?
For the one where it has been rejected, I guess I will need to wait for the NtO before I can submit a representation.
However for this new NtO which came unexpectedly and seems to be an error, should I submit a representation citing the other PCN? I believe I have until the 10th of November to do this.
-
Thank you Stanfordman! Much appreciated. Will submit your version now.
-
It's too long and only an informal challenge at this stage.
I have cut it and added a point about the long code.
------------------
I am writing to challenge the Penalty Charge Notice as the contravention of not paying the parking charge did not occur. No charge is due in the first hour and the car was parked for less than an hour.
I presume the PCN was issued because one digit of the location code was accidentally incorrectly entered. Instead of entering 6081224, the code 6081228 was entered. This was a genuine mistake.
As a result, a parking session was booked for Ilford Town instead of Ilford Lane.
An important point I feel you should consider fairly is that you are now using 7 digit location codes - inevitably this will lead to more minor keying errors by motorists at the roadside.
I have attached the RingGo receipt as evidence for the free 1 hour session that was booked at the time the alleged contravention took place. I have also attached screenshot from our Monzo bank account that shows that a purchase was made from Poundland in Ilford Exchange during the free 1 hour period. The car was driven away from the space before the free one hour session ended.
Given that the charge was not due and there was no loss to the council, the contravention did not occur and trust you will cancel this PCN.
-
I have drafted the below based on another thread I came across here where the issue was similar (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-ringo-parked-without-payment-of-the-parking-charge/)
Please can someone advise if this is good to send? I'll need to send before midnight.
I am writing to challenge the Penalty Charge Notice as the contravention of not paying the parking charge did not occur. No charge is due in the first hour and the car was parked for less than an hour.
The PCN was issued because one digit of the location code was accidentally incorrectly entered. Instead of entering 6081224, the code 6081228 was entered. This was a genuine mistake.
As a result, a parking session was booked for Ilford Town instead of Ilford Lane.
I have attached the RingGo receipt as evidence for the free 1 hour session that was booked at the time the alleged contravention took place. I have also attached screenshot from our Monzo bank account where it shows that a purchase was made from Poundland in Ilford Exchange during the free 1 hour period. The car was driven away from the space before the free one hour session ended.
I note the recent reviewed decision at London Tribunals, case 2220912034 (Decision Date: 22 Jan 2025). The adjudicator ruled that if a parking charge is not due, then the contravention “parked without payment of the parking charge” could not have occurred, given parking was less than 1 hour. The adjudicator also said the conditions of use explain to the motorist that a ticket or Ringo session is to be obtained at the time of parking. They do not say that a parking charge is due for the first hour if that condition is not complied with.
Given that the charge was not due, and noting that an honest mistake was made with booking the session, I respectfully request that the Council cancels the PCN, if not on the basis that the contravention of non payment did not occur, then at least through the Council exercising its discretion to cancel this PCN which resulted from an honest mistake.
As per the Government's statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions:*
"An authority has a discretionary power to cancel a PCN at any point throughout the process. It can do this even when an undoubted contravention has occurred if the authority deems it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
"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."
*Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
Yours sincerely,
-
Please see in the link below a screen shot of the parking session and a screen shot of my Monzo banking app where it shows I made a purchase at 3:07pm from poundland. I parked there to go to the Ilford Exchange shopping centre, bought some stuff from pound land and came back to the car. I had a school run at 3:15pm (which is very close to where I parked) so came to the car just before then.
Ringo:
https://freeimage.host/i/KlDmwkF
Monzo:
https://freeimage.host/i/KlDmNmg
So how should I appeal this?
-
Do you have a screenshot of the session you did take out, and also any evidence of what you were doing and for how long?
Here's the traffic order:
https://store.traffweb.app/redbridge/documents/parkmap/sched/1.%20The%20Redbridge%20(Waiting,%20Loading,%20Stopping%20and%20Street%20Parking%20Places)%20Consolidation%20Order%202021.pdf
It makes no mention of location or free session but does say a charge shall be paid including by a telephone payment parking system in accordance with any instructions set out in the parking place.
Redbridge policy also only refers to the VRM:
Free Parking
All designated on street paid for parking places currently offer free parking for up to one hour. Drivers must however ensure that a valid session for the correct vehicle registration is obtained either through the P &D machine or RingGo. Failure to start a parking session or starting a session for an incorrect or partial vehicle registration will result in a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) being issued.
https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/media/ktfetw3c/parking-enforcement-policy.pdf
Note the word 'valid' which is another contravention they can give rather than not paying.
(https://i.ibb.co/6cn2538P/r4.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/7dTmqpTm/r3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/4Rx5YwMx/r2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/SXhdhZB5/r1.jpg)
-
Yes, it was just the free one hour session. Could someone help me with the wording for the challenge? And I take it I'll have to take it all the way to adjudication?
-
Did you just take out the free 1 hour session, in which case not paying the parking charge is the usual nonsense.
But councils are getting tough on these wrong locations as they want your money, and some adjudicators roll over but not all.
Here there is also the factor that Redbridge has recently changed to 7 digit location codes, which is bound to create more miskeying errors.
Of course you should challenge this.
-
Hi all,
I received this PCN on our car: https://freeimage.host/i/KcLUHCu
The mistake was that I accidentally entered one digit wrong on the Ringo app, which meant that instead of parking at the area known as Ilford Lane, the session was assigned to Ilford Town.
The ringo code on the signage was 6081224 but I entered 6081228.
I have a couple of days left to submit a challenge within the 14 day period. Is it worth pleading for them to use discretion to cancel in light of a genuine mistake, or should I just pay up?
PS - the exact location is here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/cs6YT7BrRqJ6NkX28?g_st=ac
Street view however shows an old Ringo code. There are new signs there where one code is repeated on various roads, all under the name of 'Ilford Lane'.
Thanks,