Free Traffic Legal Advice

As promised an update - I spoke to the centre staff, they go nope they can't do nothing and I'll have to speak to Parkigneye, however I wasnt fully convinced, as I know other places can cancel, so I grabbed someone else who seemed more senior and he took the PCN details and managed to cancel it

The PCN is POFA compliant so no wiggling out that way. Best bet is to appeal based on the grounds you've outlined, you might get it reduced to £20 for a keying error. Have you spoken to the ice centre to get it cancelled?

Umff I'm going to the centre today, so will speak to them but I am not holding my breath..as they may just say sorry, just try appeal on the ground you had a lesson - But one could argue how is that any different for anyone else that gets a PCN there - Will let you know what the centre say tonight

Appeal Won - Thanks as always to both for your advice.

Manchester council clearly are not as difficult as the London councils who ignore every reason, even ones that are genuine, they verified payment for the incorrect reg hence allowed it, although highlighted it if it happens again then may not be so lucky.

Best to stick with the 'O', and '0' argument, because the legally mandated font for numberplates had the same character for both.

Oh intersting, I did not know that both those appear the same visually, learnt something knew there then, the warden surely then must or should check both to be safe ?

@stamfordman @tincombe

Thanks for clarity around the NTO Service

Great I'll send this across and see, on my previous cases that have gone ajudication, theyve never re-offered a discount, but even if they did I'd be tempted to take this all the way if my case is strong.

Hi @stamfordman,

See my draft appeal, although in theory is very similar to the informal appeal I sent and re-iterating similar points. Added the bit you advised as point 2.


Ground: The alleged contravention did not occur

I make these formal representations following the council’s rejection of my informal challenge.

1. Incorrect and misleading contravention description

The PCN was issued for contravention code 16s – “Parked in a permit space or zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid permit.”

However, the council’s own photographic evidence shows that the vehicle was parked in a shared-use bay, where parking is permitted either:
* by permit or
* by payment of the applicable tariff.

Where payment is an alternative method of lawful parking, a contravention that alleges only the absence of a permit does not accurately reflect the restriction in force. This renders the contravention description misleading and ambiguous when applied to a shared-use bay.
This point was raised in my informal challenge, but the council’s response does not address it.
It is a fundamental principle of civil enforcement that a PCN must correctly and unambiguously describe the alleged contravention. Where it does not, the contravention cannot be said to have occurred.

2. Clarification requested regarding the alleged regulation breached

In its rejection letter, the council states:
“For shared use bays, the general regulation requires either a valid permit or a correctly registered pay-by-phone session for the specific location.”

I respectfully request clarification as to which specific regulation or Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) provision the council is relying upon when making this assertion.

This clarification is necessary in order to properly understand:
* the precise legal basis of the alleged contravention, and
* how that basis aligns with the contravention alleged under code 16s, which expressly refers to the absence of a permit rather than a payment-related failure.

The council’s response to date has not identified any specific regulation or TRO provision that is said to have been breached.

3. Genuine attempt to comply and payment made

It is not disputed that:
* a RingGo parking session was purchased,
* the correct vehicle registration number was entered, and
* the session covered the full duration of my stay.

The only error was the selection of an incorrect location code by one digit (6081226 instead of 6081228).

The code entered relates to York Road, only a short distance from where the vehicle was parked, and was presented in RingGo with the description “Ilford Town, Redbridge.” The correct code refers to “Ilford Outer, Redbridge.” Given the similarity of these descriptions and the proximity of the locations, this was a genuine and understandable mistake when using the app.

There was no intention to avoid payment or circumvent parking controls. On the contrary, I actively attempted to comply and ensured payment was made.

4. No loss to the authority and disproportionate enforcement

The first hour of parking at this location is free. As such, even if no parking session had been purchased, no financial loss would have arisen during the relevant period.
Issuing a penalty in circumstances where:
* payment was made,
* the vehicle was authorised in principle to park in the bay,
* the error was minor and limited to a location code, and
* no financial loss occurred,
is disproportionate.

The Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance advises that enforcement authorities must act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably. The council’s response does not demonstrate that discretion has been meaningfully considered in this case.

5. Failure to properly consider representations

The council’s informal rejection does not engage with:
* the argument regarding the applicability of contravention code 16s to a shared-use bay, nor
* the requirement to consider discretion in cases of genuine error and paid parking.

Instead, it merely restates that no valid session existed for the precise location code, which was never in dispute.

This suggests that my representations were not properly considered. I therefore request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

Slight nudge, as I need to respond today