Show Posts - stamfordman

The council can use discretion and should do if you can provide solid evidence of disability and access issues. But the contravention is there. It looks like there were yellow lines just before the stop you could have alighted from. This is Hippo territory so he may have something.

These are all the council pics - as I thought the parking sign does have City of Westminster.Location + boundary discretion are the possibles.

The Met prosecutes at 24mph in 20mph limits or it did in 2023. One Traffic Offence Report at 23mph.

Traffic Signs Manual.

We've seen discretion from one of these councils at the boundary I think. Is the name Westminster on the sign? You could post the council pics.Draft a polite challenge and post here first.

This section is for live cases - do you have a PCN?

Yes don't think there is a contravention.

Appeals are won here when coming from further back but some adjudicators likely to say that having just driven past the one way sign then it's a contravention and you were on notice.  But the left-hand sign is behind hoarding - see case below. And maybe the only way out is to enter the car park? Case reference   2240458865Appellant   Saima KhatunAuthority   London Borough of Barking and DagenhamVRM   PK22SRU   PCN DetailsPCN   BZ80968742Contravention date   06 Sep 2024Contravention time   17:59:00Contravention location   James StreetPenalty amount   GBP 130.00Contravention   Failing to comply with a one-way restriction   Referral date   -   Decision Date   12 Nov 2024Adjudicator   Sean Stanton-DunneAppeal decision   Appeal allowedDirection   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.Reasons   Ms Parin Begum has attended the hearing by telephone today as the authorised representative of the appellant. Ms Begum tells me that she was also a passenger in the car at the time of the alleged contravention.This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of failing to comply with a one way restriction in James Street.The CCTV footage from the Council does not show the appellant's car being driven past any one way signage. The footage shows one way signage facing traffic in the opposite direction on turning into James Street. A motorist cannot fail to comply with a sign which is not facing them.Even turning in from the junction, the signage in place was not fit for purpose because the sign on the left hand side of the road was completely obscured from view by construction hoarding.I also accept the appellant's evidence that the other end of James Street was blocked off due to construction works. The appellant has explained that she had to turn back when she came to the top of the road. A motorist cannot fail to comply with a restriction where compliance ceases to be a physical possibility.I allow the appeal for these reasons.

You need to set pics for access.

What are the PCN number and car VRM. Or check yourself for council pics. If not online, ask for them.

I've pasted some cases below (one refused, some on O/0) and highlighted bits. I've also looked at the law on the numberplate font and what's interesting is that the number zero isn't there presumably because it's the same as the letter O, and the number 1 is there but not letter I (which I think is still used in Northern Ireland but not sure). The point stands that you can enter the letter I instead of 1 and pay by phone system will accept it - you can try a dummy session with the app and take screenshots of what happens and whether the character I looks any different from the numeral one on the VRM font. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/561/schedule/4----------Case reference   2250021604Appellant   Peter CornerAuthority   London Borough of BarnetVRM   LR16LGL   PCN DetailsPCN   AG46739796Contravention date   01 Oct 2024Contravention time   11:51:00Contravention location   Golders Green RoadPenalty amount   GBP 80.00Contravention   Parked without payment of the parking charge   Referral date   -   Decision Date   05 Apr 2025Adjudicator   Martin HoareAppeal decision   Appeal allowedDirection   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.Reasons   Mr Corner explained ‘I paid for a parking session at the location at 11.26am for one hour until 12.26 pm. I used the PayBy Phone App.'According to the Authority ‘A wrong VRM was used to make a payment to park. Letter I was used instead of number 1. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure the correct VRM is used when paying for parking.’There is no realistic prospect that another car was parked , that Mr Corner gained any unfair benefit or that the Council lost money or suffered any real inconvenience.The Council has relied on a distinction without a difference.This is a trifling matter. The law is not concerned with a trifle.The appeal is allowed.Case reference   2240559283Appellant   Jonathan Peter HollAuthority   London Borough of BrentVRM   RJ14OLR   PCN DetailsPCN   BT21872909Contravention date   30 Apr 2024Contravention time   10:38:00Contravention location   Oaklands RoadPenalty amount   GBP 130.00Contravention   Parked in permit space without a valid permit   Referral date   -   Decision Date   28 Jan 2025Adjudicator   Andrew HarmanAppeal decision   Appeal allowedDirection   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.Reasons   The appellant appeared before me today at Chancery Exchange, accompanied by his daughter, who gave evidence on his behalf. Mr Ali, for the council, attended the hearing via telephone. The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this vehicle was parked in a permit space without a valid permit. There was no dispute that although a visitor parking permit had been obtained for the vehicle via RingGo, it was purchased against vehicle registration mark RJ140LR. The registration mark of this vehicle as shown on its plates is RJ14OLR. On the council's case, as put by Mr Ali, the permit that was obtained did not provide cover for the vehicle against its registration mark given the digit '0' was used instead of the letter 'O'. I acknowledged what is said, but in Regulation 15 of, and Schedule 4 to, The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001, the prescribed font provides that the letter ‘O’ and the digit ‘0’ are identical, (as are the letter ‘I’ and the digit ‘1’). That being so I was not satisfied that this vehicle was parked without a valid permit where required and I accordingly found that the contravention did not occur.Case reference   2250059618Appellant   Oliver SmartAuthority   Royal Borough of Kingston Upon ThamesVRM   AF14OSY   PCN DetailsPCN   QT10022448Contravention date   15 Nov 2024Contravention time   14:12:00Contravention location   St Philips Car ParkPenalty amount   GBP 60.00Contravention   Parked without payment of the parking charge   Referral date   -   Decision Date   02 Apr 2025Adjudicator   Michel AslangulAppeal decision   Appeal allowedDirection   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.Reasons   This was a video hearing. The Appellant appeared in person. The authority did not appear.The main question to be considered is whether the authority has complied with its duty to act fairly.The Appellant’s case is that payment of the parking charge was made in full, except that the digit ‘0’was entered instead of the letter ‘O’.The case of the authority is that it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that the letter ‘O’ should have been entered instead of the digit ‘0’.In Regulation 15 of, and Schedule 4 to, the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 the prescribed font provides that the letter ‘O’ and the digit ‘0’ are identical, as are the letter ‘I’ and the digit ‘1’.I am unable to be satisfied that the authority has complied with its duty to act fairly because it has failed to consider Regulation 15 of, and Schedule 4 to, the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001.It is the authority’s responsibility to ensure that when collecting payment for the parking charge the computer program is such that it ensures that that the letter ‘O’ and the digit ‘0’ are identical, as are the letter ‘I’ and the digit ‘1’ so that the parking charge can be allocated to the correct vehicle registration, location and duration of parking and thereby avoid the issuing of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) as in this case.I am unable to be satisfied that the authority has complied with its duty to act fairly.Case reference   2250059618Appellant   Oliver SmartAuthority   Royal Borough of Kingston Upon ThamesVRM   AF14OSY   PCN DetailsPCN   QT10022448Contravention date   15 Nov 2024Contravention time   14:12:00Contravention location   St Philips Car ParkPenalty amount   GBP 60.00Contravention   Parked without payment of the parking charge   Referral date   -   Decision Date   02 Apr 2025Adjudicator   Michel AslangulAppeal decision   Appeal allowedDirection   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.Reasons   This was a video hearing. The Appellant appeared in person. The authority did not appear.The main question to be considered is whether the authority has complied with its duty to act fairly.The Appellant’s case is that payment of the parking charge was made in full, except that the digit ‘0’was entered instead of the letter ‘O’.The case of the authority is that it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that the letter ‘O’ should have been entered instead of the digit ‘0’.In Regulation 15 of, and Schedule 4 to, the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 the prescribed font provides that the letter ‘O’ and the digit ‘0’ are identical, as are the letter ‘I’ and the digit ‘1’.I am unable to be satisfied that the authority has complied with its duty to act fairly because it has failed to consider Regulation 15 of, and Schedule 4 to, the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001.It is the authority’s responsibility to ensure that when collecting payment for the parking charge the computer program is such that it ensures that that the letter ‘O’ and the digit ‘0’ are identical, as are the letter ‘I’ and the digit ‘1’ so that the parking charge can be allocated to the correct vehicle registration, location and duration of parking and thereby avoid the issuing of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) as in this case.I am unable to be satisfied that the authority has complied with its duty to act fairly.Case reference   225043512AAppellant   Florence BlatchleyAuthority   London Borough of HaringeyVRM   LL67XOX   PCN DetailsPCN   ZN16286104Contravention date   28 Mar 2025Contravention time   13:39:00Contravention location   Frome RoadPenalty amount   GBP 130.00Contravention   Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit   Referral date   -   Decision Date   08 Jan 2026Adjudicator   Martin HoareAppeal decision   Appeal allowedDirection   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.Reasons   Neither party attended this video appeal hearing.Ms Blatchley submitted ‘I did pay for parking using RingGo and made a genuine effort to follow the rules. However, the vehicle registration was mistakenly entered as LL67X0X instead of LL67XOX due to a small input error over the phone. This was not intentional, and payment was made for the correct location and time. Additionally, RingGo usually saves and prompts you to repark the same vehicle, so I believed the correct details were in use. I respectfully request that this be considered a minor error made in good faith.’Ms Blatchley provided a receipt.The Council accepts that the said mistake solely caused the alleged contravention. It received payment.This is a trifling mistake. The law is not concerned with a trifle.Further,’ 0’ and ‘o’ are used interchangeably in the English language. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/o‘o/ əʊ /noun1.   the 15th letter and fourth vowel of the modern English alphabet2.   any of several speech sounds represented by this letter, in English as in code, pot, cow, move, or form3.   another name for nought’.The appeal is allowed.Case reference   2250459820Appellant   Antonio Da Cruz OliveiraAuthority   London Borough of IslingtonVRM   HN71UTJ   PCN DetailsPCN   IZ35843058Contravention date   18 Jun 2025Contravention time   10:16:00Contravention location   Mercers RoadPenalty amount   GBP 160.00Contravention   Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit   Referral date   -   Decision Date   23 Jan 2026Adjudicator   Cordelia FantinicAppeal decision   Appeal refusedDirection   Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.Reasons   1. Gale Astley attended by Teams video call as the Appellant’s Authorised Representative. The Authority did not attend and had not been expected to. Ms Astley confirmed receipt of the Authority's evidence pack. I reserved my decision, which is set out below.2. Ms Astley explained that, in summary, the Appellant was carrying out work at a property for a Mr Davidson. Mr Davidson purchased a visitor's permit on 18 June 2025 for the vehicle at 10:12 for two hours. The Appellant and Mr Davidson have now realised that Mr Davidson mistakenly entered an uppercase "I" instead of the digit "1" when inputting the Appellant's vehicle registration mark (VRM) on the RingGo app. Ms Astley submitted that the Authority had not responded to Mr Davidson's representations within 56 days, and that Mr Davidson had been unable to reach anyone at the Authority by telephone to clarify the reason why the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued. Ms Astley has provided a statement from Mr Davidson, copies of the permit purchased, correspondence with the Authority and a document showing different fonts used by RingGo and the Authority, in which "I" and "1" appear identical.3. Ms Astley said that she did not feel the matter should have got to this stage. The alleged contravention occurred as the result of a genuine mistake. There was no intention to avoid payment, Mr Davidson and the Appellant believed a valid permit had been obtained. The Authority is not out of pocket, the permit was valid for the location, time and date. Ms Astley said that the penalty was disproportionate and the Appellant was being treated as if he had intentionally tried to evade the charge. The Authority is not acting fairly or reasonably in its decision not to exercise its discretion. Ms Astley relied on her written submissions and evidence and I reserved my decision to considered all of the written submissions and evidence provided by Ms Astley on the Appellant's behalf before reaching my decision.4. The PCN was issued at 10:16 on 18 June 2025. The photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) show the Appellant’s vehicle parked in a bay and the relevant sign, which advises that from Monday to Friday parking is for resident permit holders only from 10am to Noon. The CEO's notes record that RingGo was checked and no permit was found. In the circumstances that they observed, the CEO was entitled to issue a PCN as the vehicle was parked in a bay during its hours of restriction without a valid permit.5. In its Case Summary the Authority acknowledges that there was a RingGo session purchased for the relevant time, but that vehicle HN7IUTJ was paid for instead of HN71UTJ. The Authority refers to the Service terms and conditions for purchasing permits on RingGo. The Authority has highlighted the relevant part, which sets out at Section 3 that the motorist/service user is:"responsible for providing all of the necessary and correct details for your parking action, such as vehicle number plate ... The details you provide about your parking action are key for us to correctly process your parking fees. You alone are responsible for providing us with the correct details for your parking action and you will be responsible for paying any penalty charge or parking fee issued as a result of incorrect parking action details... incorrect use mightlead to penalty charges"6. Based on the evidence before me I accept Ms Astley's account of events in full and I accept that there was a genuine error when entering the VRM, and there was no intention to avoid payment. Indeed, a parking session was purchased for the relevant date and time, albeit for VRM HN7IUTJ and not HN71UTJ, which was the vehicle that was parked. However, the Authority’s position is correct in law. The session purchased by Mr Davidson was not valid as it was not purchased for the Appellant's correct VRM. Therefore, as a matter of fact, a contravention occurred.7. The fact that the Authority did receive payment for parking, albeit for registration number HN7IUTJ, is not a basis upon which I can allow this appeal. The circumstances described by Ms Astley, the Appellant and Mr Davidson are mitigating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances do not amount to a statutory ground of appeal. They provide mitigation as to why the contravention occurred; they do not "undo" the contravention itself. The Adjudicator is unable to allow an appeal on the basis of mitigating circumstances. It is only the Authority is able to exercise its discretion and cancel a PCN on the basis of mitigating circumstances, and it has decided not to do so on this occasion. This is not a decision that I can interfere with.Procedural impropriety8. Procedural impropriety occurs where there is a failure by an Authority to observe any requirement imposed upon it by (a) the Traffic Management Act 2004, (b) the General Regulations, or (c) the Appeals Regulations.9. Ms Astley has provided Mr Davidson's email to the Authority, sent on 18 June. The email challenged the PCN and the Authority's automated reply stated that a response would be provided within 56 days.10. The Authority has also provided the correspondence between the parties, which shows the Appellant's submission to the Authority. This submission is undated, but refers to Mr Davidson's earlier email. The Appellant's submissions must have been sent after receipt of the Notice to Owner dated 17 July 2025. The Notice of Rejection was then issued on 20 August 2025.11. In the Appellant's updated letter to the Tribunal, filed on 7 December, he states that Mr Davidson did not receive a reply to his email of 18 June until 11 September, after the 56 days.12. The 56-day statutory deadline for an Authority to respond to representations refers to the "formal representations", in this case it means the representations received after service of a Notice to Owner. Mr Davidson's email of 18 June would be considered an "informal representation". It appears that it was not linked to this case, as it was from a third party and not the Appellant. The Authority's 11 September response to that email, which is not before me, would not be subject to the 56-day statutory deadline. The response was evidently sent after the deadline stated in the automated reply, but this delay does not constitute a procedural impropriety based on which I could allow this appeal.13. The evidence before me shows that the Authority complied with the 56 day time limit as the Appellant's formal representations had to have been made after the Notice to Owner, dated 17 July, and the Notice of Rejection was issued 35 days later.Conclusion14. I have found that the contravention occurred. The Appellant and Ms Astley have not established a statutory ground of appeal. I am therefore bound to refuse this appeal.

Not a PCN so not a case for this forum. You entered the zone and were charged as you should have been. You can only try and escalate a complaint on the signage with TFL. Take some pictures and try again is all you can do.

As the PCN was served and received you have no come back really.Where were you during the time the PCN was served and the deadline to pay or make representations. 

Here are council pics bar a couple of close-ups of windscreen.No suspension sign or anything putting you in a suspended bay. I would be inclined to go on with this - they need to satisfy an adjudicator and this won't do it in my view.But post their rejection in full. Your Google link doesn't work.

It's free at a county court in England and Wales - I expect there are the same in Scotland?