Free Traffic Legal Advice

I plan to reply to the RingGo account to show I have paid and they've kept that money even though the car wasn't in the car park.

Why? IMO, it's distracting and is far less compelling than your main grounds. You would have to show that they misapplied their own policy.

But their policy appears to be discretionary on this point, so effectively you'd be asking the adjudicator to exercise that power which they cannot do.

That you paid the council is NOT your main grounds IMO.

Ok cool. I won't mention this. I wasn't sure if I needed to add anything against there evidence given that I've already called out my pertinent point in the letter to the independent adjudicator.

Date of hearing?
Birmingham send the Evidence Pack to the tribunal with a copy to you.
In the pack there should be a 1-3 page summary of why they think the tribunal should reject your appeal: also a list of contents. Please post these docs here.

Can't see anything that stands out as that summary.

I've included links to certain evidence.

I've listed all of their evidence below:

- PCN
- Case Report https://jmp.sh/s/7tXGdjpG7yF2X3nqPNS6
- Driver details check
- First appeal - where I was unaware that I had paid for my car instead of my wife's
- RingGo receipt for payment for my car
- Their initial rejection
- Follow up RE: first time mistakes
- Their second rejection
- Notice to owner
- Response to NTO
- RingGo receipt for payment for my car (again)
- Rejection of representations
- Their search of my RingGo account to show I hadn't paid for the car https://jmp.sh/s/7tXGdjpG7yF2X3nqPNS6
- Images of the car
- Birmingham City Council Off Street Parking Order https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pA5QGCePrWH8z2-wbVQRiQNOlq-4GqCe/view

Happy to upload more data if need, if need be.

I plan to reply to the RingGo account to show I have paid and they've kept that money even though the car wasn't in the car park.


I've got 3 days to reply to any of the above evidence. At that point it will then move to the adjudicator and hearing date will be given.

Appeal submitted tonight...will let you know how I get on.

I would still cite their direction to consult their policy which says to me that a first time such mistake is forgivable.

And I asked you where you saw this as it's not in the policy doc I got:

"In cases of first-time contraventions where a mistake has been made, including incorrect Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) or method of payment errors, we may cancel the PCN."

Also they seem to have taken down the policy doc they refer to in their rejection! This can also be mentioned and it's still online here:

http://bit.ly/2Wl1Spj

Thanks will add those points in.

With regards to your question - I think i inferred it from this previous post (below) from yourself. Have I misunderstood and therefore remove anything relating to that?

They have referred you to their discretion policy, which while not well written or spelling this out in the 'may accept' column tells me that they would consider cancelling for a first time mistake with the car VRM as the 'may reject' column clearly says that such mistakes can give rise to cancellation where a PCN has been issued in 'similar circumstances' which include wrong VRM.

I would go back to them now pointing out that their 'unable to cancel' does not square with their policy on individual merits listed by them. Cancelling for a first time mistake with location/VRM is a common reason to cancel a PCN among councils as payment has been made.

Any suggestions of what I could add to the tribunal? Or re-emphasise the points made previously?

I suggest these minor amendments. I have brought into the reps the language used in their prior rejection.


The alleged contravention is cited as: "Parked in a car park without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket or voucher or parking clock". However, as your initial rejection makes clear, I was parked in your 'Park and Pay by phone facility'and paid for my parking using the Pay by Phone service. which does not require a physical ticket to be displayed. Given that there was no requirement to display a ticket, the correct contravention code should have been: "Parked without payment of the parking charge." As I complied with the parking terms by paying via phone, this penalty appears unjustified. I respectfully ask that you reconsider this error.

Thanks for the feedback.

Will make the necessary tweaks.

I would go with both - draft something and we'll tweak it.

If there is anything else you can think of mate, I'm looking to get the appeal submitted tomorrow.

 

First Draft - Let me know what you think:

To whom this way concern,

I am writing to formally challenge Penalty Charge Notice BM40248575 issued on 22nd July 2024.
 
I request the PCN’s cancellation based on the following:

Compelling or Other Mitigating Reasons
Birmingham City Council’s discretion policy includes a section titled “compelling or other mitigating reasons,” which outlines that cases requiring individual consideration may warrant cancellation. I do not believe that the response provided by the Council sufficiently considered the circumstances or the mitigating factors in my case. There was no clear explanation as to why my first-time mistake did not justify cancellation, indicating a potential failure to consider the individual merits of my situation.

Incorrect Contravention Code
The alleged contravention cited as: "Parked in a car park without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket or voucher or parking clock". However, I paid for my parking using the Pay by Phone service, which does not require a physical ticket to be displayed. Given that there was no requirement to display a ticket, the correct contravention code should have been: "Parked without payment of the parking charge." As I complied with the parking terms by paying via phone, this penalty appears unjustified. I respectfully ask that you reconsider this error.

Birmingham City Council's Policy on First-Time Mistakes
In my appeal, I wish to reference Birmingham City Council’s own policy regarding the handling of Penalty Charge Notices.
 
The policy clearly states that for first-time mistakes, such as issues with vehicle registration or payment, there is a provision for cancelling the charge. Specifically, at the Notice to Owner (NTO) stage, it is stated that:

"In cases of first-time contraventions where a mistake has been made, including incorrect Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) or method of payment errors, we may cancel the PCN."

Birmingham City Council’s policy also refers to the consideration of "similar circumstances" where mistakes such as incorrect VRM can lead to cancellation. It is clear that my case falls within these guidelines, as this is the first time such an error has occurred. Therefore, in line with your discretion policy, I urge you to cancel this PCN.

Given the above points and the lack of evidence showing that my case was considered under the "compelling or other mitigating reasons" category, I believe I have grounds for cancellation of this PCN. Should this matter proceed to adjudication, I am confident that the adjudicator will recognise the failure to appropriately apply your own discretion policy and the fact I have made a payment for time spent in the car park and cancel the PCN on that basis.

I look forward to your favourable response and the cancellation of this Penalty Charge Notice.