Free Traffic Legal Advice

Take a screenshot! Proof that you've been told you don't need to do anything at this stage may prove useful later.

If the Enforcement Authority
*Accepts the recommendation or
*Fails to notify you and the adjudicator of its decision within the 35 day period
it must cancel the Notice and refund forthwith any payments made in respect of the penalty charge.
If the Enforcement Authority rejects the recommendation it must set out its reasons for doing so and
*You will have 28 days beginning with the date the Enforcement Authority notifies you of its
decision to pay the full penalty charge
*If payment is not made within that time the Enforcement Authority can issue a Charge
Certificate increasing the full penalty charge by a further 50%.

Adjudicator's Decision

The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has determined that the
appeal against liability for the charge should be refused, but has recommended the Enforcement
Authority to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
The recommendation has been made under Regulation 7( of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 because the adjudicator
is satisfied that there are compelling reasons in the particular circumstances of this case why the
Notice should be cancelled.
The reasons for the adjudicator's decision and recommendation are enclosed.
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY THE INFORMATION ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE.


The effect of the adjudicator's recommendation is as follows.
Within 35 days beginning with the date on this document the Enforcement Authority must notify you
and the adjudicator whether or not it accepts the recommendation.
If the Enforcement Authority
*Accepts the recommendation or
*Fails to notify you and the adjudicator of its decision within the 35 day period
it must cancel the Notice and refund forthwith any payments made in respect of the penalty charge.
If the Enforcement Authority rejects the recommendation it must set out its reasons for doing so and
*You will have 28 days beginning with the date the Enforcement Authority notifies you of its
decision to pay the full penalty charge
*If payment is not made within that time the Enforcement Authority can issue a Charge
Certificate increasing the full penalty charge by a further 50%.
You cannot appeal to an adjudicator if the Enforcement Authority decides to reject the
recommendation.
What you should do now
*You do not have to pay anything now, but
*You should check your post to see if you receive a notification from the Enforcement
Authority.
*Remember that if the Enforcement Authority decides to reject the recommendation, they may
notify you at any time until the 35 day period has expired; if they do so, the 28 day period for
payment of the penalty charge begins with the date the Enforcement Authority actually notifies
you of their decision.
*If the Enforcement Authority accepts the recommendation or fails to notify you of their
decision within the 35 day period they must cancel the Notice and refund any payments made
in respect of the penalty charge. If they do not do so forthwith, you should contact the
Enforcement Authority direct. There is no need to contact London Tribunals.

If you take London Tribunals to judicial review, I suppose you are aware of the potential costs ?
From what I can see, you delayed payment to park by 2.5 hours to check which amount you should pay from two quite trivial sums, and in that period received a PCN which you regarded as unjustified and took it all the way to London Tribunals where you lost. I can't see any win at judicial review at all, sorry.

• Islington council introduced motorcycle parking sometime in beginning of 2023, suspended briefly and again resumed in July/August 2023.
• I have been parking here since 2017 for free
• I had a break from riding motorcycle during covid and from this April I started riding again
• I have an electric motorcycle
• I parked in my usual place 3-4 times and used Ringo app which automatically selected a parking fare to be £0.93 on these occasions
• I have used Ringo before but not at this location and not for this vehicle prior to April 2024
• On my last visit prior to alleged contravention, I was looking at the prices and noticed that for motorcycles, they advertised two different pricing without any differentiator
• One reads £1.07 and other £0.53. I read up further about it in the evening and understood that it is for electric motorcycles. I did not pay much attention as I already paid £0.93 and was about to leave
• On the day this alleged contravention occurred, I decided to look carefully how to select £0.53 but there was no way to do it. It automatically defaulted to £0.93
• I went to council's webpage which is linked in the Ringo app to understand better
• It mentioned nothing about £0.53 discount but in a table below, they mention that if I apply for a non-resident motorcycle permit, I could benefit from this pricing
• So I decided to apply for one from my computer in the office which is adjacent to the parking bay
• By the time I could finish my application, I was issued a PCN (at 8:40)
• I never got any confirmation for successful application of the permit
• So, I just paid £0.97 as usual hoping that they would understand the situation
• Council rejected my initial claim
• In addition, they stated that what is displayed on Ringo app is not their responsibility
• I made a formal representation again stating that the prices on Islington website and Ringo app were confusing and unambiguous. So the PCN should be invalidated
• Council wrote back saying that I was in fact paying £0.53 until that date and because I was already paying everyday (3 or 4 prior occasions) there is no scope for confusion and hence rejected my formal notice
• They also pointed out to a section on the short-stay parking page on their website which reads that electric motorcycles pay £0.53 for one day and questioned why I omitted to read that section
• I checked Ringo app and noticed in the invoices that Ringo were sneakily charging me £0.20 for non parking related fees (message reminders) which I don't remember accepting to
• Am I responsible for checking Ringo's additional fees is not the question here. Until I complete payment (through apply pay) and look at the invoice, they do not mention that they are adding 20p in any of the screens. So I was always under the assumption that I was paying the full £1.00
• Now, I appealed to ETA stating several reasons why this should be cancelled
• The prices were ambiguous on Ringo app
• The discounted prices council were talking about were for non-resident motorcycle permit holders and does not apply to me as I never applied for such permit before the day of alleged contravention
• The Ringo app says I should pay £1.07 or £0.53 but the council website says it should be £1.07 but there is no way to actually select £1.07 from the app
• Council have uploaded the TMO 2023 as supporting evidence and have added nothing much as to say that their website was in fact wrong
• The adjudicator, on the day of hearing, went over the app for over 30 mins. She did not look at permit section of the app as I never paid through that flow
• I kept asking what am I supposed to do if the app is not providing me an option to select the correct amount
• The adjudicator response was always that I was paying some amount (right or wrong) in previous occasions and should have continued to do so
• The adjudicator also agreed that the prices were ambiguous but it is still my fault that I did not pay for the parking
• The adjudicator made lots of assumptions saying that council must have been charging me discounted amount in previous cases because I applied for a permit even though I stressed a lot that I never applied for one before the day in question
• Finally rejected my claim stating that I was confused for various on that day but PCN is valid but made a suggestion to council to consider cancelling my PCN
• I emailed Islington council on the 16th September pointing out their error on the site, citing the officer's comments on my official notice
• They quickly updated the page to reflect this
• The page now reads £1.07 for petrol motorcycles and £0.53 for electric motorcycles
• I appealed to ETA stating that council has now updated their page, indirectly acknowledging their mistake which should be considered as a new evidence
• Another reason I mentioned is that the adjudicator's suggestion on to commit a different contravention in the cases where parking system is broken is in contradiction to other ETA rulings
• The TMO and subsequent amendments to it by council no where indicates that the prices for electric motorcycles to be £0.53 for non permit holders
• In fact, I could not find any amendment orders which allows them to increase the prices to £1.07 from £1.00 and related permit based charges
• Now they have rejected my appeal with another ridiculous statement:
  
  
  Quote

  Further to your correspondence, the adjudicator, Anthony Chan, has directed that there are no
  grounds for there to be a review of this case.
  The Appellant poses the question:
  
  "What must one do if there is no way to pay correct charges due to broken council appointed
  system?"
  
  The answer to the question is to park elsewhere. The Traffic Management Order requires parking to
  be paid for. It does not make provision for broken system or equipment.
  
  In any event, this appeal was not about a broken system. The system was working. It enabled the
  Appellant to make payment. The issue was when the payment was made.
  
  The Appellant made a complaint in the Notice of Appeal about the confusion with the tariff. This is not
  a ground of appeal. The Appellant then elaborated in the hearing that he had not paid immediately
  because he was checking the correct tariff. he then applied for a permit in order to access a cheaper
  tariff. By the time he paid for his parking, the PCN had already been issued some two and a half
  hours previously.
  
  The adjudicator found that this did not provide the Appellant with a ground of appeal. He left his
  vehicle parked in a pay to park space without having made any payment. The CEO was therefore
  entitled to issue a PCN. Motorists are expected to make payment as soon as practicable after
  parking.
  
  I note that the Appellant said that he was aware of issues surrounding the tariff because of previous
  experience. This was why he wanted to check before he paid. What he did not explain is why he had
  not checked before he parked this time, bearing in mind that it is a parking place that he would be
  using regularly.
  
  The Adjudicator was entitled to come to her conclusion. There is no ground for a review. The
  application is refused.
  Your application for review is therefore rejected.
  The Enforcement Authority has been notified of this decision, and is entitled to continue with its
  enforcement procedures. You are liable for the penalty, which you should pay without delay if you
  have not already done so.
  Do not wait for the Enforcement Authority to contact you. If you do not pay the penalty promptly, the
  Enforcement Authority may issue a Charge Certificate increasing the penalty by 50%.