1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Westminster PCN Code 12r – Queen’s Gate (Bank Holiday / Mitigation)also Wrong Location
« on: April 24, 2026, 05:05:06 pm »
Thank you all for the help!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1] 2
2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Westminster PCN Code 12r – Queen’s Gate (Bank Holiday / Mitigation)also Wrong Location
« on: April 20, 2026, 07:16:57 pm »
' PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE NUMBER: WE66329824
DATE OF CONTRAVENTION: 05 April 2026
TIME OF CONTRAVENTION: 11:37
VEHICLE REGISTRATION: EA58WLN
LOCATION OF CONTRAVENTION: Queen`s Gate [A4]
NATURE OF CONTRAVENTION:
12r - Parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without
a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or
voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required,
or without payment of the parking charge
Dear
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
The PCN was issued because you parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without a valid virtual permit
or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required, or
without payment of the parking charge.
I appreciate the evidence you have provided to verify that the location of the PCN is not the same as the location where you
had parked. Due to a procedural error, I am now able to cancel the PCN. I apologise for any inconvenience caused.
To find out why the Council needs to collect and store personal data, how this is used and your rights to access your
information please refer to our Privacy Policy (https://www.westminster.gov.uk/parking-services).
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Rowing
Head of Parking Operations '
Win!
DATE OF CONTRAVENTION: 05 April 2026
TIME OF CONTRAVENTION: 11:37
VEHICLE REGISTRATION: EA58WLN
LOCATION OF CONTRAVENTION: Queen`s Gate [A4]
NATURE OF CONTRAVENTION:
12r - Parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without
a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or
voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required,
or without payment of the parking charge
Dear
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
The PCN was issued because you parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without a valid virtual permit
or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required, or
without payment of the parking charge.
I appreciate the evidence you have provided to verify that the location of the PCN is not the same as the location where you
had parked. Due to a procedural error, I am now able to cancel the PCN. I apologise for any inconvenience caused.
To find out why the Council needs to collect and store personal data, how this is used and your rights to access your
information please refer to our Privacy Policy (https://www.westminster.gov.uk/parking-services).
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Rowing
Head of Parking Operations '
Win!
3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Wandsworth PCN (code 12r) – Fairlight Road – RingGo failure / paid later – informal rejected
« on: April 14, 2026, 04:17:20 pm »
Hi all,
I’d really appreciate some guidance on whether this is worth taking further or paying at the discounted rate.
PCN details:
• Council: Wandsworth
• PCN number: WA9391050A
• Vehicle: EA58WLN
• Contravention: Parked in shared use bay without valid permit or payment
• Location: Fairlight Road, SW17
• Date: 27/03/2026
• Observation: 09:42–09:54
• PCN issued: 09:54
⸻
My initial informal appeal (verbatim)
"Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to make representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.
I arrived on Fairlight Road at approximately 09:39 and immediately attempted to pay for parking using the RingGo app, in accordance with the parking requirements. However, I was unable to complete payment due to repeated technical issues with the app. I have attached screenshots showing failed login attempts and error messages at approximately 09:40, 09:59 and 10:10, which demonstrate that I was actively trying to make payment from the moment I parked. The RingGo account shown in the attached screenshots is my account associated with my vehicle.
This was not a case of failing to pay, but rather being temporarily prevented from doing so due to circumstances beyond my control. I continued attempting to access the system and successfully made payment at 10:31, as evidenced by the attached RingGo receipt. This clearly shows that I intended to comply with the parking regulations and paid as soon as it became possible.
I would also like to draw attention to a discrepancy in the timing of the alleged observation period. The PCN states that the vehicle was observed between 09:42 and 09:54, however the photographic evidence appears to be timestamped at 09:55. This raises concerns as to the accuracy and reliability of the observation period.
At all times I acted in good faith and made continuous efforts to comply with the payment requirements. I was attending a compulsory university session at St George’s and made every reasonable effort to ensure payment was made promptly despite the technical difficulties encountered.
I have also attached RingGo receipts demonstrating my consistent history of paying for parking, including at this same location shortly before the date in question, which further supports that this was an isolated issue caused by a technical failure.
I would also respectfully ask the Council to take into account my personal circumstances. I am a medical student with limited financial means, and a penalty of this nature would have a significant financial impact on me. I made genuine and repeated efforts to comply with the parking requirements and did not seek to avoid payment at any stage.
In light of the clear evidence that I attempted to pay immediately, was prevented from doing so by a system error, and completed payment at the earliest opportunity, I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
Yours faithfully, '
⸻
Council rejection (verbatim)
'Penalty Charge Notice Number: WA9391050A
Vehicle Registration: EA58WLN
Date of Contravention: 27/03/2026 at 09:54
Location of Contravention: FAIRLIGHT ROAD, SW17
I refer to your enquiry received on 27/03/2026 regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice
(PCN).
The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a shared use bay without displaying a
valid permit (resident, visitor, business or trade), or without a valid pay & display ticket or without
activating a valid cashless parking session for that bay. The hours of restriction are 9:30am to
5:30pm, Monday to Saturday. You can view the photographs online at
https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/pcnonline.
I acknowledge your comments that the RingGo app was not working on your phone when
attempting to activate a cashless parking session. You have provided a cashless parking receipt
showing parking rights were purchased from 10:31am to 11:38am.
It is Wandsworth policy to grant 5 minutes of observation prior to issue of a penalty when a
vehicle is parked in a bay. In this instance, the vehicle was first observed at 9:42am by which
time no driver was seen with the vehicle, and the PCN was issued at 9:54am. Your confirmed
cashless parking session started 37 minutes after the PCN was issued and 49 minutes after the
vehicle was first seen. I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly.
Having investigated, there were no widespread issues reported with the RingGo service on the
date of the contravention. There are records of connections from your account at 9:34am that
morning but no successful cashless parking session was activated until 10:31am. It is not
unlikely that this issue was caused by a connection or account-specific issue and regrettably,
these are not grounds for exemption.
You also mention that there are no photographs showing your vehicle when it was first observed
at the location. Under the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General
Regulations 2007, there is no legal requirement to include photographs of the full observation
time with a PCN. The mandatory information is the date/time of the alleged contravention, the
location of the vehicle, the nature of the contravention, the amount of the PCN and instructions
on how to pay or appeal. CEOs are not able to alter the timings recorded on their handheld
computer in order to falsify their observation time.
By your own admission you were unable to activate cashless parking; however, the sign also
directs drivers to pay for their parking at a pay & display machine or to call RingGo's automated
payment line. Therefore, it’s not unreasonable for drivers to use the pay & display machine in the
event that cashless parking was not possible, considering its location is relatively close by, or to
use RingGo's pay by phone service instead of the app.
Ultimately, it remains the driver’s responsibility to ensure that their vehicle is parked in
accordance with the regulations.
Given the above, I am satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued and regrettably, you have not
established sufficient grounds for cancellation of this penalty charge. As your enquiry was
received within the discount period the amount of £70.00, will be accepted if payment is received
within 14 days of the date of this letter.
To make a credit or debit card payment please call our 24 hour automated payment line on 0800
021 7763 or pay online by visiting www.wandsworth.gov.uk/pcnonline.
Alternatively, your cheque or postal order should be made payable to “Wandsworth Borough
Council”, clearly identified with the Notice number written on the reverse side and sent to:
Wandsworth Borough Council (Parking), PO Box 521, Twickenham, TW1 9PJ.
If payment is not received as detailed, I shall assume that you wish to pursue the matter and
shall arrange for a Notice to Owner to be sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle so that
formal representations may be made. Should these be rejected, the registered keeper of the
vehicle will then be afforded the opportunity to appeal to the Parking Adjudicator.
I should point out that, should you decide to take this course of action, on the expiry of the
discount period you will forfeit the right to pay the Penalty Charge at the lower rate and the full
charge of £140.00 will be due.
If you are not the registered keeper of the vehicle e.g. the vehicle is a company or lease/hire
vehicle, or being used with the owner’s consent, I suggest you advise the keeper that a Notice to
Owner (NTO) will be issued.
The options are therefore to pay the PCN or follow the statutory process to submit a formal
representation as explained above. Any further information or evidence for the Council's
consideration should only be included as part of the formal representation made by the
registered keeper. Any additional communication received prior to the issue of the NTO will be
filed for information purposes only without a response, although it may be considered if formal
representations are received.
This concludes the Council’s dealings in this matter at this stage.'
⸻
My situation / evidence
• Arrived ~09:39
• Attempted RingGo immediately
• Screenshots showing failed login attempts at:
• 09:40
• 09:59
• 10:06
• Successfully paid at 10:31 (session 10:31–11:38)
• Have additional RingGo receipts (including same location on 19/03/2026) showing I normally comply
⸻
My questions
1. Does this fall within “contravention did not occur” given I was actively trying to pay throughout?
2. Is the council’s position that I should have used another payment method (machine/phone) reasonable in these circumstances?
3. Is there anything in the timing (09:42–09:54 vs photo at 09:55) worth pursuing?
4. Is this worth taking to formal representations / tribunal, or better to pay £70 now?
I’m a medical student so £140 would be a significant amount, but it feels harsh given I was genuinely trying to pay and did infact pay atleast partially the parking fee.
Any advice much appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
I’d really appreciate some guidance on whether this is worth taking further or paying at the discounted rate.
PCN details:
• Council: Wandsworth
• PCN number: WA9391050A
• Vehicle: EA58WLN
• Contravention: Parked in shared use bay without valid permit or payment
• Location: Fairlight Road, SW17
• Date: 27/03/2026
• Observation: 09:42–09:54
• PCN issued: 09:54
⸻
My initial informal appeal (verbatim)
"Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to make representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.
I arrived on Fairlight Road at approximately 09:39 and immediately attempted to pay for parking using the RingGo app, in accordance with the parking requirements. However, I was unable to complete payment due to repeated technical issues with the app. I have attached screenshots showing failed login attempts and error messages at approximately 09:40, 09:59 and 10:10, which demonstrate that I was actively trying to make payment from the moment I parked. The RingGo account shown in the attached screenshots is my account associated with my vehicle.
This was not a case of failing to pay, but rather being temporarily prevented from doing so due to circumstances beyond my control. I continued attempting to access the system and successfully made payment at 10:31, as evidenced by the attached RingGo receipt. This clearly shows that I intended to comply with the parking regulations and paid as soon as it became possible.
I would also like to draw attention to a discrepancy in the timing of the alleged observation period. The PCN states that the vehicle was observed between 09:42 and 09:54, however the photographic evidence appears to be timestamped at 09:55. This raises concerns as to the accuracy and reliability of the observation period.
At all times I acted in good faith and made continuous efforts to comply with the payment requirements. I was attending a compulsory university session at St George’s and made every reasonable effort to ensure payment was made promptly despite the technical difficulties encountered.
I have also attached RingGo receipts demonstrating my consistent history of paying for parking, including at this same location shortly before the date in question, which further supports that this was an isolated issue caused by a technical failure.
I would also respectfully ask the Council to take into account my personal circumstances. I am a medical student with limited financial means, and a penalty of this nature would have a significant financial impact on me. I made genuine and repeated efforts to comply with the parking requirements and did not seek to avoid payment at any stage.
In light of the clear evidence that I attempted to pay immediately, was prevented from doing so by a system error, and completed payment at the earliest opportunity, I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
Yours faithfully, '
⸻
Council rejection (verbatim)
'Penalty Charge Notice Number: WA9391050A
Vehicle Registration: EA58WLN
Date of Contravention: 27/03/2026 at 09:54
Location of Contravention: FAIRLIGHT ROAD, SW17
I refer to your enquiry received on 27/03/2026 regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice
(PCN).
The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a shared use bay without displaying a
valid permit (resident, visitor, business or trade), or without a valid pay & display ticket or without
activating a valid cashless parking session for that bay. The hours of restriction are 9:30am to
5:30pm, Monday to Saturday. You can view the photographs online at
https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/pcnonline.
I acknowledge your comments that the RingGo app was not working on your phone when
attempting to activate a cashless parking session. You have provided a cashless parking receipt
showing parking rights were purchased from 10:31am to 11:38am.
It is Wandsworth policy to grant 5 minutes of observation prior to issue of a penalty when a
vehicle is parked in a bay. In this instance, the vehicle was first observed at 9:42am by which
time no driver was seen with the vehicle, and the PCN was issued at 9:54am. Your confirmed
cashless parking session started 37 minutes after the PCN was issued and 49 minutes after the
vehicle was first seen. I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly.
Having investigated, there were no widespread issues reported with the RingGo service on the
date of the contravention. There are records of connections from your account at 9:34am that
morning but no successful cashless parking session was activated until 10:31am. It is not
unlikely that this issue was caused by a connection or account-specific issue and regrettably,
these are not grounds for exemption.
You also mention that there are no photographs showing your vehicle when it was first observed
at the location. Under the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General
Regulations 2007, there is no legal requirement to include photographs of the full observation
time with a PCN. The mandatory information is the date/time of the alleged contravention, the
location of the vehicle, the nature of the contravention, the amount of the PCN and instructions
on how to pay or appeal. CEOs are not able to alter the timings recorded on their handheld
computer in order to falsify their observation time.
By your own admission you were unable to activate cashless parking; however, the sign also
directs drivers to pay for their parking at a pay & display machine or to call RingGo's automated
payment line. Therefore, it’s not unreasonable for drivers to use the pay & display machine in the
event that cashless parking was not possible, considering its location is relatively close by, or to
use RingGo's pay by phone service instead of the app.
Ultimately, it remains the driver’s responsibility to ensure that their vehicle is parked in
accordance with the regulations.
Given the above, I am satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued and regrettably, you have not
established sufficient grounds for cancellation of this penalty charge. As your enquiry was
received within the discount period the amount of £70.00, will be accepted if payment is received
within 14 days of the date of this letter.
To make a credit or debit card payment please call our 24 hour automated payment line on 0800
021 7763 or pay online by visiting www.wandsworth.gov.uk/pcnonline.
Alternatively, your cheque or postal order should be made payable to “Wandsworth Borough
Council”, clearly identified with the Notice number written on the reverse side and sent to:
Wandsworth Borough Council (Parking), PO Box 521, Twickenham, TW1 9PJ.
If payment is not received as detailed, I shall assume that you wish to pursue the matter and
shall arrange for a Notice to Owner to be sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle so that
formal representations may be made. Should these be rejected, the registered keeper of the
vehicle will then be afforded the opportunity to appeal to the Parking Adjudicator.
I should point out that, should you decide to take this course of action, on the expiry of the
discount period you will forfeit the right to pay the Penalty Charge at the lower rate and the full
charge of £140.00 will be due.
If you are not the registered keeper of the vehicle e.g. the vehicle is a company or lease/hire
vehicle, or being used with the owner’s consent, I suggest you advise the keeper that a Notice to
Owner (NTO) will be issued.
The options are therefore to pay the PCN or follow the statutory process to submit a formal
representation as explained above. Any further information or evidence for the Council's
consideration should only be included as part of the formal representation made by the
registered keeper. Any additional communication received prior to the issue of the NTO will be
filed for information purposes only without a response, although it may be considered if formal
representations are received.
This concludes the Council’s dealings in this matter at this stage.'
⸻
My situation / evidence
• Arrived ~09:39
• Attempted RingGo immediately
• Screenshots showing failed login attempts at:
• 09:40
• 09:59
• 10:06
• Successfully paid at 10:31 (session 10:31–11:38)
• Have additional RingGo receipts (including same location on 19/03/2026) showing I normally comply
⸻
My questions
1. Does this fall within “contravention did not occur” given I was actively trying to pay throughout?
2. Is the council’s position that I should have used another payment method (machine/phone) reasonable in these circumstances?
3. Is there anything in the timing (09:42–09:54 vs photo at 09:55) worth pursuing?
4. Is this worth taking to formal representations / tribunal, or better to pay £70 now?
I’m a medical student so £140 would be a significant amount, but it feels harsh given I was genuinely trying to pay and did infact pay atleast partially the parking fee.
Any advice much appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
4
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Westminster PCN Code 12r – Queen’s Gate (Bank Holiday / Mitigation)also Wrong Location
« on: April 14, 2026, 12:39:25 pm »
Here is my draft:
PCN WE66329824 – Vehicle EA58WLN
Dear Sir or Madam,
I make this challenge to the above PCN for the following reason.
On returning to my vehicle on Sunday 5 April 2026, I found the PCN affixed to it. The PCN states that at 11:37am the vehicle was in contravention in Queen’s Gate.
However, as the Council’s own photographs clearly confirm, the vehicle was not located in Queen’s Gate at that time, but on Prince Consort Road (outside Albert Court), some distance away.
As the Council will be aware, an incorrect location renders the PCN invalid as the alleged contravention has not been properly particularised.
I therefore look forward to confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
Do I need to add anything to try and prove the fact that its in the wrong location? (Such as map locations etc)
If all good I'll go ahead and challenge
PCN WE66329824 – Vehicle EA58WLN
Dear Sir or Madam,
I make this challenge to the above PCN for the following reason.
On returning to my vehicle on Sunday 5 April 2026, I found the PCN affixed to it. The PCN states that at 11:37am the vehicle was in contravention in Queen’s Gate.
However, as the Council’s own photographs clearly confirm, the vehicle was not located in Queen’s Gate at that time, but on Prince Consort Road (outside Albert Court), some distance away.
As the Council will be aware, an incorrect location renders the PCN invalid as the alleged contravention has not been properly particularised.
I therefore look forward to confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
Do I need to add anything to try and prove the fact that its in the wrong location? (Such as map locations etc)
If all good I'll go ahead and challenge
5
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Westminster PCN Code 12r – Queen’s Gate (Bank Holiday / Mitigation)also Wrong Location
« on: April 14, 2026, 12:35:48 pm »
Hi all,
Thanks, that’s really helpful.
Understood on focusing on the location point.
The council photos already uploaded are the full set — They show the vehicle on Prince Consort Road (outside Albert Court), not Queen’s Gate. How's the best way to prove the location is incorrect? You can see the Department of Materials in the background as well as Albert Court right next to my vehicle.
I’ll upload images below:
For completeness, I am the registered keeper and the V5C is up to date with the correct details.
Thanks again 👍
Thanks, that’s really helpful.
Understood on focusing on the location point.
The council photos already uploaded are the full set — They show the vehicle on Prince Consort Road (outside Albert Court), not Queen’s Gate. How's the best way to prove the location is incorrect? You can see the Department of Materials in the background as well as Albert Court right next to my vehicle.
I’ll upload images below:
For completeness, I am the registered keeper and the V5C is up to date with the correct details.
Thanks again 👍
6
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Westminster PCN Code 12r – Queen’s Gate (Bank Holiday / Mitigation)also Wrong Location
« on: April 13, 2026, 10:57:56 pm »
Hi all,
Would really appreciate some advice on this one. I was having issues with replying on my other thread.
I’ve received a Westminster PCN (WE66329824) for vehicle EA58WLN (I’m the registered keeper). It’s for code 12r and was issued on Easter Sunday (5 April 2026). Location on the PCN is given as Queen’s Gate. It’s still at the discounted stage. https://appeals.westminster.gov.uk/pcnonline/index.php
Initially I thought this was just going to be a mitigation case. Before parking, I checked RBKC guidance which says resident bays aren’t enforced on bank holidays:
• https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/Residents%20parking%20map.pdf
• https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/parking/bank-holiday-parking
I later found Westminster’s page which confirms enforcement still applies there:
• https://www.westminster.gov.uk/parking/bank-holiday-parking
I now realise I was just over the boundary into Westminster, so I accept I may have been in contravention. The sign at the location was just “Resident permit holders only (Zone A)” with no days/times, which I understand likely means 24/7.
However, one thing that concerns me is the location stated on the PCN.
The PCN says Queen’s Gate, but I 100% parked on Prince Consort Road (exactly here Albert Court, 60 Prince Consort Rd, South Kensington, London SW7 2BE). These are different roads, not just different descriptions of the same location. In the photos you can see landmarks indicative of Prince Consort Road.
So I’m wondering:
• does this mean the location on the PCN is incorrect?
• if so, is that something that can invalidate it, or is it likely to be treated as “close enough”?
Separately, on mitigation:
I did make a genuine effort to check the rules beforehand and relied on nearby council guidance. From a driver’s perspective the road looks continuous and there’s no obvious indication that you’ve crossed into a different borough with different rules.
For context, I’m a medical student and was using the area to study for upcoming exams, so wasn’t trying to avoid paying — I had checked before parking.
So overall:
• is the location point worth pursuing, or a non-starter?
• or is this realistically just a mitigation case?
Happy to upload CEO photos or anything else if helpful.
Thanks 👍
Would really appreciate some advice on this one. I was having issues with replying on my other thread.
I’ve received a Westminster PCN (WE66329824) for vehicle EA58WLN (I’m the registered keeper). It’s for code 12r and was issued on Easter Sunday (5 April 2026). Location on the PCN is given as Queen’s Gate. It’s still at the discounted stage. https://appeals.westminster.gov.uk/pcnonline/index.php
Initially I thought this was just going to be a mitigation case. Before parking, I checked RBKC guidance which says resident bays aren’t enforced on bank holidays:
• https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/Residents%20parking%20map.pdf
• https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/parking/bank-holiday-parking
I later found Westminster’s page which confirms enforcement still applies there:
• https://www.westminster.gov.uk/parking/bank-holiday-parking
I now realise I was just over the boundary into Westminster, so I accept I may have been in contravention. The sign at the location was just “Resident permit holders only (Zone A)” with no days/times, which I understand likely means 24/7.
However, one thing that concerns me is the location stated on the PCN.
The PCN says Queen’s Gate, but I 100% parked on Prince Consort Road (exactly here Albert Court, 60 Prince Consort Rd, South Kensington, London SW7 2BE). These are different roads, not just different descriptions of the same location. In the photos you can see landmarks indicative of Prince Consort Road.
So I’m wondering:
• does this mean the location on the PCN is incorrect?
• if so, is that something that can invalidate it, or is it likely to be treated as “close enough”?
Separately, on mitigation:
I did make a genuine effort to check the rules beforehand and relied on nearby council guidance. From a driver’s perspective the road looks continuous and there’s no obvious indication that you’ve crossed into a different borough with different rules.
For context, I’m a medical student and was using the area to study for upcoming exams, so wasn’t trying to avoid paying — I had checked before parking.
So overall:
• is the location point worth pursuing, or a non-starter?
• or is this realistically just a mitigation case?
Happy to upload CEO photos or anything else if helpful.
Thanks 👍
7
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Westminster PCN Code 12r – Queen’s Gate (Bank Holiday / Mitigation)also Wrong Location
« on: April 13, 2026, 08:51:49 pm »
The PCN says the location is Queen’s Gate, but I actually parked on Prince Consort Road (outside Albert Court).
From looking at maps, these seem to be different roads, not just different parts of the same one.
So just wondering:
• does that make the PCN defective if the location isn’t correct?
• or would this be considered “close enough” by an adjudicator?
For context, I was right near the boundary between RBKC and Westminster (have attached a map in the first post), which is why I initially thought I was OK to park there.
Interested in whether the location point is worth pursuing before writing an appeal based on mitigation.
Happy to upload council photos if needed, just wasn’t sure the best way to do that here.
Thanks in advance 👍
From looking at maps, these seem to be different roads, not just different parts of the same one.
So just wondering:
• does that make the PCN defective if the location isn’t correct?
• or would this be considered “close enough” by an adjudicator?
For context, I was right near the boundary between RBKC and Westminster (have attached a map in the first post), which is why I initially thought I was OK to park there.
Interested in whether the location point is worth pursuing before writing an appeal based on mitigation.
Happy to upload council photos if needed, just wasn’t sure the best way to do that here.
Thanks in advance 👍
8
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Westminster PCN Code 12r – Queen’s Gate (Bank Holiday / Mitigation)also Wrong Location
« on: April 13, 2026, 08:43:48 pm »
Thanks for your reply!
I posted the ticket reference and gave the reg as I thought it would be easier than uploading the images.
https://appeals.westminster.gov.uk/pcnonline/index.php
Using that link above. Not sure how to attach images.
But to answer your question, yes the sign did say City of Westminster.
However - I did check Kensington Bourough map and cross referenced with google maps and I am on a border area.
The ticket indicates 'Queens Gate' - I parked here exactly (Albert Court, 60 Prince Consort Rd, South Kensington, London SW7 2BE) - which is Prince Consort Rd - which is not correct to what the ticket has indicated. I'll draft the appeal and post below.
Edit: Do I have another angle of appeal here since they have given my parking location as an incorrect location as Queens Gate (A4) and not Prince Consort Road?
I posted the ticket reference and gave the reg as I thought it would be easier than uploading the images.
https://appeals.westminster.gov.uk/pcnonline/index.php
Using that link above. Not sure how to attach images.
But to answer your question, yes the sign did say City of Westminster.
However - I did check Kensington Bourough map and cross referenced with google maps and I am on a border area.
The ticket indicates 'Queens Gate' - I parked here exactly (Albert Court, 60 Prince Consort Rd, South Kensington, London SW7 2BE) - which is Prince Consort Rd - which is not correct to what the ticket has indicated. I'll draft the appeal and post below.
Edit: Do I have another angle of appeal here since they have given my parking location as an incorrect location as Queens Gate (A4) and not Prince Consort Road?
9
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Westminster PCN Code 12r – Queen’s Gate (Bank Holiday / Mitigation)also Wrong Location
« on: April 13, 2026, 01:50:11 pm »
I will! Thank you for your reply.
To answer your question, yes I am the registered keeper and it is up to date
To answer your question, yes I am the registered keeper and it is up to date
10
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Westminster PCN Code 12r – Queen’s Gate (Bank Holiday / Mitigation)also Wrong Location
« on: April 12, 2026, 01:43:09 pm »
Any ideas at all? Worth doing anything?
11
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Westminster PCN Code 12r – Queen’s Gate (Bank Holiday / Mitigation)also Wrong Location
« on: April 11, 2026, 05:34:03 pm »
Hello all,
Back again unfortunately — I’d really appreciate any guidance on this one, though I suspect it may be more of a mitigation case than a technical one.
PCN details:
• Contravention: 12r – parked in residents’ bay without valid permit/payment
• Location: Queen’s Gate (Westminster)
• Date: Sunday 5 April 2026 (Easter Sunday)
Ticket Reference: WE66329824
Your PCN is at discount stage. PCN process information
Vehicle Registration NumberEA58WLN
i am registered keeper
⸻
🧾 Context
Before parking, I checked the RBKC (Kensington & Chelsea) website, which states that resident bay enforcement is not in operation on bank holidays.
Based on that, I believed parking would be permitted.
However, I later realised I had parked just over the boundary zone into City of Westminster, where enforcement still applies.
sources:
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/Residents%20parking%20map.pdf
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/parking-permissions/visitor-parking-and-pay-phone/bank-holiday-parking
https://www.westminster.gov.uk/parking/bank-holiday-parking-controls
⸻
📸 Signage
The sign at the location simply states:
• “Resident permit holders only (Zone A)”
There are no days/times listed, which I now understand likely means the restriction applies at all times, including Sundays and bank holidays.
⸻
🤔 My Position
I accept that:
• The sign itself is likely compliant and enforceable
• I was technically in contravention
However, I made a genuine and proactive attempt to comply with the rules:
• I checked official council guidance before parking
• I relied on what I believed were applicable rules in the immediate area
• There was no obvious indication on-street that I had crossed into a different borough with different enforcement rules
From a motorist’s perspective, the street appears continuous, and there is no clear boundary marking or warning that different rules apply.
⸻
🙏 Questions for the forum
• Is there any realistic scope for discretion / mitigation here?
• Has anyone seen Westminster exercise discretion in similar cross-borough confusion cases?
• Is this worth pursuing beyond the informal stage, or unlikely to succeed?
For context - I am a medical student and was using ICL to study for my upcoming exams
⸻
Thanks in advance — really appreciate any input.
Back again unfortunately — I’d really appreciate any guidance on this one, though I suspect it may be more of a mitigation case than a technical one.
PCN details:
• Contravention: 12r – parked in residents’ bay without valid permit/payment
• Location: Queen’s Gate (Westminster)
• Date: Sunday 5 April 2026 (Easter Sunday)
Ticket Reference: WE66329824
Your PCN is at discount stage. PCN process information
Vehicle Registration NumberEA58WLN
i am registered keeper
⸻
🧾 Context
Before parking, I checked the RBKC (Kensington & Chelsea) website, which states that resident bay enforcement is not in operation on bank holidays.
Based on that, I believed parking would be permitted.
However, I later realised I had parked just over the boundary zone into City of Westminster, where enforcement still applies.
sources:
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/Residents%20parking%20map.pdf
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/parking-permissions/visitor-parking-and-pay-phone/bank-holiday-parking
https://www.westminster.gov.uk/parking/bank-holiday-parking-controls
⸻
📸 Signage
The sign at the location simply states:
• “Resident permit holders only (Zone A)”
There are no days/times listed, which I now understand likely means the restriction applies at all times, including Sundays and bank holidays.
⸻
🤔 My Position
I accept that:
• The sign itself is likely compliant and enforceable
• I was technically in contravention
However, I made a genuine and proactive attempt to comply with the rules:
• I checked official council guidance before parking
• I relied on what I believed were applicable rules in the immediate area
• There was no obvious indication on-street that I had crossed into a different borough with different enforcement rules
From a motorist’s perspective, the street appears continuous, and there is no clear boundary marking or warning that different rules apply.
⸻
🙏 Questions for the forum
• Is there any realistic scope for discretion / mitigation here?
• Has anyone seen Westminster exercise discretion in similar cross-borough confusion cases?
• Is this worth pursuing beyond the informal stage, or unlikely to succeed?
For context - I am a medical student and was using ICL to study for my upcoming exams
⸻
Thanks in advance — really appreciate any input.
12
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Westminster, code 21, Parked in a suspended bay, Prince Consort Road
« on: June 23, 2025, 12:47:12 pm »The sign refers to column 27.
It's on column 23.
So where the f**k is this column 27?
Go to the right and you do not find any column in the parking place, you have to leave the parking place, go beyond a yellow line and then look further only to find that this is..column 21. B****r.
Oh well, retrace your steps and go to the left of column 23 and the only other column in the parking place is column 25.
Where and how would you find column 27? Traipse the streets? Remember, as a motorist you are safe ONLY as long as you remain in the parking place to read signs, make calls, use apps to pay etc. It's when you leave that you become vulnerable.
IMO, it's preposterous to expect a motorist to leave their car in potential contravention in order to search for a clue which isn't even on the parking place.
Of course we’re in agreement - but in your experience when these things go to a tribunal they’re successful?
13
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Westminster, code 21, Parked in a suspended bay, Prince Consort Road
« on: June 20, 2025, 05:09:46 pm »
Another image of where lampost 27 is attached also
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
14
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Westminster, code 21, Parked in a suspended bay, Prince Consort Road
« on: June 20, 2025, 05:07:55 pm »If you decide to carry on then there's nothing to do procedurally until the NTO is served and the timetable for this is in their response.
I have attached the image of on street view outlining everything along with their response.
Arrow being where my vehicle is parked along with the parking spaces numbered and where lampost 27 is.
I would be inclined to take it to formal representation on the basis of signage being unclear as it is outside the parking area - but off the balance of probabilities - how likely would you think it would be successful - rather than pay the reduced fee now and be done with it? Just soley based off your experience.
Appreciate all your help so far.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
15
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Westminster, code 21, Parked in a suspended bay, Prince Consort Road
« on: June 19, 2025, 01:46:41 am »IMO, carry on, but this would be for the full penalty at this (NTO) stage, although they could re-offer the discount.
They seem fixated by reliance upon a location(column 27) not even within the b****y parking place, let alone the suspended area.
Instructions must be correct, clear and not confuse.
But first of all:
Are you the registered keeper?
You must post the council's responses, not transpose them. See FAQs at the top of page 1 of this forum.
Not sure how to proceed, any advice?
Pages: [1] 2