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.

Messages - sikee

Pages: [1]
1
I shall write an appeal on the time basis as you suggest

2
THEY LET ME OFF IN THE END THANSK FOR YOUR HELP THOUGH

3
you are good at this  yes it was a Westminster location not Camden



A. RingGo Payment Confirmation – Screenshot showing £3.48 payment approved at 10:46 on 27/11/2025 via Santander Debit Card.


B. RingGo Session Details – Session for location code 6133, C1 Boundary Road, Westminster City Council. Vehicle registration MA70PPU, session ends at 12:04 on 27/11/2025.–

Email from RingGo confirming session details: Location: C1 Boundary Road (code 6133), Vehicle: MA70PPU, Start time: 10:46, End time: 12:04, Cost: £3.48.

4
my wife contested it as she had  paid at the wrong meter on the same road and provided the receipt as evidence that It was  have paid.

Is ther much chance of getting off.

I am waiting a response from my apeal as Owner per attaced PCN rejectionand notice to owner

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1YmBIcDwHLhhy8NGnUiNw6l7Zl6u1iwzY?usp=sharing


I am the registered keeper of vehicle and I make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice. 1. Background On 27.11.25, my wife was driving the vehicle and parked on Boundary Road. She paid for parking using the RingGo app, but due to confusing signage and multiple RingGo codes for the same road, she inadvertently entered the wrong location code. This was not an attempt to avoid payment; payment was made for the correct time period, as evidenced by the attached RingGo receipt and screenshots. 2. Grounds for Representation (a) Contravention Code 11 is factually incorrect The PCN alleges “Parked without payment of the parking charge”. This is not correct. Payment was made for parking on Boundary Road during the relevant time. The error was in the location code, not in failing to pay. The council’s own evidence should reflect that a valid RingGo session existed, albeit under a different code. (b) Inadequate signage and multiple codes The sign nearest to the bay was obscured by a van at the time of parking. Camden has a statutory duty under Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) Regulations 1996 to ensure signage adequately conveys restrictions. Where signage is obstructed and multiple codes exist for one road, motorists cannot reasonably ascertain the correct code. (c) Council’s photographic evidence The photos provided by Camden do not show both the vehicle and the relevant parking sign in the same image. This omission indicates that the sign was not clearly visible from the parked position and supports my assertion that the sign was obscured. If the sign were clearly visible, the CEO would reasonably have captured it alongside the vehicle to demonstrate compliance with signage requirements. in fact the only sign visible is on the other side of the road which we now know would not be the correct one. (d) Procedural impropriety The previous rejection letter relied on generic wording and did not properly consider these points. Authorities must have regard to the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance under s.87 Traffic Management Act 2004 and exercise discretion fairly. 3. Evidence Provided RingGo receipt and screenshots showing payment for Boundary Road. Note that the the penalty notice states Location: Boundary road this matches the Ringo receipt stating Boundary Road. 4. Request Given that payment was made and the error arose from inadequate signage and confusing coding, I respectfully request that Camden cancel this PCN. If Camden does not accept these representations, please ensure the case is referred to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators for independent review. Yours faithfully,

















5
Hi I am the vehicle owner but tanother person was driving they  in unwittingly entered a resdtricted street 1 minute 45 seconds before the restrictions ended , the street was empty there were no children or other cars.   I have sent this letter but had it rejected :  Should I persure this futher if I have valid grounds and a chance of winning.
photos and pcn are here :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1MYj0Z-ESRetjQZA6O0EwBXfx1UTWWReR?usp=sharing
Thanks so much for your help

Summary of Appeal Grounds
•   Timing: Contravention occurred at 15:58:15, less than two minutes before the restriction ended at 16:00.
•   Safety Context: Photographic evidence shows no children present at the time.
•   Fairness and Proportionality: Enforcement should reflect the intent of the law, not rigid timing where no risk exists.
•   Legal Precedent:
o   Malcolm Newman v London Borough of Hounslow (Case Ref: 2230448785) – Tribunal allowed appeal where strict enforcement conflicted with legal requirements under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.
o   Tribunal decisions confirm mitigating circumstances and proportionality justify cancellation.
•   Driving Record: Impeccable record and commitment to safety.
Attachments:
•   Photographs of signage
•   Confirmation of official school zone times
•   Copy of penalty notice
________________________________________
Full Appeal Letter
I am writing to formally appeal the penalty notice issued for driving in a school zone at 15:59 on [date].
The posted signage clearly states that school zone restrictions end at 16:00. The alleged offence occurred less than two minutes before the end of the restriction period, which is an exceptionally narrow margin. I was driving cautiously and within the speed limit, fully aware of the importance of these safety measures.
I strongly support the purpose of school zone regulations and have always adhered to them. However, this situation falls within a reasonable tolerance where strict enforcement may not reflect the spirit of the law, which is to protect children during active school hours. At 15:58.15, the likelihood of children being present was minimal, and the photographic evidence provided clearly shows no children were present in the vicinity.
Fairness and proportionality are key principles in enforcement. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal and London Tribunals have consistently emphasised that enforcement must align with the intent of the Traffic Management Order and signage compliance. In Malcolm Newman v London Borough of Hounslow (Case Ref: 2230448785), the adjudicator allowed the appeal because rigid enforcement did not reflect the legal requirements under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. This case demonstrates that where circumstances show no real safety risk and only a minimal deviation from the restriction, adjudicators have exercised discretion to cancel penalties.
Given these mitigating circumstances, I respectfully request that you reconsider this penalty. I have maintained an impeccable driving record and consistently prioritise safety. This isolated incident does not represent negligence or disregard for the rules.
Thank you for your time and understanding. I am happy to provide any further information if required.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]

 

6
Thnaks you for a quick response , the David Lloyd Club Front Desk are not interested ,

However I will Escalate to a different department.

7

https://postimg.cc/gallery/ykkXmJs

https://maps.app.goo.gl/qAGyMSUSPa7MDdtHA


I am the registered keeper but was not the driver on these occasions
 
The driver on 2 days received these tickets for parking out of a bay in the David Lloyd Car Park when there were no available bays.

Driver is a member of the club

The club say it is not their car park owned or managed by them and they cannot cancel the penalty however it is clearly only for members of the club. One has to use the membership card to enter the car park and signs say it is the David Lloyd car park.. They are leaving NPC to manage the car park.

Note each ticket has a different description of the same offence and each observation period is for roughly one minute.

One ticket does not show the signs and from the tickets I cannot read the signage.

Please advise if there is any way to challenge these

Pages: [1]