Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

I attended this on behalf of my wife. It was online and the adjudicator was late by 45 minutes.

Despite the adjudicator seeming to understand and acknowledge the central arguments I made (which were provided in writing as well ahead of the hearing), he has refused the appeal and didn't even address the central arguments, instead focusing on the keying error.

The central arguments were that the contravention of "parked without payment of the parking charge" did not and could not have occurred as no payment was due. It was a free session and Council acknowledged that the car did not stay behind beyond this free period. We also submitted that the Council did not address the points repeatedly made around acting fairly and proportionately as per statutory guidance. This too was ignored by the Adjudicator in his written decision.

Here is what he has said in the written judgement thta has been emailed to us:

"I can fully accept that the appellant did not seek to avoid payment. I have however disagreed with her arguments that the Council has been at fault in pursuing the penalty charge under appeal.

"The appellant failed to pay the charge which was an alternative to registering correctly for the hour which was gratis provided registration was done correctly.

"Errors with long numbers have a long history and the forbears of young motorists will remember how
misdials were common and indeed frequent in the days when telephones were ones with rotary dials. In
more modern days I know one time passwords also get miskeyed frequently and that too is irritating. I do not however see the length of the bay locator number as opearting as legal defence in this case.

"Unfortunately for motorists making keyboard mistakes the Councils have strong legal ground for insisting on
a penalty charge when the there is a motorist keyboard error. The line of authority for this in this tribunal
derives from Lady Walmsley’s Case where the Court of Appeal held that it was not payment that was crucial
but payment for the correct registration. By analogy I accept that the motorist has responsibility if
registering for doing so with the correct bay locator.

"I do not identify the error in this case as explained by weighty mitigation and I do not consider the Council
has wrongly failed to assess whether the case warranted discretionary cancellation. The penalty charge
claimed is the lawful amount. The amount has been correctly set and lawfully approved in London. It
lawfully has the character of a standard amount and it is not legally disproportionate.

"Gerald Styles
Adjudicator
10th July 2026"

Was in a hurry and thought I'd just book the slot as I was walking.

So I have no way out of this and should just pay?

Hi all,

I submitted the challenge below for a PCN we recieved but the council has rejected it. Was walking away from the car while trying to use the Ringo app but phone battery died. So immediately turned back but found pcn issued.

Please could someone advise if it's worth fighting or paying the discounted rate offered?

Here is the PCN:
https://freeimage.host/i/BplFnQp

Here is the council rejection letter:
Page 1 https://freeimage.host/i/BpcpToF
Page 2 https://freeimage.host/i/Bpcpzt1

And here is the challenge we had submitted:

​I am challenging this PCN on the grounds of procedural impropriety and that the contravention did not occur.

​1. Lack of Required Observation Period:

The PCN itself records an observation time of 16:13 to 16:13. This is a zero-minute observation. For a Code 11u contravention in a bay where mobile phone payment is required and loading/unloading is permitted, a zero-minute observation is a breach of standard enforcement procedure.

​2. Evidence of Instant Enforcement:

Your own photographic evidence confirms this premature issuance. The first photo was taken at 16:13:36 and the final photo at 16:14:20. This total duration of 44 seconds is grossly insufficient to allow a driver to exit the vehicle, consult the signage, and initiate a RingGo session.

​3. Failure to Account for Exemptions:
As this bay allows for the exemption of loading/unloading, the CEO is required to observe the vehicle for a sufficient period (typically 5 minutes) to ensure no such activity is taking place. By issuing the PCN in under a minute, the CEO failed to establish that a contravention was actually occurring.

​Under the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance, enforcement must be fair and proportionate. 'Instant' enforcement in a parking bay is considered predatory. I request that this PCN be cancelled immediately due to these procedural defects.

I can submit pictures over the weekend. Given the imminent deadline to submit the appeal, shall we just not submit it while trying to contact the leisure centre to get it cancelled? Getting a response from the centre will take some time.

Thank you mate. Please let me know what to do.

I agree. It's a disgraceful letter from the Council. I'm happy to take it to tribunal if anyone here is able to help with the appeal?

Hi all,

I forgot to update:

1. They've cancelled one of the pcns (the one that had the incorrect road name) saying "Thank you for your letter regarding the above Penally Charge Notice.
The matter has been considered and as a resultit is considered that there are suffcient grounds for the notice to be cancelled. No further action wilbe taken."

2. For the PCN that had the correct road name (which is what the original post here is about), we recieved the NtO giving the reason as" parked without payment of the parking charge". Here is the NtO: https://freeimage.host/i/faL1lZx

I have only until tomorrow I believe to submit a rep (however the NtO says 28 days from when the letter was served, which would mean I have another two days or so).

I've lost the discount so can someone help with the rep? Should I just re submit what I sent for the challenge?

Many thanks

Pastbybest is saying just say something like:

I checked my car clock and it said 7:59 (or before 8am) so was reassured I was able to proceed before the restriction started.

OK have amended. See below. Should I also remove the second para under no. 1? Or is it all now good to go? Many thanks.

I am writing to challenge this PCN on the following grounds:

1. Trivial Timing – De Minimis Breach

I checked my car clock and it was not yet 8am, so was reassured I was able to proceed before the restriction started.

I do not have independent confirmation of the accuracy of the council’s recording device time. If the council’s timing is accurate, any contravention was entirely unintentional and occurred in a very brief period (53 seconds) immediately after the restriction began.

2. Unclear “Term Time Only” Signage

Although I believed I had entered the road before the restricted time shown on the sign, I was not certain if the restriction was in force due to the accompanying sign that said "restricted access term-time only". The  sign does not specify any term dates or provide a means of knowing when those terms begin and end.

Adjudicators have previously criticised such signage as ambiguous and unfair, since motorists cannot be expected to know school term dates, which vary between boroughs and regions.

Without clear dates displayed or referenced, the signage fails to convey the restriction adequately, and any enforcement based on it is therefore unreasonable.

For these reasons, I ask the PCN to be cancelled.

Best wishes,