1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
« on: Yesterday at 10:36:12 am »
Representations submitted.
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.
2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
« on: July 09, 2026, 02:38:03 pm »
Draft for representation
Grounds of Representation
☑ The alleged contravention did not occur.
☑ There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.
⸻
REPRESENTATIONS
I make these representations on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur and that there has been a procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority.
1. The alleged contravention did not occur
The allegation is that my vehicle was:
“Parked without payment of the parking charge.”
That allegation is factually incorrect.
The parking charge for the relevant location and period was paid in full using the RingGo cashless parking system. Unfortunately, when completing the payment, the driver inadvertently selected the wrong vehicle registration number within the RingGo application.
This was a genuine keying error and not an attempt to avoid payment.
The council received the parking fee it was entitled to receive. There was therefore no loss of revenue whatsoever.
The contravention alleged is specifically one of parking without payment. Payment was made. Accordingly, the allegation that the vehicle was parked without payment is simply not correct.
Whilst I appreciate the council may argue that payment should have been linked to the correct vehicle registration, that is not what this PCN alleges. The allegation is non-payment.
Numerous adjudicators have recognised that there is an important distinction between:
* parking without payment; and
* payment having been made but recorded against an incorrect registration because of a genuine keying error.
The latter is not accurately described by the contravention alleged on this PCN.
For that reason alone, I submit that the alleged contravention did not occur.
⸻
2. The council has failed to properly exercise its discretion
Even if the council considers that a contravention technically occurred, I request that it exercises its discretion under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.
This was a genuine mistake.
* the parking session was purchased;
* the correct location was selected;
* the council received full payment;
* there was no intention whatsoever to evade payment;
* there was no financial prejudice to the council.
The purpose of civil parking enforcement is compliance, not punishment.
Cancelling this PCN would be entirely consistent with the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance, which expects authorities to exercise discretion fairly and reasonably where appropriate.
Should the council refuse to cancel the PCN, I request that it explains precisely why it considers it proportionate to demand a penalty of £110 where the parking charge itself was fully paid.
⸻
3. Procedural Impropriety
The original Regulation 9 PCN does not appear to comply with the statutory requirements introduced by the 2022 Civil Enforcement Regulations.
The PCN states:
“The Penalty Charge of £110 must be paid no later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the PCN was served.”
However, paragraph 2(d) of Schedule 2 to The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 requires a Regulation 9 PCN to state that payment must be made:
“within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred.”
The wording used on Redbridge’s PCN appears to replicate the wording of the superseded 2007 Regulations rather than the wording now prescribed by the 2022 Regulations.
The statutory wording is mandatory.
Failure to include the information required by the Regulations amounts to a procedural impropriety.
⸻
4. Failure to include the information required by Regulation 3
In addition, I do not believe the original PCN adequately conveys the information required by Regulation 3 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
In particular, the PCN does not properly explain:
* that representations received before a Notice to Owner is served must be considered by the authority; and
* that, if a Notice to Owner is nevertheless served, formal representations must then be made in accordance with that Notice.
These are mandatory statutory requirements.
Again, failure to comply with those requirements constitutes procedural impropriety.
⸻
5. Request for disclosure
Should the council not accept these representations, please provide:
* the complete Traffic Management Order applicable to George Lane (C);
* all Civil Enforcement Officer notes;
* all photographs;
* the RingGo payment audit relied upon by the council;
* confirmation that the council has actively considered the exercise of discretion rather than applying a blanket policy.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Notice to Owner and the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
Grounds of Representation
☑ The alleged contravention did not occur.
☑ There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.
⸻
REPRESENTATIONS
I make these representations on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur and that there has been a procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority.
1. The alleged contravention did not occur
The allegation is that my vehicle was:
“Parked without payment of the parking charge.”
That allegation is factually incorrect.
The parking charge for the relevant location and period was paid in full using the RingGo cashless parking system. Unfortunately, when completing the payment, the driver inadvertently selected the wrong vehicle registration number within the RingGo application.
This was a genuine keying error and not an attempt to avoid payment.
The council received the parking fee it was entitled to receive. There was therefore no loss of revenue whatsoever.
The contravention alleged is specifically one of parking without payment. Payment was made. Accordingly, the allegation that the vehicle was parked without payment is simply not correct.
Whilst I appreciate the council may argue that payment should have been linked to the correct vehicle registration, that is not what this PCN alleges. The allegation is non-payment.
Numerous adjudicators have recognised that there is an important distinction between:
* parking without payment; and
* payment having been made but recorded against an incorrect registration because of a genuine keying error.
The latter is not accurately described by the contravention alleged on this PCN.
For that reason alone, I submit that the alleged contravention did not occur.
⸻
2. The council has failed to properly exercise its discretion
Even if the council considers that a contravention technically occurred, I request that it exercises its discretion under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.
This was a genuine mistake.
* the parking session was purchased;
* the correct location was selected;
* the council received full payment;
* there was no intention whatsoever to evade payment;
* there was no financial prejudice to the council.
The purpose of civil parking enforcement is compliance, not punishment.
Cancelling this PCN would be entirely consistent with the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance, which expects authorities to exercise discretion fairly and reasonably where appropriate.
Should the council refuse to cancel the PCN, I request that it explains precisely why it considers it proportionate to demand a penalty of £110 where the parking charge itself was fully paid.
⸻
3. Procedural Impropriety
The original Regulation 9 PCN does not appear to comply with the statutory requirements introduced by the 2022 Civil Enforcement Regulations.
The PCN states:
“The Penalty Charge of £110 must be paid no later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the PCN was served.”
However, paragraph 2(d) of Schedule 2 to The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 requires a Regulation 9 PCN to state that payment must be made:
“within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred.”
The wording used on Redbridge’s PCN appears to replicate the wording of the superseded 2007 Regulations rather than the wording now prescribed by the 2022 Regulations.
The statutory wording is mandatory.
Failure to include the information required by the Regulations amounts to a procedural impropriety.
⸻
4. Failure to include the information required by Regulation 3
In addition, I do not believe the original PCN adequately conveys the information required by Regulation 3 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
In particular, the PCN does not properly explain:
* that representations received before a Notice to Owner is served must be considered by the authority; and
* that, if a Notice to Owner is nevertheless served, formal representations must then be made in accordance with that Notice.
These are mandatory statutory requirements.
Again, failure to comply with those requirements constitutes procedural impropriety.
⸻
5. Request for disclosure
Should the council not accept these representations, please provide:
* the complete Traffic Management Order applicable to George Lane (C);
* all Civil Enforcement Officer notes;
* all photographs;
* the RingGo payment audit relied upon by the council;
* confirmation that the council has actively considered the exercise of discretion rather than applying a blanket policy.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Notice to Owner and the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
« on: July 09, 2026, 01:29:13 pm »
Got the NTO today. Appreciate next steps on this please.
4
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop, Clayhall Avenue
« on: July 07, 2026, 02:05:40 pm »
I have submitted the representation now.
5
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop, Clayhall Avenue
« on: July 07, 2026, 12:56:44 pm »
After further discussions with @Hippocrates, here is the final simplified version of the appeal
"I put you to strict proof that this bus stop is legally signed. If you are unable to do so, please cancel the PCN."
"I put you to strict proof that this bus stop is legally signed. If you are unable to do so, please cancel the PCN."
6
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop, Clayhall Avenue
« on: July 07, 2026, 11:14:45 am »The first thing to say is that Redbridge will reject your reps, as the video shows a contravention, and they like to have the money as well, even if just the discount amount. So you'd have to take them to London Tribunals, and I have to say I don't think the odds are good, but wait and see what the others say.Are there any serious errors remaining in the PCN ? I can see one of the previous ones has been fixed from the PCN
Of course the PCN, and also the relevant Redbridge web pages may show serious errors which could be used for a technical appeal on the basis of a procedural impropriety, as the PCN is under the Traffic Managment Act 2004, where this is a statutory appeal ground. Such appeals have no connection to the actual contravention.
7
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop, Clayhall Avenue
« on: July 07, 2026, 11:12:18 am »You cannot require them to consider each point: HALTON CASE.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/303.pdf
I have reworded the appeal slightly
DRAFT BELOW
I make representations on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. The vehicle waited for approximately twenty seconds while the vehicle ahead manoeuvred out of the adjacent parking bay across its path, and parked in that bay the moment it was clear; it was prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver’s control (Schedule 7, Part 6, paragraph 4(2)(b), TSRGD 2016). No bus was present or impeded.
The burden is on the Council to establish the contravention. There must be a yellow stopping plate, but there isn’t. The stills served do not show the signage relied upon or the full extent of the clearway marking; please provide that evidence, together with the full, unedited footage from camera 3341 covering two minutes either side of the alleged contravention.
Alternatively, given the momentary and harmless nature of the halt, I ask the Council to exercise the discretion referred to on the face of the Notice and cancel the PCN.
8
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop, Clayhall Avenue
« on: July 05, 2026, 08:30:04 am »
Here is the revised letter. Given the signage is there (albeit a bit small), should point 1 still be included ?
Dear Sir or Madam,
I make representations against this PCN on the statutory ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.
The bus stop at this location is not signed with any upright “no stopping” plate. I put the Council to strict proof that the restriction was lawfully in place and properly indicated at the material time. Please provide:
1. evidence of the upright signage at this bus stop as at 16 June 2026;
2. contemporaneous photographs showing that the road marking conformed to diagram 1025.1 of the TSRGD 2016 and was complete, unobscured and in good repair;
3. the operative hours of the restriction and the legal basis on which contravention 47j is enforced at this location; and
4. the full, unedited CCTV footage from camera 3341.
If the Council is unable to evidence each of the above, please cancel the PCN. I require each point raised in these representations to be addressed in any Notice of Rejection.
Yours faithfully,
Dear Sir or Madam,
I make representations against this PCN on the statutory ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.
The bus stop at this location is not signed with any upright “no stopping” plate. I put the Council to strict proof that the restriction was lawfully in place and properly indicated at the material time. Please provide:
1. evidence of the upright signage at this bus stop as at 16 June 2026;
2. contemporaneous photographs showing that the road marking conformed to diagram 1025.1 of the TSRGD 2016 and was complete, unobscured and in good repair;
3. the operative hours of the restriction and the legal basis on which contravention 47j is enforced at this location; and
4. the full, unedited CCTV footage from camera 3341.
If the Council is unable to evidence each of the above, please cancel the PCN. I require each point raised in these representations to be addressed in any Notice of Rejection.
Yours faithfully,
9
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop, Clayhall Avenue
« on: July 03, 2026, 10:20:27 pm »
Here is a draft of my appeal, Please let me know if there is any feedback.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I make the following formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the statutory ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. I do not admit the contravention and, without prejudice to that position, I also rely on the further matters set out below.
Background – the circumstances of the stop
1. The vehicle was in the process of parking. The driver had identified a vehicle in a marked parking bay immediately ahead whose occupant had already entered that vehicle and closed the door, such that it was evident the bay was about to become vacant. The driver drew up behind that vehicle and waited, for approximately twenty seconds, while the vehicle ahead started its engine and manoeuvred out of the bay into the carriageway. The moment the bay was vacated, the driver parked in it and the vehicle was clear of the bus stop area.
2. While the vehicle ahead was pulling out of the bay and into the live carriageway, it would have been unsafe and impracticable for the driver to proceed: the vehicle ahead was moving across the driver's path, and overtaking a vehicle mid-manoeuvre on its offside into oncoming traffic would have created an obvious risk of collision. In those moments the vehicle was, in substance, prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver's control. I refer the Council to Schedule 7, Part 6, paragraph 4(2)(b) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, which expressly excepts “a vehicle which is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver’s control or which has to be stopped in order to avoid injury or damage to persons or property”.
3. The stop was momentary and incidental to a lawful parking manoeuvre. The vehicle was not parked, was not left unattended, the driver remained at the controls throughout, and the vehicle moved off and into the bay as soon as the bay was clear. No bus was present at, approaching, or in any way impeded from using the stop during this brief period.
Signage and marking of the alleged restriction
4. There is no upright “no stopping” sign (diagram 974 or similar) at or serving this bus stop on Clayhall Avenue. The Council is put to strict proof that a bus stop clearway restriction was lawfully in force and properly indicated at the material time, and in particular to confirm:
(a) whether the restriction relied upon is a 24-hour bus stop clearway or one operative only during specified times. If the restriction is time-limited, an upright sign indicating the operational times is required for the restriction to be adequately conveyed to drivers, and none is present;
(b) that the road marking relied upon conformed in all respects to diagram 1025.1 of the TSRGD 2016 (including the required broad continuous yellow line) and was complete, unobscured and in a good state of repair at the material time. The Council is requested to provide contemporaneous photographs of the markings and any signage, together with details of the last site inspection;
(c) the legal basis of the restriction (statutory provision and, if applicable, any order) under which contravention 47j is enforced at this location.
5. I further refer the Council to paragraph 13.24.9 of the Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3 (Regulatory Signs), which contemplates that upright signing accompanies bus stop clearway markings and states, in terms, that where a time period applies “it will be helpful to drivers if the sign does face oncoming traffic”. In the absence of any upright plate whatsoever, a driver momentarily halted in the course of a parking manoeuvre had no adequate indication of the extent or operative hours of any restriction.
The CCTV evidence
6. The still images served with the PCN show only a short excerpt and do not capture the full sequence of events, in particular the period during which the occupant of the vehicle in the parking bay entered that vehicle, closed the door, started up and manoeuvred out, nor my vehicle subsequently parking in the vacated bay. I formally request disclosure of the full, unedited CCTV footage from camera 3341 covering the period from at least two minutes before to two minutes after the alleged contravention. I am advised that the footage the Council holds does show the other vehicle's driver entering their vehicle and closing the door before driving away, which corroborates the account above.
Proportionality
7. Even if, which is not admitted, a technical contravention is made out, a stop of approximately twenty seconds in the course of taking up an adjacent parking bay, with no bus present or impeded, is de minimis. Enforcement in these circumstances serves no traffic management purpose, and I invite the Council to exercise its discretion to cancel the PCN in any event, as your own Notice indicates you will do where there are suitable mitigating circumstances.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, the alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN should be cancelled. If the Council rejects these representations, please provide with the Notice of Rejection: (i) the full unedited CCTV footage from camera 3341; (ii) site photographs of all signs and markings at the Clayhall Avenue bus stop; and (iii) confirmation of the operative hours and legal basis of the restriction, so that the matter may be pursued before the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators at London Tribunals, where an application for costs will be considered if the Council's conduct is found to have been wholly unreasonable.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I make the following formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the statutory ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. I do not admit the contravention and, without prejudice to that position, I also rely on the further matters set out below.
Background – the circumstances of the stop
1. The vehicle was in the process of parking. The driver had identified a vehicle in a marked parking bay immediately ahead whose occupant had already entered that vehicle and closed the door, such that it was evident the bay was about to become vacant. The driver drew up behind that vehicle and waited, for approximately twenty seconds, while the vehicle ahead started its engine and manoeuvred out of the bay into the carriageway. The moment the bay was vacated, the driver parked in it and the vehicle was clear of the bus stop area.
2. While the vehicle ahead was pulling out of the bay and into the live carriageway, it would have been unsafe and impracticable for the driver to proceed: the vehicle ahead was moving across the driver's path, and overtaking a vehicle mid-manoeuvre on its offside into oncoming traffic would have created an obvious risk of collision. In those moments the vehicle was, in substance, prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver's control. I refer the Council to Schedule 7, Part 6, paragraph 4(2)(b) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, which expressly excepts “a vehicle which is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver’s control or which has to be stopped in order to avoid injury or damage to persons or property”.
3. The stop was momentary and incidental to a lawful parking manoeuvre. The vehicle was not parked, was not left unattended, the driver remained at the controls throughout, and the vehicle moved off and into the bay as soon as the bay was clear. No bus was present at, approaching, or in any way impeded from using the stop during this brief period.
Signage and marking of the alleged restriction
4. There is no upright “no stopping” sign (diagram 974 or similar) at or serving this bus stop on Clayhall Avenue. The Council is put to strict proof that a bus stop clearway restriction was lawfully in force and properly indicated at the material time, and in particular to confirm:
(a) whether the restriction relied upon is a 24-hour bus stop clearway or one operative only during specified times. If the restriction is time-limited, an upright sign indicating the operational times is required for the restriction to be adequately conveyed to drivers, and none is present;
(b) that the road marking relied upon conformed in all respects to diagram 1025.1 of the TSRGD 2016 (including the required broad continuous yellow line) and was complete, unobscured and in a good state of repair at the material time. The Council is requested to provide contemporaneous photographs of the markings and any signage, together with details of the last site inspection;
(c) the legal basis of the restriction (statutory provision and, if applicable, any order) under which contravention 47j is enforced at this location.
5. I further refer the Council to paragraph 13.24.9 of the Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3 (Regulatory Signs), which contemplates that upright signing accompanies bus stop clearway markings and states, in terms, that where a time period applies “it will be helpful to drivers if the sign does face oncoming traffic”. In the absence of any upright plate whatsoever, a driver momentarily halted in the course of a parking manoeuvre had no adequate indication of the extent or operative hours of any restriction.
The CCTV evidence
6. The still images served with the PCN show only a short excerpt and do not capture the full sequence of events, in particular the period during which the occupant of the vehicle in the parking bay entered that vehicle, closed the door, started up and manoeuvred out, nor my vehicle subsequently parking in the vacated bay. I formally request disclosure of the full, unedited CCTV footage from camera 3341 covering the period from at least two minutes before to two minutes after the alleged contravention. I am advised that the footage the Council holds does show the other vehicle's driver entering their vehicle and closing the door before driving away, which corroborates the account above.
Proportionality
7. Even if, which is not admitted, a technical contravention is made out, a stop of approximately twenty seconds in the course of taking up an adjacent parking bay, with no bus present or impeded, is de minimis. Enforcement in these circumstances serves no traffic management purpose, and I invite the Council to exercise its discretion to cancel the PCN in any event, as your own Notice indicates you will do where there are suitable mitigating circumstances.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, the alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN should be cancelled. If the Council rejects these representations, please provide with the Notice of Rejection: (i) the full unedited CCTV footage from camera 3341; (ii) site photographs of all signs and markings at the Clayhall Avenue bus stop; and (iii) confirmation of the operative hours and legal basis of the restriction, so that the matter may be pursued before the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators at London Tribunals, where an application for costs will be considered if the Council's conduct is found to have been wholly unreasonable.
10
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop, Clayhall Avenue
« on: July 03, 2026, 05:34:41 pm »
Can any of the arguments in this case be used ?
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-47j-stopped-on-a-restricted-bus-stop-or-stand-high-st-e11/msg122207/#msg122207
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-47j-stopped-on-a-restricted-bus-stop-or-stand-high-st-e11/msg122207/#msg122207
11
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Redbridge, code 47j stopped on a restricted bus stop, Clayhall Avenue
« on: June 25, 2026, 03:05:02 pm »
I'd appreciate some advice on whether this is worth contesting.
The driver saw a vehicle in a nearby parking bay whose occupant had already entered the vehicle and closed the door, so it was obvious they were about to leave. The driver therefore queued behind that vehicle for approximately 20 seconds while it started up and pulled out, then immediately parked in the now-vacant bay.
During that time, the passenger exited the vehicle safely. The driver remained in the vehicle throughout and never left it.
The CCTV footage does show the other driver getting into their vehicle and closing the door before driving away, which supports the explanation that the vehicle was simply waiting for the parking space to become available. However, the CCTV does not show the full 20-second sequence before the space became free, so it does not provide the complete context.
My questions are:
I'd be grateful for any opinions before deciding whether to pay at the discounted rate or make formal representations.
PCN
Council evidence
Council Video
https://youtu.be/W5Njdy-QUuw
Google Street View
https://maps.app.goo.gl/pWo9QrRE5fAiTt9dA
The driver saw a vehicle in a nearby parking bay whose occupant had already entered the vehicle and closed the door, so it was obvious they were about to leave. The driver therefore queued behind that vehicle for approximately 20 seconds while it started up and pulled out, then immediately parked in the now-vacant bay.
During that time, the passenger exited the vehicle safely. The driver remained in the vehicle throughout and never left it.
The CCTV footage does show the other driver getting into their vehicle and closing the door before driving away, which supports the explanation that the vehicle was simply waiting for the parking space to become available. However, the CCTV does not show the full 20-second sequence before the space became free, so it does not provide the complete context.
My questions are:
- Does the fact that the CCTV does not show the full sequence of events provide any grounds for challenge?
- Is there any argument that the vehicle was only momentarily stationary while waiting for an imminently available parking space, rather than stopping for the purposes of the bus stop restriction?
- or any technical/PCN wording mistake related grounds to contest this ?
I'd be grateful for any opinions before deciding whether to pay at the discounted rate or make formal representations.
PCN
Council evidence
Council Video
https://youtu.be/W5Njdy-QUuw
Google Street View
https://maps.app.goo.gl/pWo9QrRE5fAiTt9dA
12
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
« on: June 05, 2026, 05:57:08 pm »
Got the rejection letter 
13
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
« on: May 29, 2026, 05:39:04 pm »
I have submitted the challenge today to Redbridge.
Many thanks @Hippocrates
Many thanks @Hippocrates
14
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
« on: May 28, 2026, 09:10:44 pm »Does this mean this is good to go and submit the challenge ?
15
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
« on: May 28, 2026, 07:33:33 pm »
@Hippocrates
@stamfordman
I have drafted an appeal below. Please review and provide feedback
Formal Representation Against PCN – Redbridge Council
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice.
The alleged contravention did not occur. The parking charge for the vehicle was in fact paid via the RingGo app for the relevant parking session and location. Unfortunately, an honest and inadvertent error was made when entering the vehicle registration number within the application, resulting in payment being linked to an incorrect registration.
Importantly, the council suffered no financial loss whatsoever, as the appropriate parking fee was paid in full for the relevant period. This was clearly a genuine keying error and not an attempt to avoid payment. In these circumstances, enforcing a penalty charge of £110 is wholly disproportionate and contrary to the principles of fairness and reasonable public administration.
I would respectfully ask the council to exercise discretion and cancel the PCN on this occasion.
Further, I note that the PCN appears to contain procedural defects and may not comply with the requirements of the applicable legislation.
The PCN states:
“The Penalty Charge of £110 must be paid no later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the PCN was served.”
However, Schedule 2 paragraph 2(d) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 requires a Regulation 9 PCN to state:
“that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred”.
The PCN therefore appears to rely on outdated wording derived from the superseded 2007 regulations by referring to the date the notice was “served” rather than the date the alleged contravention “occurred”.
In addition, the PCN does not appear to adequately convey the information required under Regulation 3 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022, specifically regarding the recipient’s right to make representations before a Notice to Owner is served and the council’s duty to consider those representations.
Accordingly, I submit that the PCN is non-compliant and unenforceable.
Should the council nevertheless decide not to cancel the PCN, please treat this letter as a request for:
1. A full copy of the relevant Traffic Management Order relied upon;
2. Copies of all CEO notes and photographs;
3. Confirmation that the council has properly considered exercising discretion in light of the payment having been made.
I look forward to your confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
@stamfordman
I have drafted an appeal below. Please review and provide feedback
Formal Representation Against PCN – Redbridge Council
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice.
The alleged contravention did not occur. The parking charge for the vehicle was in fact paid via the RingGo app for the relevant parking session and location. Unfortunately, an honest and inadvertent error was made when entering the vehicle registration number within the application, resulting in payment being linked to an incorrect registration.
Importantly, the council suffered no financial loss whatsoever, as the appropriate parking fee was paid in full for the relevant period. This was clearly a genuine keying error and not an attempt to avoid payment. In these circumstances, enforcing a penalty charge of £110 is wholly disproportionate and contrary to the principles of fairness and reasonable public administration.
I would respectfully ask the council to exercise discretion and cancel the PCN on this occasion.
Further, I note that the PCN appears to contain procedural defects and may not comply with the requirements of the applicable legislation.
The PCN states:
“The Penalty Charge of £110 must be paid no later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the PCN was served.”
However, Schedule 2 paragraph 2(d) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 requires a Regulation 9 PCN to state:
“that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred”.
The PCN therefore appears to rely on outdated wording derived from the superseded 2007 regulations by referring to the date the notice was “served” rather than the date the alleged contravention “occurred”.
In addition, the PCN does not appear to adequately convey the information required under Regulation 3 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022, specifically regarding the recipient’s right to make representations before a Notice to Owner is served and the council’s duty to consider those representations.
Accordingly, I submit that the PCN is non-compliant and unenforceable.
Should the council nevertheless decide not to cancel the PCN, please treat this letter as a request for:
1. A full copy of the relevant Traffic Management Order relied upon;
2. Copies of all CEO notes and photographs;
3. Confirmation that the council has properly considered exercising discretion in light of the payment having been made.
I look forward to your confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled.
Yours faithfully,