Free Traffic Legal Advice

Brilliant catch on the GSV history, thank you. I went and checked the historical imagery myself and here is what I found:

• 2020: post bore a "Permit Holders" restriction sign (compliant signage).

• 2025: sign gone, post bare.

• Now (2026): RingGo notice placed on the same post.

• Close-up of the RingGo notice showing the Wandsworth Borough Council logo.

So the post is one that previously formed part of the council's regulatory signage scheme for this bay. The restriction sign was removed or lost between 2020 and 2025 and was never replaced. A RingGo notice was subsequently placed on the same post.

Below is a stripped-down draft of the formal representation. Grateful for any further comments before I submit on 18 July.

Ground: A — The contravention did not occur
Box K (Details):

I am the registered keeper of vehicle PN63XYD. I am making formal representations on the statutory ground that the contravention did not occur.
On 19 May 2026, the vehicle was being driven by my husband, XXX, who parked on Ravenna Road, SW15, alongside a lamp post bearing a RingGo notice (location code 11751), paid for parking via the RingGo app, and left the vehicle.

1. The lamp post adjacent to the bay is part of the Council's regulatory signage scheme
Historical Google Street View imagery of the lamp post immediately adjacent to the parking position (approximately one car length in front of the vehicle, near the T-junction at the end of the street) shows the following:

• 2020: the post bore a compliant "Permit Holders" traffic sign.
• 2025: the sign had been removed or lost. The post was bare.
• At the date of the alleged contravention: the post bore a RingGo notice displaying location code 11751.

Screenshots and photographs of each stage are attached as evidence.
The post is therefore one which the Council itself has historically used as part of the regulatory signage scheme for this bay.

2. The RingGo notice was indistinguishable from official Council signage
The RingGo notice was affixed to a Council-owned lamp post identical in form to those used for traffic signs, was professionally produced, neatly placed, and displayed the Wandsworth Borough Council logo. A close-up photograph is attached showing the Wandsworth logo on the notice.
A reasonable motorist would conclude that the notice was the operative sign for the adjacent bay and that paid parking via the RingGo app was authorised.

3. The Council failed to maintain compliant signage
The Council removed or lost the original "Permit Holders" sign and failed to replace it for several years. It subsequently authorised or condoned the placement of a RingGo notice on the same post. A post which historically communicated a restriction now communicates an apparent authorisation of paid parking.

4. Conclusion
I respectfully submit that the contravention did not occur. The post immediately adjacent to the parking bay historically formed part of the Council's regulatory signage scheme. The Council failed to maintain the original restriction sign for several years and subsequently authorised or condoned the placement of a RingGo notice on the same post. To a reasonable motorist, this notice represented the operative parking arrangement for the adjacent bay.

I request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

A couple of questions before I submit:
1. Does the draft above read OK, or is there anything you would change?
2. Is it worth including the point that the boundary sign relied on by the Council is approximately three to four car lengths behind the parking position, not "approximately 1 car length to the rear" as the rejection letter states (and as the Council's own enforcement photograph contradicts)? Or is that better left out at this stage and held back for tribunal if it gets that far?

Thanks again.

Hi, all,

First-time poster. Hoping for some expert eyes on a Wandsworth code 12 PCN before I submit formal representations. NTO deadline is 17 July 2026.

PCN details
•   Wandsworth Borough Council
•   PCN number: WA94146302
•   Vehicle reg: PN63XYD
•   Contravention: code 12, parked in a residents/shared use bay without valid permit or payment
•   Date/time: 19 May 2026 at 09:03
•   Location: Ravenna Road, SW15
•   Street View: [paste Google Street View link here]

Background
On 19 May 2026 at 08:32, the driver parked on Ravenna Road and paid £4.48 via RingGo for a one-hour session at location code 11751. The 11751 sign was displayed on a lamp post about 1 car length in front of the parking position, near a T-junction at the end of the street. That post bore only a RingGo sticker, no restriction sign.
The actual restriction signs ("Permit holders or Pay at blue machine" and "Resident permit holders only", on a single post) are about 3-4 car lengths behind the parking position. That same post also carries a RingGo sticker showing location 11751. Every lamp post along the entire block also has a RingGo sticker.
PCN issued at 09:03, 31 minutes into the active paid session.

Informal challenge and rejection
Informal challenge submitted same day arguing misleading signage. Rejection letter dated 4 June did not engage with the signage argument. It stated generically that cashless parking is not valid in the bay and that the onus is on the motorist to verify signage. Council also claimed the time plate was "approximately 1 car length to the rear" — this is factually incorrect and contradicted by the council's own enforcement photograph, which shows the restriction post much further back with multiple parked cars between it and my vehicle.

NTO
NTO dated 19 June, addressed to the registered keeper (driver's wife). £160 now payable. Deadline 17 July.
Additional context
About two weeks after the PCN, the driver returned to the location and observed that the RingGo sticker on the front post (the one nearest the parking position) had been partially torn — roughly half removed but not fully. Sticker was intact on 19 May.

Intended grounds
Box A — contravention did not occur, on the basis that the signage at the parking position was misleading and not clear/unambiguous to the reasonable motorist. Considering also Box F (procedural impropriety) given the council's failure to engage with the signage argument in the informal rejection.

Evidence available
•   RingGo VAT invoice (£4.48, location 11751, 08:32–09:32)
•   Council's own enforcement photographs (showing the RingGo post in front and restriction post far behind)
•   Private photos showing the distance between posts with my car's estimated location
•   Close-up of restriction post showing both restriction signs plus RingGo sticker
•   Close-up of partially torn RingGo sticker (taken two weeks later)
•   Wide shot showing the entire block with RingGo stickers on multiple posts
•   Informal rejection letter
•   NTO

Evidence images (via imgpile):

RingGo invoice — payment receipt for £4.48 at location 11751.


Council photo — RingGo post in front of car.


Council photo — restriction post far behind car.


Private photo — distance between posts with estimated car location.


Private photo — visual distance to restriction post from parking spot.


Private photo — restriction signs close-up with RingGo sticker on same post.


Private photo — RingGo post closest to car (close-up of location 11751).


Private photo — torn RingGo sticker (taken 2 weeks later).


NTO from Wandsworth Council.


Council informal rejection letter dated 4 June 2026.



Questions
1.   Has anyone here had a similar situation, a RingGo sticker placed near a permit-only bay creating confusion about whether pay-by-phone parking was authorised? Curious how it went and what argument worked.
2.   Is Box A the right ground, or should I also tick Box F (procedural impropriety) for the council's failure to engage with the signage argument?
3.   Any specific Wandsworth or London Tribunals cases on RingGo signage / misleading pay-by-phone stickers worth citing?
4.   Is the "no loss to the council" point worth including, or does it dilute the legal argument?
5.   Any obvious weaknesses to address before the council sees them?
6.   Personal hearing or postal decision if it reaches the tribunal?

Thanks in advance.