Free Traffic Legal Advice

Responded with a lengty response, hopefully it'll do the job if not here then at ajudication


1. The Contravention Did Not Occur
1(a) A payment was made – therefore the alleged contravention is factually incorrect
Contravention 11 requires the motorist to have failed to make a payment. The enforcement authority’s rejection letter confirms that a parking session was created and that a payment was made, but under the wrong location code. This means the contravention as stated on the PCN is factually incorrect.

If the authority believes the issue was that the payment was allocated to the wrong location, that is a different contravention entirely, and not the one stated on the PCN. A PCN must match the facts alleged; if it does not, it is unenforceable - Therefore, the contravention as stated did not occur.

1(b) Additional point: the parking charge was £0.00 – no monetary payment was due
This is a crucial point, the location in which the vehicle was parked carried a £0.00 parking charge during the relevant period.
Where the required payment is £0.00, it is impossible to “fail to pay the parking charge” because:
* No monetary payment is required,
* No monetary payment is possible, and
* A charge of £0.00 cannot logically be “unpaid.”

If the authority’s position is that a free session was not correctly registered due to a location-code error, then that is not the contravention on the PCN. Code 11 explicitly requires non-payment of a charge, but when the charge is £0.00, the contravention cannot occur in law or in logic - It is therefore impossible for the alleged contravention to have taken place.


2. Failure to Consider Circumstances and Exercise Discretion
The Traffic Management Act 2004 statutory guidance requires councils to properly consider representations and exercise discretion fairly and proportionately. My error was a genuine and minor human mistake — a single incorrect digit/location code input while using the RingGo app. I made a good-faith effort to comply and made the required payment (even though the charge was £0.00).

[**** Intersted your extract from the General Guidance Here *****]

The rejection letter does not indicate that due consideration was given to mitigation or discretion. It uses a standardised explanation of policy rather than addressing my specific circumstances. The purpose of parking enforcement is compliance, not punishment. Penalising a minor clerical mistake — especially when the charge was £0.00 — is disproportionate, with my intention to comply being clear, this is precisely the type of situation where statutory discretion should be applied


Conclusion -
* The contravention as stated did not occur,
* It is logically impossible to “not pay” a charge of £0.00,
* The authority’s own evidence confirms a payment was made,
* The authority failed to consider the cirsumstances and fairly and proportionately
* And the enforcement action is disproportionate and unreasonable.

Okay so heres the IAS final decision - Which I am sure you expected no difference.


"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them. The Appellant has provided no documentary evidence in support of her claim that the school is subject to statutory control and therefore does not fall within the definition of relevant land within PoFA. The onus is on the Appellant who is making this argument to do so. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the Appellant has established that this site is not relevant land.

Images have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site.

The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such that either vehicles must be registered with a valid e-permit or have a valid exemption which is obtained by drivers entering their full, correct VRN into the kiosks located in reception or being registered via Sippi. In the photographs provided to me I can see that the Appellant remained on the site for 37 minutes and in the data provided I can see that the Appellant's VRN was not registered for a valid e-permit or exemption, which the Appellant does not dispute. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. Mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. The Appellant has misunderstood the application of the 10 minute grace period. This only applies to a permitted period of parking, which this was not. It cannot simply be added to the 30 minute consideration period that the Operator affords drivers on this site, in the way that the Appellant has done. The signage clearly sets out the terms and conditions that apply on this site and the Appellant has provided no adequate justification for remaining for 37 minutes without complying with those terms and conditions. As such, on the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed."

Any point in assessing their response to see if any points are incorrect and flawed?

Also what happens now, do i await the parking company to contact me again and I ignore?

Could you link the tribunal case which was rejected and any others pertaining to this location please.

Its not gone to tribunal yet it seems, rather its been at the informal/formal appeal - https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/penalty-charge-notice-for-u-turn/


@Hippocrates - My formal appeal below, although point 1 and 2 are not actually mandatory requirements it seems from what I have read, nonetheless have added them as additonal points. Point 3 (your case) so far I've seen has been rejected it seems by Redbridge LA on two occasions on other cases here, although both at informal appeal, so I expect the same here.


1. Signage Positioning

Firstly as you approach Cranbrook road from York Road, there is no sign on York Road, giving advance warning to the driver that they are about to enter onto a road where there is a prohibition, leaving little no chance of doubt or avoidance.

Secondly the 'no U-turn' sign that you refer which was not noticeable for a number of reason (visibility, positioning, distance and location), is on the opposite side of the road, signage must be clearly visible to the direction of traffic it applies to, a sign on the opposite side of the road is generally ineffective and can be confusing as can be seen in this instance.


2. Visibility and Puffin Controlled Area

The ‘no U-turn’ sign you have referred to is placed within a ‘puffin controlled area’ (zig-zag lines), where many road signs are prohibited from being placed, to ensure clear visibility for drivers in ensuring full concentration is on pedestrians using the crossing, which is exactly why after ensuring that any traffic coming from the right had cleared on Cranbrook road, as the driver then turns into Cranbrook road, the focus would instantly if not in parallel turn to the left, to ensure pedestrians and potential dangers from that side of Cranbrook road are covered, making it very difficult to perform all 3 tasks and then to also be expected to look at a road sign on the opposite side of the road.

Also the TSRGD ( TSRGD 2016, reg. 2 and Sch 1) prohibits the use of all road signs (with a few exceptions, eg no-right-turn) from being placed within zig-zag lines of


3. Validity of the PCN

Lastly I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it is missing mandatory information as provided at
Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

 (v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable.
 Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (iii):
 (iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

Therefore, it follows that the statement: If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make   representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable. adds to the lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the required information was included or not, it is also arguable that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still no clarity due to the missing information. So, it follows that it cannot possibly be interpreted disjunctively.

Just to add, as I have a thread with the same contravention and location, my informal appeal for rejected and now am at the formal appelal stage - In my I performed a u-turn just as I passed teh U turn sign across the road (on the right side).

I was on cranbrook road and there is infact a no u-turn sign on the left side also a few meters further ahead but its hidden behind a traffic light, so no way for that to be seen as one turns left onto cranbrook road, see below.

https://ibb.co/93CPXHQf
https://ibb.co/5gwKxSFy
https://ibb.co/dwZSxvRG

Submitted - Await their rejection - A miracile if they accept, but their track record says other wise

I've checked the difference between a code 16 and 12, if the issue is around the use of the code

16 - Contravention code 16 refers to parking in a permit-only space without a valid permit displayed. This applies to resident, visitor, or other types of permit bays, and the vehicle must either be clearly displaying a valid physical permit or have a valid virtual permit in place, where applicable

12 - Contravention code 12 is for parking in a residents' or shared-use parking place without a valid permit, voucher, or pay and display ticket where one is required. It can also apply if the paid time on a pay and display ticket has expired

Both sort of say the same thing no on the outset, while going deep I could do a lot of comparisons - 16 seems to be more focussed on permits, which includes visitor (I assume I fell into this) -

Is it that ground against the payment, cannot be for a permit rather has to be for a pay and display on a shared use bay which is only possible under code 12, ie code 16 does not cover payment tarriff permits for shared use bays, it only covers permit only?

I would also relegate the fact that you paid to a footnote

Noted, will do so..

I think I have struggled to understand the reason you were proposing to the LA, hence my draft going off point on the wrong understanding. Having re-read your recent explanation, my current understnading is that issue isn't with the bay or the it being shared or the 's' code, rather the grounds and/or code used?

I am struggling to get my head around the below, it may that i am not able to see the wood from the trees as they say or the contradications in their grounds used against the point you're making.

Therefore the authority cannot rationally assert that while its own evidence acknowledges the shared use nature of the parking place a contravention could have been committed based upon ONLY the fact that a permit was not displayed which means that the ONLY defence open to me in this regard would be to prove that I displayed the necessary permit.

1. I understand the bit around 's' and the bay being shared
2. I understand the two conditions you can park, ie have a permit, or pay for a virtual ticket (permit).
3. The only defence would be to prove I had a valid permit (or a paid session in our case) surely? what other defence is there, as a permit is required to park in that bay.

The latter part of their grounds states ".... without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid permit'., which I am unable to prove and had taken place as I did not have a virtual permit or a valid permit for that location?

** UPDATED ** @ 22:11 - Having re-read this a dozen times, is it that is is a shared use bay, so grounds should be not displaying a valid permit, as that only applies to a permit only bay? ie they are enforcing that this is the only ground I can appeal on, where as it should be code 12, which is for shared used bays and has pay and display ground?

Not the PCN issue?

Sorry? confused? you want me to reattach the PCN, this is for the U Turn after a No right turn, caught on their CCTV by an operator