Free Traffic Legal Advice

Well you're on thin ice legally (although proportionality should be explored here - possibly as a formal complaint rather than an appeal)  but the court of public opinion would probably be on your side. The media always want stories, and the Conservatives are frantically pushing a 'war on motorists' message, so if you're media-savvy and don't mind giving your local Conservatives a bit of ammo, perhaps you should consider going to the press with your 'I was fined £431 for failing to pay... nothing!' story. Getting councillors and/or your local MP on your side would at least make the Council parking team sweat a bit and think twice before doing this again, if not actually forcing an apology and refund.

I'd also argue that the box isn't compliant. They are only supposed to be 'at the junction', but you stopped clear of the junction.

Just to expand on this a little for the benefit of the OP...

Producing an evidence pack is a specialist job, it requires a considerable investment of time (and therefore money) on the council's part by someone who knows the fine points of all rules intimately. This means that it's the first point in the process where the council risks anything much more than the price of sending a couple of letters. They make you play 'double-or-quit' with the discount, making them produce an evidence pack is point where they have to up the stakes on their side. We often see councils fold at this point, which they do by presenting no evidence. This is one good reason to let them go first... you would be wasting your time assembling your evidence if they don't present anything.

Sometimes they fold because it's the first time anyone who understands some of the more technical challenges to PCNs will ever look at what you have been saying which means it's also the first time the council know they will lose at adjudication. Some more cynical councils play a numbers game, they know a lot of people will fold at the NTO stage, so they go that far even in cases where they don't have a leg to stand on. Occasionally they fold because they lack the resources to produce decent evidence packs, Barking and Dagenham seemed to go through a phase of not being able to produce evidence packs at all for several months last year. So another reason to let them go first is that they might not bother.

Another reason is to maximise their workload. If you go first and only have 1 or 2 lines of defence, they can do less work and concentrate purely on rebutting your points. If you make them go first they have to cover all possibilities, which they probably won't do so well. Because councils are weighing up the cost of carrying on against the chances of winning, they have to wager a bit more (non-reclaimable) effort and are therefore more likely to fold when they know they will lose.

This leads to another reason: some defects in council documentation only come to light at this stage. We sometimes see councils folding for no readily understandable reason. Given the fact that we quite often find defective (or missing) TMOs and TMOs that don't match up to signage, it's reasonable to suspect that sometimes the council finds this sort of thing out in the process of producing evidence packs, and folds rather than having to admit they messed up.

Next, there's the old military adage that you should never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake. A lot of the time cases are won at tribunal not on anything to do with the alleged offence, but because the council has missed something essential out of the evidence pack, produced the wrong documents, or not understood that their documents are not up to scratch. So, this is another reason to let them go first: Allow them to shoot themselves in the foot.

Others could probably add to the list, but I hope that's enough to explain it.

The decision makes no mention whatsoever of the app saying parking was free at a time when when it wasn't, which I think is a very important point that the adjudicator ought to have ruled on. Fundamentally, the council can't trick people into not paying by saying it's free, and then issue a PCN.

If the view count on the video is still zero then neither the adjudicator or the council has viewed crucial evidence that shows they did this, which I believe meets the (rather high) bar for asking for a review of the adjudicator's decision.

A carefully crafted request for a review on the grounds that the adjudicator erred in law by dismissing the video as "irrelevant or unnecessary evidence" without viewing it, when in fact it proves the argument made for promissory estoppel (that's legalese for going back on a promise) might work, especially if all you ask the Chief Adjudicator to do is to very narrowly consider and rule on the single unadressed issue of the video demonstrating promisory estoppel. Arguing that the interests of justice cannot have been served if someone presents evidence they claim proves their innocence and both council and adjudicator dismiss that evidence it without even looking at seems a strong grounds for review to me, and I think the Chief Adjudicator would have a hard time justifying a response of 'I'm going to dismiss it without looking at it too'.

Well the first page you linked to says that, but this page: https://www.croydon.gov.uk/parking-streets-and-transport/streets-roads-and-pavements/chns/broad-green-chn-parsons-mead-area
says:

"Local residents are able to apply for a permit for up to three vehicles, the CHN map accessible via the link a little further down this webpage shows the permit zone. Exemptions will be made for some vehicles such as buses, black taxis, local school staff, blue badge holders and designated carers."

This is hopelessly vague, but I don't think it says you need to apply for a permit. It's unclear how or if the second sentence is related to the first, and the second sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense ("local school staff, blue badge holders and designated carers" are not vehicles) but I think it's reasonable to argue that a diligent motorist with a blue badge would read this paragraph and come to the conclusion that they are exempt, and they do not have to apply for a permit because those are only for local residents.

If the two sentences are intended to be read as one, then it either says that worthy vehicles/people are exempt from being able to apply for permits if they are local residents, which is absurd, or that local residents can apply for up to 3 permits but won't get them unless they are in some very small categories, which is also absurd, and if you read it that way it includes a provision for local residents who own buses but not local companies who own buses, which is even moe absurd, so I think it's reasonable to argue that the two sentences must be interpreted independently.

It's also sounds as if that you have a failure to consider, but we need to see their response and compare it to your appeal to advise yo on that.

If this was me, I'd be taking this one to adjudication. The council can't publish a web page that says you're exempt then turn round and say 'ha ha, tricked you, we didn't mean it, cough up'.

The next step is for the council to provide their evidence pack to the adjudicator, which you'll have access to (if they fail to do this, you win by default).

Your task at the tribunal is to responding to whatever they put in that pack, so for now all you need to do is keep an eye out for it, and post here when it's available.

Here's an entertaining Twitter* thread by well known tweeting barrister @crimegirl that gathers examples of "oft cited cases that debunk Freeman on The Land nonsense" from various jurisdictions (UK, Canada, NI etc.)

https://twitter.com/CrimeGirI/status/1715714891468681579


* Not only do I refuse to call it X, I am going one further and will henceforth refer to Elon's rocket company as 'Space Twitter'.

No, leave it in. The 0485 number on the back of your PCN is premium rate, and Councils regularly lose at the tribunal on this matter. I highly recommend you read the Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council decision that CP8759 posted a link to above, as it will bring you up to speed on this angle.