DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 119956--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 28, 2026, 2:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
;D
#Post#: 119959--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: flash2005
Date: May 28, 2026, 3:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> ;D
>
--- End Quote ---
Does this mean this is good to go and submit the challenge ?
#Post#: 120045--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: flash2005
Date: May 29, 2026, 11:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have submitted the challenge today to Redbridge.
Many thanks @Hippocrates
#Post#: 120879--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: flash2005
Date: June 5, 2026, 11:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Got the rejection letter :(
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/NmXIhkJ_xl.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ZHOtMiD_xl.jpeg
#Post#: 120893--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 5, 2026, 5:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Failure to consider. Keep going.
#Post#: 124173--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: flash2005
Date: July 9, 2026, 7:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Got the NTO today. Appreciate next steps on this please.
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/FTyBb0T.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/tx3Wsn6.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/fFAm340.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/QqnLCf5.jpg
#Post#: 124184--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 9, 2026, 8:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Main point to make is to not ignore it, or it's game over.
Secondly, it is pointless paying as the amount demanded is the
full penalty, no discount. However, when rejecting, the council
may re-offer the discount to encourage payment, because going to
adjudication is a PITA for them as they have to prepare an
evidence pack and also pay the adjudication fee. AFAIK this fee
is about £30
#Post#: 124188--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: flash2005
Date: July 9, 2026, 8:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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,
#Post#: 124745--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 15, 2026, 3:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good stuff. They are not obliged at this stage to provide the
TMO etc but I have seen an old decision by Mr Chan which
supports non-disclosure. Basically, ask them to consider your
informal challenge as formal representation and DO NOT spell out
the previous failure to consider.
#Post#: 124756--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: flash2005
Date: July 15, 2026, 4:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Representations submitted.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page