DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 119634--------------------------------------------------
Redbridge - Grove Park Code 11u - Parked without payment of
parking charge
DIR By: Glitch
Date: May 24, 2026, 7:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Parked up. Zone is Wanstead High Street Zone 6081220. It did not
geolocate and did not appear in the 3 Nearby locations.
Started a search by code and believed I had selected the
appropriate code. 1 hour free parking booked. Start time 14:16.
Went shopping. Came back ~20 mins later to find a PCN on the
windscreen. Issued at 14:19.
Checked parking session. Still 32 mins left but then spotted it
was for Zone 6081228 Ilford Town.
I have a receipt for a local shop time at 14:19, just as the CEO
is issuing the ticket. The car is clearly not in Ilford.
I have clearly not double/triple checked the zone. It's a free
hour. Redbridge are not out of pocket. The geolocation for
6081220 does not work, presumably since they extended it last
year.
An informal appeal has surprisingly fallen on deaf ears. I had
mistakenly assumed they would exercise discretion. Somewhat
harsh on a law abiding Redbridge resident.
Initial (angry) thought was to take this all the way but is
there sufficient grounds for an adjudicator to allow an appeal?
HTML https://i.ibb.co/rK8Q2G8y/Grove-Park-PCN-Copy.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/XxR9xX3f/informal-rejection-Grove-Park.jpg
#Post#: 119685--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Grove Park Code 11u - Parked without payment of
parking charge
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 25, 2026, 6:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is there any reason why you didn't look at the parking sign?
Two points. Cases have been won where adjudicators say you can't
be in contravention for not paying for something free, and all
pay bays in Redbridge are free for the first hour.
And other case below on geolocation indicates a possible outcome
is to get a recommendation to cancel, which isn't binding.
-----------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
Havering
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
1.
September 2025. However Mr Pace did not join the hearing,
despite being allowed an additional 10 minutes. I therefore
decided this case based on the evidence before me.
2.
parking was free at all times. It was not made adequately clear
that a parking session still had to be registered.
3.
enforcement officer did not occur. There is no parking charge
for parking in this car park. A driver therefore cannot fail to
pay the parking charge.
4.
‘e-ticket’, and displays it on the digital system. The
technology may change, but this is no different in reality to
obtaining a physical parking ticket and displaying it on the
dashboard. The civil enforcement officer is able to inspect the
e-ticket on the digital system using his handheld device. Mr
Pace therefore failed to display his e-ticket, but that was not
the contravention for which the penalty charge notice was
issued.
5.
----------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Owner.
Reasons
Authority was not represented.
The facts of this case are not in dispute, the Appellant cited
two decisions of other Adjudicators in the same circumstances
that she was in.
First, case number 2240496252, which was a Redbridge case
decided by Adjudicator Houghton, in which he decided as follows:
"It seems to me that a PCN cannot be issued for a failure to
“pay” for something which is free, and for which, by definition,
no payment is required. The Appeal is allowed on this ground and
it is unnecessary to examine the other issued raised by the
Appellant."
Second, case number 2240441669, which was decided by Adjudicator
Stanton-Dunne, in which he decided as follows:
"The signage for the car park confirms that the first 30 minutes
of parking is free. I accept Mrs Greenhalf's evidence. It
follows that there was no parking charge payable."
"I have also looked at the images of the tariff board supplied
by Mrs Greenhalf. I can see no instruction to motorists that
they must register a parking session with Ringo to have the
benefit of the free parking period and the conditions of use do
not warn motorists of any liability to receive a PCN for failing
to register a free parking session."
I have considered the above cases and I agree with them and
adopt their reasoning as if it was my own. Neither Authority in
the above referenced cases sought to review the above decisions.
I find that it was only after the issuing of this PCN that the
Authority ensured that sufficient warning signage was added to
those locations, indicating the the pay by phone was not the
correct pay by phone app and that it was RingGo.
I find that the absence of the now present warning signage
strongly caused this alleged contravention.
Taking all the above into account I find that this PCN cannot be
upheld.
The appeal is allowed.
----------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
within 28 days.
Reasons
Council on 29 September 2025. It is alleged that, on that date,
the appellant’s vehicle was parked without payment of the
parking charge.
2. I find that the contravention occurred. I base this finding
on the details recorded on the PCN itself. These details were
themselves based on the enforcement officer’s observations. I
also base my finding on the date and time stamped of the
appellant’s vehicle showing it to be parked in the manner
alleged in the PCN. I find that the provisions of the Kingston
upon Thames (Parking, Waiting, Loading and Stopping
Restrictions) Order 2023 provides the legal basis for the
restriction that the PCN rests on.
3. In making these findings, I have had regard to the
appellant’s grounds of appeal dated 16 January 2026. The
appellant states that a parking session was paid for. The RingGo
receipt in the appellant’s documents gives the location
reference as 26523. The contravention was recorded as having
occurred on St James Road, Surbiton. The case summary states
that the correct code was 26573. The appellant accepts in her
email of 9 February 2026 that the incorrect location was paid
for. She explained that the RingGo app generated the location
code by reference to what it considered her location to be – and
the appellant accepted the code provided when she made payment.
None of this can change my finding that the contravention
occurred because, as the enforcement officer’s notes show, the
appellant had no parking session paid for at the location
concerned when the PCN was issued.
4. Kingston’s case summary states that the enforcement authority
appreciates that there may have been a “genuine error.” The
appellant’s case is that the Ringo app made an error as to her
location – her error is simply that she did not spot it.
Kingston has not addressed the point about the app in the case
summary. The notice of rejection does not directly address the
about the app point either, save to make the point about the
need to check. Whilst I would not associate myself with all of
the remarks made by the appellant in her email dated 16 January
2026, I do find it significant that it was the RingGo app that
generated the location code by what it worked out to be the
appellant’s location. If the RingGo app is not capable of doing
that accurately, then that seems unfair to me. It also seems to
me that, if it cannot be done accurately, then the app should
not attempt to detect a motorist’s location at all, but rather
leave it to the motorist to input the code. Whilst I acknowledge
Kingston’s point about the need to check, it does not seem to be
in dispute that the appellant was misled by the RingGo app which
Kingston uses. For this reason, although the contravention
clearly occurred, I find that there is significant mitigation
and recommend that Kingston cancels this PCN on mitigation
grounds – as there was a problem with their/RingGo’s app. I will
conclude by observing that this is not a case where the
appellant herself typed in the wrong code, as often happens when
RingGo-based challenges are brought.
5. I refuse the appeal – but with the above recommendation.
Recommendation
#Post#: 119689--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Grove Park Code 11u - Parked without payment of
parking charge
DIR By: Glitch
Date: May 25, 2026, 7:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for this. Very useful.
I did look at the sign. I'm very familiar with it. With
Geolocation working there's no similar codes in the area, so
mistakes far less likely.
I am not sure exactly how I picked the wrong code but the most
likely fat fingers on the last digit (8 is above 0 on the iPhone
keypad) when doing a search for 6081220. A genuine error by me,
not helped by the tech and my age related declining faculties.
#Post#: 119708--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Grove Park Code 11u - Parked without payment of
parking charge
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 25, 2026, 1:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I would go on with this in your shoes but I can afford the extra
£55.
But from what you say I think there's enough to get at least a
recommendation as you did consult the sign and did your best
with the app.
One factor I've mentioned before is the ludicrous move to 7
digit location codes, which inevitably leads to more misreads
and fumbling at the kerbside, in addition to app geolocation
errors.
#Post#: 119714--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Grove Park Code 11u - Parked without payment of
parking charge
DIR By: Glitch
Date: May 25, 2026, 3:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. I'm happy to take this all the way!
#Post#: 122824--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Grove Park Code 11u - Parked without payment of
parking charge
DIR By: Glitch
Date: June 24, 2026, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Received the NTO so starting to draft a representation.
I'm thinking the grounds are: Did not occur and Penalty exceeds
(on the basis there is no charge for the hour booked).
I notice the observation time is 14:19 to 14:19, so no time
allowed to sort out the virtual permit, or he watched me pull up
at 14:16ish? Timestamp on the wrong session shows 14:16.
Thoughts?
#Post#: 122864--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Grove Park Code 11u - Parked without payment of
parking charge
DIR By: Glitch
Date: June 24, 2026, 12:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I submit this representation for PCN AF14295221 on the grounds
that the alleged contravention did not occur and that the
Penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the
circumstances of the case.
On the date in question, I did park in Grove Park. I opened the
Ringo App and out of the three nearby codes suggested it did not
include 6081220 as displayed on the nearest plate. I therefore
had to manually type the code. I started a free, 1 hour parking
session at 14:16.
I returned to my vehicle at approx. 14:35 and was shocked to
find a PCN on my windscreen. It had been issued 3 minutes after
I had booked the session.
When I checked the current Ringo session I discovered I had
somehow booked a location in Ilford, code 6081228, instead of
6081220. The last digit is different.
The contravention code on the PCN is 11u - Parked without
payment of the parking charge. I assert that the contravention
did not occur because there is no payment due for the first hour
of parking. I have not denied Redbridge of a parking fee. I have
booked a session and accidently made a last digit error in the
location code. If Redbridge consider £0.00 as a payment then
they still received one, albeit in a different location.
The penalty charge has clearly exceeded the amount applicable. A
£110 penalty cannot be relevant for a minor location code error
for an hour free parking. The phone app is not user friendly and
susceptible to user errors, especially for older people. I am 68
years old, a Redbridge resident for over 30 years and often have
issues with fat fingers and reading a small screen.
The geolocation for location code 6081220 Wanstead High Street
is inconsistent and does not show as a nearby location in Grove
Park, a turning off Wanstead High Street. The lack of
geolocation assistance means the entry of s 7 digit code on a
small phone screen. I would suggest Redbridge ensure that all
codes are different by a minimum of 2 characters.
There are London Tribunal cases that support my assertion that a
zero fee is not a payment and RingGo’s inaccuracies are unfair.
For the reason stated above and in the interest of fairness and
common sense I ask that this PCN is cancelled.
#Post#: 122887--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Grove Park Code 11u - Parked without payment of
parking charge
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: June 24, 2026, 5:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This can be improved with some organisation.
What date is the NTO as no rush.
I also think the traffic order is worth referencing as I don't
think it establishes the contravention.
#Post#: 122901--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Grove Park Code 11u - Parked without payment of
parking charge
DIR By: Glitch
Date: June 24, 2026, 6:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Date of notice is 23rd June so still got a while.
Bit of a brain dump so I'm sure it has plenty of scope to be
honed.
#Post#: 124211--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - Grove Park Code 11u - Parked without payment of
parking charge
DIR By: Glitch
Date: July 9, 2026, 11:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Second attempt. Bit more concise and businesslike.
That third case above doesn't help. Geolocation gave the
appellant the wrong code. The Adjudicator specifically says it's
not the same as a manual keying error.
--- Quote ---
> Redbridge Representations
> PCN AF14295221
> I submit this representation for PCN AF14295221 on the grounds
that the alleged contravention did not occur and that the
Penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the
circumstances of the case.
>
> On 12th May 2026 at 14:16 I parked in Grove Park. I opened the
Ringo App and out of the three nearby codes suggested it did not
include 6081220 as displayed on the nearest plate. I therefore
had to manually type the code. I started a free, 1 hour parking
session at 14:16.
> I returned to my vehicle at approx. 14:35 to find a PCN on my
windscreen.
> It had been issued 3 minutes after I had booked the parking
session.
>
> When I checked the current Ringo session I discovered I had
booked a location in Ilford, code 6081228, instead of 6081220.
The last digit being different.
> The contravention code on the PCN is 11u - Parked without
payment of the parking charge. I assert that the contravention
did not occur because there is no payment due for the first hour
of parking. I have booked a session and accidently made a last
digit error in the location code. This was also a free hour. No
payment was required.
>
> The penalty charge has clearly exceeded the amount applicable.
A £110 penalty cannot be relevant for a minor location code
error for an hour free parking. The phone app is not user
friendly and susceptible to user errors, especially for older
people.
> The geolocation for location code 6081220 (Wanstead High
Street) is inconsistent and does not show as a nearby location
in Grove Park, a turning off Wanstead High Street. The lack of
geolocation assistance means the entry of a 7 digit code on a
small phone screen.
>
> There are London Tribunal cases that support my assertion that
a zero fee is not a payment and RingGo’s inaccuracies are
unfair.
>
> In London Tribunal Case 2250307301 the adjudicator allowed an
appeal because you cannot fail to make a payment if it is free.
>
> London Tribunal Case 2250307301 – the adjudicator allowed an
appeal against Redbridge, saying "It seems to me that a PCN
cannot be issued for a failure to “pay” for something which is
free, and for which, by definition, no payment is required. The
Appeal is allowed on this ground and it is unnecessary to
examine the other issued raised by the Appellant."
>
> For the reasons stated above I believe that this PCN should be
cancelled.
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page