DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 123352--------------------------------------------------
Wandsworth - code 12 parked in residents bay - Ravenna Road SW15
DIR By: inleiva
Date: June 30, 2026, 4:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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
•
•
•
•
without valid permit or payment
•
•
•
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
•
•
in front and restriction post far behind)
•
car's estimated location
•
plus RingGo sticker
•
later)
•
multiple posts
•
•
Evidence images (via imgpile):
RingGo invoice — payment receipt for £4.48 at location 11751.
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/jknbUsA_md.jpg
Council photo — RingGo post in front of car.
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/x9Fr1fs_md.jpeg
Council photo — restriction post far behind car.
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/GTtYGwt_md.jpeg
Private photo — distance between posts with estimated car
location.
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/HTJyieI_md.jpeg
Private photo — visual distance to restriction post from parking
spot.
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/HoWDZgJ_md.jpeg
Private photo — restriction signs close-up with RingGo sticker
on same post.
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/VIUAD4G_md.jpeg
Private photo — RingGo post closest to car (close-up of location
11751).
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/hDLONNl_md.jpg
Private photo — torn RingGo sticker (taken 2 weeks later).
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/JYiOHbg_md.jpeg
NTO from Wandsworth Council.
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/CXgoY8r_md.jpg
Council informal rejection letter dated 4 June 2026.
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/E9NXt0l_md.jpg
Questions
1.
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.
(procedural impropriety) for the council's failure to engage
with the signage argument?
3.
signage / misleading pay-by-phone stickers worth citing?
4.
does it dilute the legal argument?
5.
them?
6.
tribunal?
Thanks in advance.
#Post#: 123358--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth - code 12 parked in residents bay - Ravenna Road
SW15
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 30, 2026, 4:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
According to what you've posted, you were parked in a 'Resident
permit holders only A1' bay and did not display a permit. Paying
is neither here nor there, sorry. The only traffic sign to which
you've drawn our attention is of the correct form and placed
where recommended i.e. on the boundary of 2 restrictions with
arrows indicating their respective locations.
You parked, did not consult a traffic sign(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.),
paid and left.
IMO, your only substantive argument would be that you saw the
post which resembled the type of post used by the council for
traffic signs and thought that the traffic sign which should
have been placed was simply missing. You saw the RingGo
information(on authorised material and placed neatly i.e.
resembled official information) and assumed that the missing
sign referred to payment. Perfectly logical, but as it turned
out, wrong.
Or something along these lines.
#Post#: 123361--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth - code 12 parked in residents bay - Ravenna Road
SW15
DIR By: inleiva
Date: June 30, 2026, 4:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks tincombe, that's very clear. I'll rebuild the
representation around the single point: the lamp post next to
the bay bore what reasonably appeared to be official council
signage, and the driver took it as the operative sign for that
bay.
A few questions:
1.
council infrastructure, with the Wandsworth logo, professionally
placed), with no prohibition, time restriction, or
restricted-bay sign within several metres or clear visual sight
of the parking position, enough on its own to ground a
"contravention did not occur" argument? Or is this realistically
a weak case even at its best framing?
2.
A, given the informal rejection didn't engage with the
substance?
3.
Thanks again.
#Post#: 123369--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth - code 12 parked in residents bay - Ravenna Road
SW15
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 30, 2026, 6:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I assume the PI to which you refer is a reason why RingGo
Stickers are displayed on a post in a bay where, according to
the council, payment isn't permitted.
Whatever you do, pl post a draft here first. By the way, the
last day of the reps period is 18 July, not 17th(NTO dated 19
June, presumed served 21st which acts as day 1).
I am making formal representations on the statutory grounds that
the contravention did not occur.
But before you do, look at GSV for previous years..would you
Adam and Eve it, the post has a traffic sign on it saying Permit
Holders!
So yet again a council wants to profit by not maintaining their
signs and authorising/condoning flyposting in the form of a
RingGo notice.
I think there's enough to work with, but how this might pan out
at adjudication, I don't know.
#Post#: 123371--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth - code 12 parked in residents bay - Ravenna Road
SW15
DIR By: inleiva
Date: June 30, 2026, 7:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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).
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/HTTqhra_md.png
• 2025: sign gone, post bare.
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/iizCJno_md.png
• Now (2026): RingGo notice placed on the same post.
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/x9Fr1fs_md.jpeg
• Close-up of the RingGo notice showing the Wandsworth Borough
Council logo.
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/hDLONNl_md.jpg
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.
#Post#: 123396--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth - code 12 parked in residents bay - Ravenna Road
SW15
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 30, 2026, 11:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think your draft is fine.
I would forget about the sign you didn't consult and focus on
what you did and why.
Parked, saw post, thought this would carry the applicable
traffic sign indicating the restriction, got to the post only to
see that the traffic sign was missing and in my mind substituted
with official RingGo payment instructions, including location
number. I therefore reasonably concluded that there should have
been sign to the effect that paying to park was permitted,
otherwise what would a rational council be doing placing payment
instructions on a post whose missing traffic sign did not refer
to paying. Subsequently, my assumptions regarding a missing sign
have been borne out because historical GSV photos show a traffic
sign in situ in ***.
But for 'permit holders only'.
Trying to park legitimately should not be a guessing game and
councils have obligations regarding placing signs which should
be clear and do not confuse.
This is me repeating much of what I posted earlier, but it needs
to be in your words.
#Post#: 123399--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth - code 12 parked in residents bay - Ravenna Road
SW15
DIR By: inleiva
Date: June 30, 2026, 12:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks tincombe, that's really helpful. I've rewritten the
central passage in my own voice (turns out I can submit on
behalf of the registered keeper, so the representation goes in
as the driver's account directly).
I'll leave out the boundary sign point for now and hold it back
in case it goes to tribunal.
Really appreciate the time you've taken to look at this and the
GSV catch in particular. I'll post back here once Wandsworth
respond.
#Post#: 123866--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth - code 12 parked in residents bay - Ravenna Road
SW15
DIR By: roythebus
Date: July 6, 2026, 4:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Has the council provided photos of the signage in their
evidence? Cases have been won on lack of such evidence. A number
of your photos come up with "image no longer available"
messages.
#Post#: 123880--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth - code 12 parked in residents bay - Ravenna Road
SW15
DIR By: inleiva
Date: July 6, 2026, 7:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: James1709 link ---
>
> Hi - I have had a very similar situation on the exact same
road. Situation happened to me on 19th June.
> . . .
>
> I already submitted a challenge, which got rejected this
morning. [member=9730]inleiva[/member] - Would love to hear how
you got on with this.
>
--- End Quote ---
I will update this case as soon as I get a reply!
EDIT
@James1709
Your own case is now at
Wandsworth - Another code 12 parked in residents bay - Ravenna
Road SW15
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/re-wandsworth-code-12-parked-in-residents-bay-ravenna-road-sw15/<br
/>
#Post#: 123881--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth - code 12 parked in residents bay - Ravenna Road
SW15
DIR By: inleiva
Date: July 6, 2026, 7:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: roythebus link ---
>
> Has the council provided photos of the signage in their
evidence? Cases have been won on lack of such evidence. A number
of your photos come up with "image no longer available"
messages.
>
--- End Quote ---
They uploaded this photo:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/iWgV5gl_md.jpeg
Which, as mentioned above, is at a greater distance behind me.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1