DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 129196--------------------------------------------------
Windowshield PCN, used my old number plate on Ringo booking
DIR By: U.s.0.1
Date: August 30, 2026, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all
I am in need of some help please. I think I also have shot
myself in the foot.
I got a council window shield PCN for using an incorrect car
registration in the Ringo app. Essentially, I had changed my
number plate literally the day before, and forgot to update the
Ringo app with my new reg number.
Got the below windowshield PCN.
Now this is where I may have shot myself in a foot. I really
thought they'd be lenient because of the appeal I sent to the
council.
I essentially said that I changed my plate yesterday. I even
sent them a copy of the eV948 as evidence which I thought
would've been perfect evidence. Obviously I also attached proof
of the Ringo purchase etc I made with the old vehicle reg. Worth
nothing, it was 1 hr free parking too, which I also mentioned in
the appeal.
They rejected it, I couldn't believe it. See below imagebb. I
don't usually send appeals willy nilly like this but I thought I
had more than enough evidence to support my case.
So now I am in need of some help, and want to ask if I should
cut my losses and pay the £55 discount, or if it is worth
fighting further.
All help will be appreciated.
HTML https://ibb.co/YBkVkw2k
HTML https://ibb.co/JWhrgpN2
HTML https://ibb.co/XxWBC86q
HTML https://ibb.co/bRBjfJ2B
#Post#: 129199--------------------------------------------------
Re: Windowshield PCN, used my old number plate on Ringo booking
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 30, 2026, 10:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Let's see your challenge and their rejection.
While you can't pay for a free thing the tribunal mostly says
the contravention of not paying occurs if the correct car is not
parked at the correct location.
These days Redbridge like a lot of councils won't use discretion
without compelling mitigation despite guidance about being fair.
#Post#: 129212--------------------------------------------------
Re: Windowshield PCN, used my old number plate on Ringo booking
DIR By: U.s.0.1
Date: August 31, 2026, 4:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello
So their response is above on 1 of the imagebb.
My appeal I sent directly on their portal and didn't save it
anywhere unfortunately, but it covers what I mentioned above. I
did not use any formal template this time.
#Post#: 129246--------------------------------------------------
Re: Windowshield PCN, used my old number plate on Ringo booking
DIR By: U.s.0.1
Date: September 1, 2026, 4:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://ibb.co/JWhrgpN2
This was the council repsonse
#Post#: 129248--------------------------------------------------
Re: Windowshield PCN, used my old number plate on Ringo booking
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: September 1, 2026, 5:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
London councils, which include Redbridge, and also TfL, are now
getting around £650 million a year from parking and traffic
penalties. Any hope of them acting fairly is very misplaced
because they are just totally ignoring government guidance.
An authority has a discretionary power to cancel a PCN at any
point throughout the process. It can do this even when an
undoubted contravention has occurred if the authority deems it
to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty
to act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise
discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the
public interest. Failure to act in accordance with the general
principles of public law may lead to a claim for a decision to
be judicially reviewed.
Enforcement authorities have a duty not to fetter their
discretion, so should ensure that PNCs, NtOs, leaflets and any
other advice they give do not mislead the public about what they
may consider in the way of representations.
They should approach the exercise of discretion objectively and
without regard to any financial interest in the penalty or
decisions that may have been taken at an earlier stage in
proceedings.
--- Quote ---
>
--- End Quote ---
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
#Post#: 129252--------------------------------------------------
Re: Windowshield PCN, used my old number plate on Ringo booking
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 1, 2026, 6:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=2249]stamfordman[/member], ' While you can't pay for a
free thing the tribunal mostly says the contravention of not
paying occurs if the correct car is not parked at the correct
location. '
Would you have any case numbers so we can see adjudicators'
reasoning?
#Post#: 129262--------------------------------------------------
Re: Windowshield PCN, used my old number plate on Ringo booking
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 1, 2026, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This one by Mr Burke is what the majority of adjudicators will
do. And of course they are all informed by the unfortunate
Baroness Walmsley.
Redbridge is now practised at seeing these through and is
unlikely to make procedural errors.
I have highlighted the last bit of Walmsley - not publishing
policy is an issue in my view.
--------
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
parked without payment of the parking charge. The Appellant
explains that he was aware of the need to register a parking
session but that the machine was out of order. He has provided a
photograph as supporting evidence. There was a RingGo number but
no further explanation and he did not know what RingGo was. He
argues that the facts do not meet the contravention alleged.
The contravention alleged on the face of the PCN is an imperfect
description of the contravention committed. However, none of the
established contravention codes precisely reflects the situation
where the motorist does not activate the required parking
session in a free car park. The Enforcement Authority must be
entitled to enforce car park restrictions and the law should not
make this more difficult in circumstances where they offer free
parking. It is clear that the Appellant has understood the
nature of the allegation throughout. I am satisfied that the
correct interpretation is that registering the vehicle for a
parking session is the equivalent of paying the parking charge
and that where the motorist has done that the vehicle may not be
issued a PCN for the duration of validated session.
It is not unusual for a pay and display machine or validation
system to be out of order for one reason or another. In such
circumstances the motorist must find an alternative way to park
legally, whether by using an alternative machine or validation
system or parking elsewhere. In this case it seems he could have
validated using the RingGo App.
The Appellant has not established anything which goes beyond
mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a
matter of their discretion. An Adjudicator has no power to
direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the
contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and
served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.
-----------
Walmsley v TfL and Others [2005] EWCA Civ 1540
Issue: Judicial Review - Mitigating circumstances and
Adjudicators’ discretion
The Court of Appeal, overturning an earlier decision of the High
Court (referred to in the Road User Charging Adjudicator’s
Annual Report 2004-2005), upheld the Adjudicator’s decision to
refuse an appeal.
Baroness Walmsley had used her vehicle in the Congestion Charge
zone on 29 and 30 October 2003 and had sought to purchase a
Congestion Charge licence for her vehicle via the internet.
Although she had correctly entered the first four characters of
her registration number the last three letters, she entered were
those of her previous vehicle and were not those of her current
car. This mistake was made for both days of travel.
Two Penalty Charge Notices (‘PCNs’) were issued by TfL and sent
by post to Baroness Walmsley.
The Baroness made representations asserting that she had paid
the Congestion Charge. TfL rejected those representations. The
Baroness appealed to an Adjudicator.
The Adjudicator refused her appeal indicating that, “There is a
high level of responsibility on the registered keeper of the
vehicle to pay any charge incurred by it by midnight of the day
on which the charge was incurred. Liability is strict. The
Congestion Charge Regulations afford no discretion in this
situation. The registration recorded on the receipt must be for
the vehicle used within the Zone during the prescribed hours.
Article 6(5)(a) of the Congestion Charge Scheme states, ‘a
licence may be purchased only for a single vehicle having a
specified registration mark’. The Appellant did not pay for the
vehicle’s specified registration mark. I accept that this was a
genuine error, but I have no alternative other than to refuse
this appeal.”
This decision was upheld on review by another Adjudicator. The
Baroness applied for and was granted Judicial Review in the High
Court by Mr Justice Stanley Burnton.
In his decision Mr Justice Burnton indicated that he considered
that as the Baroness had made an error when specifying her
vehicle registration mark, she was liable for a penalty.
However, he went on to indicate that Regulation 16(2) of the
Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London)
Regulations 2001 afforded Adjudicators discretion to cancel
Penalty Charge Notices in situations such as the Baroness’s
where the error was genuine and accordingly the case was
remitted back to the Adjudicator for re-determination.
ort 2005-2006 Road User Charging Adjudicators
TfL appealed Mr Justice Burnton’s decision.
Held: In the Court of Appeal Lord Justices Chadwick, Sedley and
Keene upheld TfL’s appeal, reinstating the original
Adjudicator’s decision. The Court of Appeal held that Regulation
16 (2) did not provide any discretion to Adjudicators along the
lines suggested by Mr Justice Burnton and that the only time an
Adjudicator could direct a Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled
was if one of the six statutory grounds of appeal under the
Regulations were made out. None of the grounds of appeal were in
fact made out by the Baroness.
In addition, their Lordships were critical of TfL having a
policy on the use of its discretion which it had not made
available to the public.
#Post#: 129291--------------------------------------------------
Re: Windowshield PCN, used my old number plate on Ringo booking
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 1, 2026, 10:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks.
As regards the CC, IMO this is distinguished by virtue of it
being pan-London as opposed to TMOs which vary between
authorities who seem to favour bespoke solutions as opposed to
following best practice examples.
As regards Mr Burke's views, I see no reason why registering is
not the legal equivalent of obtaining a virtual permit for which
there is a matching off-street description, indeed at least one
London council's order effectively refers to it as such i.e.
registering will add the vehicle to a database which brings up a
corresponding entry on a CEO's HHC, just like virtual permits.
If an OP gets to tribunal in this regard they really should
share the TMO evidence which often gets overlooked.
#Post#: 129354--------------------------------------------------
Re: Windowshield PCN, used my old number plate on Ringo booking
DIR By: U.s.0.1
Date: September 2, 2026, 3:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for discussing this all, true heroes of the world.
What should be my next steps?
#Post#: 129357--------------------------------------------------
Re: Windowshield PCN, used my old number plate on Ringo booking
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 2, 2026, 4:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Are you the registered keeper with current DVLA details?
If so, then you either:
Pay the reduced sum as stated in their reply, or
Wait for the next notice (Notice to Owner, NTO) and make reps
guided by the forum. It is probable, but cannot be guaranteed,
that the 'discount' would be re-offered even if these were
rejected. But at least you would have had a bite at their
procedures, which are often grounds for appeal in themselves!
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page