DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 130818--------------------------------------------------
Croydon Council, Parking contravention 73, Fairfield Halls car
park
DIR By: nellbell8899
Date: September 18, 2026, 7:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Help and advice needed! i parked to go and see a show with some
friends last year (christmas panto!) in Fairfield Halls in
Croydon. I paid through the Ringo app, as required, but later
got a PCN. It turns out that the Ringo App had paid using an old
registered car which was a hire car, and not the car that I was
parking. I have appealed to the council informally which they
rejected and it is now going the London tribunals. I have
acknowledged the mistake that I made, which was a genuine error,
but I have also provided proof that the ticket was paid for by
me and for the correct location. I have argued on the basis of
proportionality that this PCN is not legitimate.
Now that this is going to tribunal are there any additional
arguments or evidence that i can present? i can present the
evidence that I did in fact pay. and there may be some
mitigating circumstances that i could cite (e.g. we were rushing
to get to the show and it was about to start), but my main
argument is that the ticket has in fact already been paid for.
there was an honest administrative error in registering the
wrong vehicle.
How likely is my argument to win at tribunal and is there
anything else that I should present as evidence?
thanks
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/s6s1xi4si0fvceyv1tdep/Croydon_PCN_email.docx?rlkey=pkng2dg64hdoomy388yiqq8tu&st=dgjixxdq&dl=0[/url]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/p7a5oh9kio91zphcj062e/REsponse-to-croydon-parking-services.docx?rlkey=p1t4devjkpke7cznsmiyglpbe&st=xjxtybvt&dl=0
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/p7a5oh9kio91zphcj062e/REsponse-to-croydon-parking-services.docx?rlkey=p1t4devjkpke7cznsmiyglpbe&st=xjxtybvt&dl=0
#Post#: 130822--------------------------------------------------
Re: Croydon Council, Parking contravention 73, Fairfield Halls
car park
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 18, 2026, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We need to see the correspondence but as the council hasn't used
discretion the tribunal can't consider mitigation if it's deemed
the correct VRM is a condition of the order granting off-street
parking rights.
#Post#: 130825--------------------------------------------------
Re: Croydon Council, Parking contravention 73, Fairfield Halls
car park
DIR By: nellbell8899
Date: September 18, 2026, 8:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
i have updated with the documents - not sure if you can access
those
#Post#: 130827--------------------------------------------------
Re: Croydon Council, Parking contravention 73, Fairfield Halls
car park
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 18, 2026, 9:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They need to produce the right order document. In this case they
didn't.
---------
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
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
Introduction
1. This appeal concerns a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for
parking without payment of the parking charge at Fairfield Halls
Car Park on 15 November 2025. The appeal was determined
following a personal hearing conducted via Microsoft Teams, at
which the Appellant attended and gave evidence, together with
the driver, who also gave evidence.
Appellant’s Case
2. The Appellant states that the driver purchased a RingGo
parking session for the correct location and period but
inadvertently selected another vehicle stored in his RingGo
account, HV69 EPX, rather than the Appellant’s vehicle, HV65
FDL. She submits that the prescribed parking charge was
therefore paid and that the contravention did not occur.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
3. The Enforcement Authority (EA) relies on the Civil
Enforcement Officer’s observations and photographs and states
that no parking session was recorded against HV65 FDL. It
submits that responsibility rested with the driver to ensure
that payment was made against the correct vehicle registration.
Findings and Conclusion
4. I am satisfied that HV65 FDL was parked in the car park at
the material time. I am also satisfied that a RingGo parking
session covering the relevant location and period had been
purchased, although it was recorded against HV69 EPX rather than
HV65 FDL.
5. The EA asserts that the payment was ineffective because it
was associated with another vehicle registration. However,
although its Category B evidence is presented as including the
case summary and Traffic Management Order, no operative parking
places order has been produced establishing the terms governing
payment at this car park or the legal effect of payment made
against another vehicle registration.
6. The burden rests upon the EA to establish the contravention
on the balance of probabilities. I do not find that payment
against an incorrect vehicle registration necessarily
constitutes valid payment for the vehicle parked; rather, on the
evidence before me, the EA has not established the legal basis
upon which it says that such payment amounts to parking without
payment of the parking charge. I am therefore not satisfied that
the contravention has been proved.
Decision
7. The appeal is allowed.
#Post#: 130829--------------------------------------------------
Re: Croydon Council, Parking contravention 73, Fairfield Halls
car park
DIR By: nellbell8899
Date: September 18, 2026, 9:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
sorry - bit new to this! what is the right order document? what
is the document that they should have produced? but thanks for
posting this previous case which gives me hope and is in fact
exactly the same situation that i am in.
#Post#: 130848--------------------------------------------------
Re: Croydon Council, Parking contravention 73, Fairfield Halls
car park
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: September 18, 2026, 12:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My view is you will not win on what you have told us so far. The
original statutory grounds for parking go back to 1991, and
included "The penalty exceeded the relevant amount in the
circumstances of the case". There has never been any definition
of what those circumstances might be, but a High Court decided
some time ago that adjudicators could not rule on appeals based
on mitigation, so that kyboshed that particular statutory ground
which one would think covered mitigation.
However the later Traffic Management Act 2004 that replace the
1991 Act introduced a new statutoryground of "procedural
impropriety", so if you can find something that shows they have
failed to follow the legal process, you would have a case.
#Post#: 130858--------------------------------------------------
Re: Croydon Council, Parking contravention 73, Fairfield Halls
car park
DIR By: nellbell8899
Date: September 18, 2026, 3:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Surely if the case cited above won their appeal then that would
create a precedence? my case is exactly the same, I did pay for
the parking but just not for the right vehicle and this was an
honest administrative error.
Since this is a recent decision, the tribunal would have to
consider previous decisions that they have made in near
identical circumstances?
#Post#: 130873--------------------------------------------------
Re: Croydon Council, Parking contravention 73, Fairfield Halls
car park
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: September 18, 2026, 6:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: nellbell8899 link ---
>
> Surely if the case cited above won their appeal then that
would create a precedence? my case is exactly the same, I did
pay for the parking but just not for the right vehicle and this
was an honest administrative error.
> Since this is a recent decision, the tribunal would have to
consider previous decisions that they have made in near
identical circumstances?
>
--- End Quote ---
But that case turned on the council not proving that their Order
establishing the conditions of use of the car park covered cases
where a wrong vehicle registration was submitted for the payment
to park. Statutory Guidance on Parking 2022 is clear on how
councils should consider challenges and representations: -
--- Quote ---
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
and also: -
--- Quote ---
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
The above is totally ignored by almost all councils in the UK,
London being the worst.
In my view, the case you cite can only help if you find and read
the Order for the car park to see if it doesn't cover situations
like the above and your own.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1