DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 131689--------------------------------------------------
LB Redbridge: Parked without a valid Permit: George Lane Viaduct
DIR By: Unimexsol
Date: September 29, 2026, 5:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi folks,
This is a rather annoying one for me. I parked on George Lane
Viaduct in South Woodford and went on Ringo to get my parking
verified. Came back to find a ticket on my car which is when I
discovered that the bit that I'd parked in was actually for
Business Permit Holders only. Mine was one of at least 3 cars
that had been ticketed at the same time so it wasn't just me who
hadn't realised that the Ringo parking didn't apply to the
specific area where we'd parked.
I was definitely parked in the Business bit without a permit,
but is there any way I can get off this? I would contest that
the signage is really unclear and confusing.
All your opinions and help is very much appreciated. Photos
below.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/bgYPJxXf/20260929-111508.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/pvNxygdm
HTML https://i.ibb.co/cKJNmm6D/20260929-111517.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/fVMCcck4
HTML https://i.ibb.co/R4zHvk1q/20260925-134055.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/KzFy0pYJ
HTML https://i.ibb.co/WpcwBMgF/20260925-134017.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/NnLPWJZp
HTML https://i.ibb.co/5VMkX90/Screenshot-20260925-134314-Ring-Go.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/m7D0rBj
#Post#: 131690--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge: Parked without a valid Permit: George Lane
Viaduct
DIR By: Unimexsol
Date: September 29, 2026, 5:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Also, having had a look on their Trafweb map of TMO's there
seems to be conflicting information on there too. If you put the
cursor above the bit where I parked it comes up with the below
which seems to suggest that it is both permit AND pay parking.
If you move the cursor slightly further up the road then it
states Business Permit parking only.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/p621Zz4c/Trafweb-image-showing-both-parking-and-bus-permit.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/j9h8GM3m
#Post#: 131733--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge: Parked without a valid Permit: George Lane
Viaduct
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: September 29, 2026, 12:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is the full GSV view of the sign, also showing the
double-dashed line separating the two bays. Sorry to ask, but
did you actually go and look at the sign ? The only criticism I
have is that the sign for pay-parking should have an arrow point
to the right to indicate applicability. This sign has all the
hallmarks of an incompetent council not following guidance on
signs. Clearly there was once no business parking bay, so they
put one in, but just added the extra sign, rather than doing a
proper job.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/gQaQ24C2G7yD8mhc9
#Post#: 131756--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge: Parked without a valid Permit: George Lane
Viaduct
DIR By: Unimexsol
Date: September 29, 2026, 4:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
When I parked there was a vehicle parked at the end of the
"Business Permit parking" section that was right up to the end
of the white lines on the road, I simply did not see that one
parking section ended and another began. Also, because of where
the sign is, I'd probably have been looking at that getting the
Ringo code rather than looking at the markings on the road.
I would have looked at a lamp post, and there's no reason to
suppose it wasn't that one, in order to get the Ringo location
code. I obviously didn't see/notice the "Business Permit holder
only" sign and arrow. I would say that had there been a "Pay for
Parking" sign with arrow then I'd have realised that I was
parked in the wrong space and acted accordingly.
#Post#: 131760--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge: Parked without a valid Permit: George Lane
Viaduct
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 29, 2026, 5:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It would be useful if you would post their photos which show you
parked well back from the junction of the bays. You're not
looking at fine margins here, IMO.
I don't follow your response to Incandescent's question, if you
went to the sign post then the Business Bays sign plus arrow
must surely have been clear?
#Post#: 131766--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge: Parked without a valid Permit: George Lane
Viaduct
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: September 29, 2026, 7:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> It would be useful if you would post their photos which show
you parked well back from the junction of the bays. You're not
looking at fine margins here, IMO.
>
> I don't follow your response to Incandescent's question, if
you went to the sign post then the Business Bays sign plus arrow
must surely have been clear?
>
--- End Quote ---
Indeed, me too. I am astonished that the Business Parking Only
sign, which is hardly inconspicuous, was ignored. However, the
OP shouldn't think we think he's an idiot, because we see this
so often it is clearly something in what we as humans actually
see even though the eye transmits the message ! I once got
right through Manchester Airport to the departure lounge using
my daughter's passport, taken in error when I left the house. I
only noticed it when about to board the aircraft !!!!
I think the lack of an arrow on the pay-parking sign is what has
done it. Would this win at London Tribunals ? I think not.
#Post#: 131773--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge: Parked without a valid Permit: George Lane
Viaduct
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 30, 2026, 2:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I once got right through Manchester Airport to the departure
lounge using my daughter's passport, taken in error when I left
the house. I only noticed it when about to board the aircraft
!!!!
And my son with my passport at Luton!
OP, you should at least make initial reps, but pl look at their
photos first to remind yourself of their evidence.
Did you actually go to the traffic sign or are you a regular
here, have Ringo on your phone but just parked somewhere
slightly different?
#Post#: 131779--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge: Parked without a valid Permit: George Lane
Viaduct
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 30, 2026, 4:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There are at least two long business bays here.
What's happened as you can see from the sign you posted is
they've taken out the pay machines and changed the pay bay
location number.
But in doing so they forgot to leave in the direction arrow for
the pay bay.
I've looked on the register and can see two recent refused
decisions for parking in the business bays but one refers to the
arrow being there.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/Fb16jYV6/Screenshot-2026-09-30-at-10-32-05.png
----------
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
The issue in this appeal is whether the signs were sufficiently
clear to alert drivers that the bay was for business permit
holder’s holders only. Ms xxxx appeals as she states that she
paid to park her car for an hour and that she also displayed her
disabled badge. Ms Paul states that her car was not parked in a
business permit holder’s bay.
I have seen the civil enforcement officer’s photographs. They do
not show a disabled badge in the car. The civil enforcement
officer took a photograph of the sign for the bay. The sign
states that the bay is for business permit holder’s holders
Monday to Friday 08:30 to 6.30pm. The council has also provided
a photograph of a post with two signs on it. The lower sign
refers to business bays with an arrow pointing left and the
upper sign is for the pay by phone bays with an arrow pointing
right. The council states that the appellant’s car was parked to
the left of the post. The photographs uploaded at evidence J
have an arrow on to show where the post with two signs was
located in relation to the appellant’s car.
I find that the contravention occurred. I am satisfied that the
evidence shows the appellant’s car parked in a business permit
holder’s holders bay. A payment to park is not valid in a permit
bay.
I refuse this appeal.
------
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
The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked in a
permit place or zone without clearly displaying a valid permit.
The Appellant criticises the quality of the signage, saying that
she made a RingGo payment and that there was no clear signage to
distinguish different types of bay. She has provided evidence of
the payment.
The motorist should never assume restrictions and must check the
relevant signage. Any motorist who parks without properly
checking takes the risk that the vehicle is parked in
contravention.
The Civil Enforcement Officer’s record confirms that a RingGo
session was found but that the vehicle was parked in a ‘Business
permit holders only’.
The Enforcement Authority have provided photographs taken by the
Civil Enforcement Officer which show the time plate relied upon.
I have considered these together with Google Streetview. Having
done so I am satisfied the demarcation between types of bay was
very clear and that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in the
‘Business permit holders only’ bay.
It may be the Appellant made a genuine error but this would
amount only to mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel
a PCN as a matter of their discretion but Adjudicators have 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.
#Post#: 131782--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge: Parked without a valid Permit: George Lane
Viaduct
DIR By: Unimexsol
Date: September 30, 2026, 4:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Firstly, thank you all for your help and responses so far.
I do park there regularly but usually further down the hill so
within the allowed parking places. There were no spaces further
down but I had just thought it was all allowed parking. I know I
went up to that sign post to get the exact parking code to go
into Ringo as I looked over the wall and saw a Traffic Warden
below, I congratulated myself at the time for being diligent and
making sure I'd "paid to park". I just did not see the
"Business Permit Parking sign", or if I did, my subconscious
just ignored it.
I'll submit an informal challenge based on inadequate signage
(which I'll post up on here before I send it) and I guess,
unless someone comes up with some other great evidence, then
I'll pay the reduced charge when they reject that.
Anything else I can do to try and add weight to my challenge?
#Post#: 131811--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB Redbridge: Parked without a valid Permit: George Lane
Viaduct
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: September 30, 2026, 11:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Frankly, you have correctly identified the issue, which is the
absence of an arrow on the pay-parking sign misled you to think
that provided one paid, one could park all along the bay. You
assumed that the sign for Business Permit holders meant that
they could only park for free to the left of the arrow
indicating where they could park, and not to the right, where
they would have to pay just like other motorists.
That seems a reasonable argument to me, to take to London
Tribunals, but you have to risk the full PCN penalty, of course.
There are no additional costs if you do so, only the penalty if
you lose, and if you win you pay nothing. The council don't get
away cost free as they must pay the adjudication fee, and also
tghe PITA of preparing an evidence pack.
So its your call now.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1