DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 52681--------------------------------------------------
Challenge a PCN issued in Redbridge
DIR By: Andrew_Stallard
Date: January 9, 2025, 1:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
On the 20th of November 2024 I parked in a marked parking bay, I
alighted my vehicle and followed the signs to the ticket
machine, at the other end was another sign pointing back where I
had just come from saying the ticket machine was back that way.
As I got back to my car a Parking Enforcement Officer was
standing next to it, I told him I had only parked less than a
minute ago and I was looking for the machine or which app I
should use, he said "pay by phone" so I stood in front of him,
opened my PayByPhone app and paid for my parking session. When I
returned I had received a PCN so I opened the app to see if my
session had expired, there was still 10 minutes remaining,
another Enforcement Officer was nearby, I showed him my parking
session and told him what had happened, he said, "if I had
issued that ticket I could cancel it but I didn't and I can't".
He then went on to say, "the ticket machine was removed two days
ago and they also removed all the RingGo app signs at the same
time, you needed to use RingGo to park in this bay". I
challenged the PCN with detailed evidence, pictures of the bay
with no ticket machine or RingGo app signs anywhere but it was
rejected. My wife (I was using her car) got a Notice to Owner
saying she must pay the full penalty charge as it is her car.
Firstly, is my wife really liable given that I have already
submitted a written statement saying that I was the driver of
the car when the alleged offence took place. If that is the case
then if I murdered someone with one of her kitchen knives would
she be responsible, (for the record I do not support violence of
any kind and would never do such a thing).
Secondly, should I pay this fine as I feel that I was
deliberately misled by the Enforcement Officer who watched me
use the PayByPhone app to book my parking session and didn't
attempt to alert me to the error I was making, then a few
minutes later he issued the PCN and cleared off.
I was able to prove that during the course of the day I parked
in several bays around the area and all of them I paid for my
parking sessions, some were PayByPhone, some were RingGo but ALL
were in Redbridge.
What other information do you need to see to assist me with this
matter?
Thank you in advance for your help.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 52719--------------------------------------------------
Re: Challenge a PCN issued in Redbridge
DIR By: disgruntchelt
Date: January 9, 2025, 4:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you break your original post down into bullet point of just
what happened and give the date your wife got the Notice to
owner please.
Yes she can be held liable if your informal reps were
unsuccessful and her formal reps and appeal are rejected
#Post#: 52721--------------------------------------------------
Re: Challenge a PCN issued in Redbridge
DIR By: disgruntchelt
Date: January 9, 2025, 4:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
And don’t take it personally but most councils routinely reject
informal reps.
Please can you also show a copy of your informal reps and their
rejection (it might have gone into a junk folder if by email)
#Post#: 52749--------------------------------------------------
Re: Challenge a PCN issued in Redbridge
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: January 10, 2025, 4:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Redbridge uses RingGo not PayByPhone.
The registered keeper presumed owner is liable for PCNs.
Appeals are allowed at the Tribunal on this - councils must make
the payment system clear and there really shouldn't be a company
called PatByPhone. I would caution though that not all
adjudicators may see it this way - the last case below was
refused but a personal hearing armed with facts about the
signage can be persuasive.All three allowed appeals are by the
same adjudicator but there are other cases.
---------------------------
Case Details
Case reference 2240524380
Appellant David Lazarus
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM EU68OCA
PCN Details
PCN AF07961254
Contravention date 16 Sep 2024
Contravention time 13:46:00
Contravention location Belgrave Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 08 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Martin Hoare
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Mr Lazarus attended his appeal hearing. The Council did
not attend. He relied on his appeal notice :’ I parked my car in
Ilford and looked at sign and it read Pay by Phone. I have the
App and paid via the app in good faith. If there was a sign
about RingGo then I would have paid via that app! After
appealing, the Council stated that they only operate with RingGo
and this would have been clearly displayed at the location. This
is not true’.
According to the Authority’ The signage also provides a
telephone number which is for RingGo. This indicates that the
motorist may pay and dìsplay or 'Pay by phone'. The phone number
is given for those who wish to pay by phone. This does not
indicate that the motorist may use the proprietary PayByPhone
App.'
Mr Lazarus used his app which is called ‘Pay by Phone’ as a
trading name. The Council photographs show the sign facing the
carriageway which Mr Lazarus relied on to make his payment. It
reads ‘pay by phone’. He reasonably concluded that this meant he
could use his app called ‘pay by phone’.
Although the Council photographs show the rear of a suspended
pay machine with Rin Go logos, this was not seen by Mr Lazarus
as he properly relied on the conspicuous ‘pay by phone’ sign
facing him.
The Council has not established that the signage was adequate.
The appeal is allowed.
----------
Case reference 2240441589
Appellant Simple Self Drive
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM LX23UDG
PCN Details
PCN AF07626227
Contravention date 04 Jul 2024
Contravention time 13:46:00
Contravention location High Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 20 Dec 2024
Adjudicator Martin Hoare
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Simple submitted that the driver bought a ticket using
an app, for which payment evidence was provided.
The pay machine instructions were not clear and hence payment
was not made via the app used by the Authority.
The Authority explained ‘The proof provided by the appellant
shows that they validated a parking session via the, pay
Byphone' app. We do not use 'PayByPhone' operator to have our
parking session valìdated but use 'RingGo'. Further ‘The
machines at the location has been covered up as we no longer
operate via machine however, the machines do advise use RingGo
if the machines are out of order’.
The civil enforcement officer’s contemporaneous photographs,
include images of the signage in place at the time payment was
made. There is no clear, legible payment instruction which
mandates payment by phone only using a certain app.
The Authority evidence on this occasion does not establish that
the payment instructions and signage were adequate in this
aspect. Adequate payment instructions and signage are a
prerequisite for lawful enforcement.
The appeal is allowed.
-----------
Case reference 2240373627
Appellant Susannah Clegg
Authority London Borough of Lambeth
VRM KU61HFV
PCN Details
PCN LJ30420089
Contravention date 06 Jun 2024
Contravention time 09:39:00
Contravention location Gordon Grove
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 04 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Martin Hoare
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Miss Clegg explained that she paid to park, as
established by her receipt.
The Council submitted ‘Unfortunately, the wrong app was used to
pay for parking. The app used in Lambeth to pay for parking
sessions is the ‘Pay by phone’ app - not the app Miss Clegg used
– which is for another London borough (Hackney).’
The Council photographs do not demonstrate that the signage
indicates that only payment by using s currently exclusive
provider confers a right to park.
Hence the use of another provider arose due to the absence of
adequate signage in place.
-----------
Case reference 2240435553
Appellant Khadijha Rahman
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM GU15BYR
PCN Details
PCN AF07525911
Contravention date 11 Jun 2024
Contravention time 11:52:00
Contravention location Eastwood Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 28 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Herjinder Mann
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid
within 28 days.
Reasons 1. This was a personal appeal via the telephone.
2. The Appellant states that she made a payment via the
PaybyPhone system. The confirmation that she received did not
display the location details. She now understands that payment
should have been via RingGo. She says that there is a lack of
clarity and the sign does not state that payment must be via
RingGo.
3. The Enforcement Authority submit that the Appellant’s vehicle
was parked without a valid parking ticket or payment registered
on the Ring Go system on the 11th June 2024 in Eastwood Road,
Goodmayes. The civil enforcement officer states that they
checked the RingGo system three times. They submit that the
appellant paid by the PayByPhone company which is not the
permitted method at this location. They say that the sign
provides a phone number by which payments are to be made. They
have provided a photograph of the signage at the location.
4. I have seen photographic evidence of the road sign indicating
the methods of payment. The sign gives the times of operation
and states “Pay by phone” followed with a telephone number. I
find that the method of payment is clearly specified.
5. I find that the sign is clear in relation to the method of
payment by making a payment by calling a phone number. There is
no reference to using the PayByPhone company.
6. I accept that the Appellant did make a payment via the Pay By
Phone app and she did intend to pay for the parking. The
circumstances that the Appellant found herself in and her
assumption amount to mitigation which I am unable to take into
account. Although the Appellant did make a payment for parking,
she did not pay via the telephone number provided. The Pay by
Phone app is not used by the enforcement authority at this
location.
7. As the payment was not made in the manner prescribed, I find
that there has been a contravention. It is the driver’s
responsibility to ensure that they follow the instructions on
the road sign. It is not for the Appellant to choose the app by
which to pay and in these circumstances the payment was not made
to the Enforcement Authority.
8. I therefore refuse this appeal and determine that the penalty
charge is payable by the Appellant.
#Post#: 52770--------------------------------------------------
Re: Challenge a PCN issued in Redbridge
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: January 10, 2025, 5:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Another allowed one but by a different adjudicator. Note all
these cases are in Redbridge - other councils tend to put RingGo
signs up by parking signs.
----------
Case Details
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
Miss Yana has attended the hearing today by telephone.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being
parked in Ilford Lane at 1.31pm on 6 June 2024 without payment
of the parking charge.
I have looked at the CEO’s images. These show that Miss Yana's
car was parked in a bay which was clearly signed as being for
pay by phone or pay and display parking during the controlled
hours. The pay by phone option provides a number and location
code of 7172.
Miss Yana appeals because she used the Pay by Phone App to make
a payment to park at location 7172. Miss Yana submits a
screenshot showing the payment made for the correct location
code. The parking session commenced at 12.38pm and remained
current at the time of issue of the PCN.
The Council’s evidence is that the payment system for this
location is the Ringo App and not the Pay by Phone App.
There is no notice on the post with the sign telling the
motorist which App they must use or telling the motorist to go
to the machine for App details. The sign just says pay by phone.
In the absence of any notice with the parking sign either
showing the App to use or directing the motorist to inspect the
pay and display machine, it was, in my judgement, reasonable for
Miss Yana to conclude that she could pay by phone using the Pay
by Phone App. It is also clear from the evidence that a payment
to park for this location code had been made. For those reasons,
I find that the alleged contravention did not occur.
#Post#: 53859--------------------------------------------------
Re: Challenge a PCN issued in Redbridge
DIR By: sillybilly9
Date: January 17, 2025, 12:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What are the thoughts on all of the decisions going one way with
the exception of one adjudicator? How scared would you be if you
were to have an upcoming case with that adjudicator and are in
part relying on precedent.
Is there any way to search case decisions by adjudicator?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1