DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 54979--------------------------------------------------
London Borough of Redbridge - Cameron Road IG3 - Parked without
payment of parking
DIR By: Felics
Date: January 24, 2025, 5:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
So I received a parking ticket at a car park.
I had totally forgotten to pay when I left the car and only
remembered when I was shopping about 10 minutes later.
I logged on to the RING-Go app and "paid" for parking. I say
"paid" as the first hour is free you just need to register.
Alas when I returned I had already gotten a ticket.
I have yet to appeal as I had a similar issue where the exact
same thing happened and I appealed saying I was late in paying
but did pay. Someone mentioned last time not to appeal without
asking for advice here first.
Is there anyway I can fight this or is it easier just to pay the
fine? I am a bit annoyed that they would charge £40 given that
the first hour or parking is free and I was there for a total of
45mins. They literally gave me a ticket 5 minutes after parking.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/wBqrPwq.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/BHzcIFf.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/O0N5SvD.jpeg
#Post#: 54981--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Redbridge - Cameron Road IG3 - Parked
without payment of parking
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 24, 2025, 6:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't see how the alleged contravention of not paying is
valid, because the first hour is free. However, the CEO doesn't
know how long you've been there when checking the parked cars
unless a free session has been obtained.
Only thing is they are unlikely to give way if you submit reps,
so you have to be prepared to stand your ground and take them to
London Tribunals.
#Post#: 54992--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Redbridge - Cameron Road IG3 - Parked
without payment of parking
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: January 25, 2025, 2:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As per
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
Please re-instate or post the Reg Mark and PCN number.
#Post#: 55033--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Redbridge - Cameron Road IG3 - Parked
without payment of parking
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: January 25, 2025, 7:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This reviewed case from a few days ago shows that the
contravention of not paying for a free hour is a nonsense.
-------------
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
be an honest, convincing and consistent witness. I believe what
he tells me.
The Enforcement Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle
was parked without payment of the parking charge when in the
George Lane Viaduct on 31 May 2024 at 12:59.
The Appellant's case is that he was parked at this location to
deal with an urgent matter. He looked for a pay machine to
purchase time to park, however, the four machines he found were
out of order. He then tried to pay using the Ringo App. He has
produced clear evidence by way of screenshots of his attempts to
purchase time by using the RingGo application - all to no avail.
The last message indicated that RingGo could not provide parking
time. The Authority has provided statistics to show how many
successfully contacted them - presumably many to pay mothing -
as the first hour is free to park. The Appellant then attempted
to access the Authority's website to pay to park, however, this
also failed. He then attended to his chore, which took about 10
minutes, and he then left the location. All this took just under
an hour.
I have considered the evidence and I find that Appellant's
vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge when in
in the George Lane Viaduct on 31 May 2024.
If the Appellant had not attended to his task I would have made
a finding that insufficient time was permitted to pay in the
circumstances of this case. However, he was not permitted to
park for 10 minutes to attend to his chore.
I have accepted the Appellant's evidence because I find it
credible and realistic. If he had been able to find a working
pay machine or have got through to RingGo there would have been
nothing to pay as the first hour is free.
Due to the unfortunate set of circumstances I find this
Appellant encountered, there is now a penalty of £80.00 due to
parking in a place, which would have been free if he had been
able to register his arrival time. All matters raised only go to
mitigating circumstances.
In the circumstances of this case, in which the Appellant was
unable to register for his 'free period' of parking, I strongly
recommend to the Authority that they either cancel this PCN or
do not collect the penalty amount.
The appeal is refused with a recommendation for cancelation of
this PCN.
Recommendation
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Previous decision
Appeal decision
Direction
Owner. The Council is also directed to refund the penalty charge
paid.
Reasons
Adjudicator Carl Teper refused this appeal in his decision
entered on 23 November 2024.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being
parked without payment of the parking charge. It was not in
dispute that Mr Andrews' car was parked in a bay where there was
free parking for up to one hour.
Mr Teper made a finding of fact that the vehicle was parked for
less than one hour. It must follow, as a matter of fact, that
there was no parking charge due from which it must also follow
that the alleged contravention did not occur. In my judgement,
it was a mistake on the facts to find that a parking charge was
due. The application for review is allowed on that basis and in
the interests of justice.
The Council's conditions of use explain to the motorist that a
ticket or Ringo session is to be obtained at the time of
parking. They do not say that a parking charge is due for the
first hour if that condition is not complied with.
It follows that the appeal is allowed.
#Post#: 55077--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Redbridge - Cameron Road IG3 - Parked
without payment of parking
DIR By: Felics
Date: January 25, 2025, 10:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
>
> As per
>
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
>
> Please re-instate or post the Reg Mark and PCN number.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks John - Can I send you the PCN number and Reg mark
privately? Or would you like me to still post on the thread?
#Post#: 55078--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Redbridge - Cameron Road IG3 - Parked
without payment of parking
DIR By: Felics
Date: January 25, 2025, 10:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> This reviewed case from a few days ago shows that the
contravention of not paying for a free hour is a nonsense.
>
> -------------
>
> Case reference 2240378813
> Appellant Mark Andrews
> Authority London Borough of Redbridge
> VRM MJ65ZYB
>
> PCN Details
> PCN AF07114746
> Contravention date 31 May 2024
> Contravention time 12:59:00
> Contravention location GEORGE LANE VIADUCT
> Penalty amount GBP 80.00
> Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
>
> Referral date -
>
> Decision Date 23 Nov 2024
> Adjudicator Carl Teper
> Appeal decision Appeal refused with recommendation
> Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid
within 28 days.
> Reasons The Appellant has attended for his appeal. I find him
to be an honest, convincing and consistent witness. I believe
what he tells me.
> The Enforcement Authority's case is that the Appellant's
vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge when in
the George Lane Viaduct on 31 May 2024 at 12:59.
> The Appellant's case is that he was parked at this location to
deal with an urgent matter. He looked for a pay machine to
purchase time to park, however, the four machines he found were
out of order. He then tried to pay using the Ringo App. He has
produced clear evidence by way of screenshots of his attempts to
purchase time by using the RingGo application - all to no avail.
The last message indicated that RingGo could not provide parking
time. The Authority has provided statistics to show how many
successfully contacted them - presumably many to pay mothing -
as the first hour is free to park. The Appellant then attempted
to access the Authority's website to pay to park, however, this
also failed. He then attended to his chore, which took about 10
minutes, and he then left the location. All this took just under
an hour.
> I have considered the evidence and I find that Appellant's
vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge when in
in the George Lane Viaduct on 31 May 2024.
> If the Appellant had not attended to his task I would have
made a finding that insufficient time was permitted to pay in
the circumstances of this case. However, he was not permitted to
park for 10 minutes to attend to his chore.
> I have accepted the Appellant's evidence because I find it
credible and realistic. If he had been able to find a working
pay machine or have got through to RingGo there would have been
nothing to pay as the first hour is free.
> Due to the unfortunate set of circumstances I find this
Appellant encountered, there is now a penalty of £80.00 due to
parking in a place, which would have been free if he had been
able to register his arrival time. All matters raised only go to
mitigating circumstances.
> In the circumstances of this case, in which the Appellant was
unable to register for his 'free period' of parking, I strongly
recommend to the Authority that they either cancel this PCN or
do not collect the penalty amount.
> The appeal is refused with a recommendation for cancelation of
this PCN.
> Recommendation cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
>
> Decision Date 22 Jan 2025
> Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
> Previous decision Appeal refused with recommendation
> Appeal decision Appeal allowed
> Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to
Owner. The Council is also directed to refund the penalty charge
paid.
> Reasons Mr Andrews has attended the hearing today by
telephone.
> Adjudicator Carl Teper refused this appeal in his decision
entered on 23 November 2024.
> This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being
parked without payment of the parking charge. It was not in
dispute that Mr Andrews' car was parked in a bay where there was
free parking for up to one hour.
> Mr Teper made a finding of fact that the vehicle was parked
for less than one hour. It must follow, as a matter of fact,
that there was no parking charge due from which it must also
follow that the alleged contravention did not occur. In my
judgement, it was a mistake on the facts to find that a parking
charge was due. The application for review is allowed on that
basis and in the interests of justice.
> The Council's conditions of use explain to the motorist that a
ticket or Ringo session is to be obtained at the time of
parking. They do not say that a parking charge is due for the
first hour if that condition is not complied with.
> It follows that the appeal is allowed.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks - from my reading the first appeal was rejected but the
second was allowed it seems?
Is it best for me to draft a response to Redbridge council for
the first stage? It would be great if someone could review it.
#Post#: 55096--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Redbridge - Cameron Road IG3 - Parked
without payment of parking
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: January 25, 2025, 1:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Felics link ---
>
>
>
> Thanks John - Can I send you the PCN number and Reg mark
privately? Or would you like me to still post on the thread?
>
--- End Quote ---
Just edit your last post to add them - your reg mark is there
for the world to see, anyway, and the experts here like to be
able to check the Council site for errors in the 'small print',
for which they also need the PCN number..
#Post#: 55102--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Redbridge - Cameron Road IG3 - Parked
without payment of parking
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 25, 2025, 3:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Come on Felics, you know the rules!
#Post#: 55158--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Redbridge - Cameron Road IG3 - Parked
without payment of parking
DIR By: Felics
Date: January 26, 2025, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
PCN : AF08588236
REG: FE15NXW
Hopefully that helps.
#Post#: 55351--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Redbridge - Cameron Road IG3 - Parked
without payment of parking
DIR By: Felics
Date: January 27, 2025, 8:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So I have drafted a response to my first appeal below.
Please could someone let me know if this is OK to send to the
borough?
---------------
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally appeal the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN)
referenced above, issued for parking at Cameron Road on
23/01/2025. I respectfully request the cancellation of this
notice based on the following circumstances and evidence.
On the date in question, I parked my vehicle in the designated
bay where the first hour of parking is free, as outlined by the
Council's conditions of use. Unfortunately, I forgot to register
my parking session immediately upon exiting my vehicle. I
rectified this oversight within 10 minutes by successfully
registering my session through the RingGo app.
As my parking duration did not exceed the first free hour, no
parking charge was due for this period. I have attached evidence
of my registration to demonstrate that I complied with the
parking requirements, albeit slightly delayed.
I would like to draw your attention to a similar case that
reached an adjudication, where a PCN was eventually cancelled.
In Sean Stanton-Dunne’s decision dated 22 January 2025, the
Adjudicator stated:
“It must follow, as a matter of fact, that there was no parking
charge due from which it must also follow that the alleged
contravention did not occur. The Council's conditions of use
explain to the motorist that a ticket or RingGo session is to be
obtained at the time of parking. They do not say that a parking
charge is due for the first hour if that condition is not
complied with.”
This precedent supports the argument that failing to immediately
register for free parking does not equate to a valid
contravention, particularly when the vehicle was parked for less
than the allotted free hour.
I respectfully request that Redbridge Borough Council exercise
discretion in this matter and cancel the PCN, given that no
parking charge was due, and I promptly remedied my error. I
trust this matter can be resolved amicably and that the penalty
will be withdrawn.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to
your positive response.
Yours faithfully,
Felics
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page