DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 65853--------------------------------------------------
Council PCN received. Is their evidence enough ?
DIR By: ashthemash
Date: April 6, 2025, 1:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Received a PCN on the window for allegedly not registering for a
1 hr free permit in a bay on highstreet. Is the evidence they
have presented enough to confirm that the parking was indeed
parked near the alleged signs in the alleged bay. I am not sure.
Any advice would be highly appreciated.
HTML https://ibb.co/Pz5CKZK9
HTML https://ibb.co/d0Wrvrd0
HTML https://ibb.co/CKvFb0Yx
HTML https://ibb.co/TDH2BcDZ
HTML https://ibb.co/jPyPY64v
HTML https://ibb.co/ZRbVG5xV
#Post#: 65876--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council PCN received. Is their evidence enough ?
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: April 6, 2025, 4:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They have more than enough to enforce the PCN, and without
photos too ! Beleive it or not, photos are not a legal
requirement, it is who an adjudicator believes, you or the CEO.
However most councils do now get their CEOs to take photos, and
these seem pretty well typical of those we see.
The PCN is for parked without paying to park, so any reason why
you didn't pay ? The sign which must have been quite close to
your car is plain enough. What argument would you put forward
for not paying ?
#Post#: 65883--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council PCN received. Is their evidence enough ?
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: April 6, 2025, 5:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What were you doing there - how long and what for. Is there a
reason why you didn't start a parking session.
Having said that I have some tribunal citations to show that you
can't contravene a free parking session by failing to pay
nothing.
#Post#: 65890--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council PCN received. Is their evidence enough ?
DIR By: ashthemash
Date: April 7, 2025, 3:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Although there were signs for a pay machine but it was absent. I
think they have removed all the physical machines. I was there
only for a short time and the paybyphone option can be a real
pain sometimes. In Redbridge, all pay to park bays allow you
free 1 hour parking, provided one registers on their system for
the session.
#Post#: 65893--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council PCN received. Is their evidence enough ?
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: April 7, 2025, 3:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes we know about Redbridge's parking regime and so do you it
seems.
I take it you decided to not bother with RingGo although it is
hardly a pain if you have it set up on your phone.
------------
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
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.
--------
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
Owner.
Reasons
I see no reason at all to doubt her evidence as to what
occurred. Essentially on parking her vehicle she immediately
began to attempt to make payment but was delayed as a result of
poor reception /problems with the app. The PCN was issued whilst
she was in the process of attempting to pay.
On parking a vehicle in any sort of bay the motorist is allowed
a reasonable time to do whatever is necessary to validate the
parking, in this case to make a payment. What is a reasonable
time is a question of fact in all the circumstances of the case,
and the motorist must of course act promptly. It seems to me
that it is inevitable that the technology will not always work
as it should and that some reasonable allowance must be made in
this situation (although the time would of course eventually
come when the motorist has to give up and use another method of
payment). On the facts of the present case I am satisfied the
Appellant had not exceeded the reasonable time allowable and
that, as it transpires, the PCN was not correctly issued.
The Appeal would also fall to be allowed for two more
fundamental reasons. The Council has provided an Amending
Traffic Management Order but this is of little value in the
absence of the “Parent” order which it amends. In the absence of
that Order it is impossible to be satisfied that payment was
required or if so how it was to be made.
In addition, it appears that the parking session in question was
free. If something is “free” payment is not required for it; and
unless the TMO contains some particular provision dealing with
this point and issuing a PCN for a failure to “pay” is
incorrect.
#Post#: 65957--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council PCN received. Is their evidence enough ?
DIR By: ashthemash
Date: April 7, 2025, 8:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much. I have submitted my challenge.
Reason for challenging the PCN?: The alleged contravention did
not occur.
The Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued alleges the
contravention: "Parked without payment of the parking charge",
with contravention code 11.
I would like to clarify that my vehicle was parked in the bay
for less than one hour. At the location parking is free for up
to one hour, and therefore, no payment was required during the
time my vehicle was present. 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. However, they do not state that
a parking charge becomes due for the first hour if that
condition is not complied with. Therefore, while a ticket or
session may be required for administrative or enforcement
purposes, no actual payment is owed during the initial free
period. As such, the alleged contravention is not applicable in
this instance, since no parking charge was due or payable within
the free parking period. It is not possible to fail to pay a
charge where none is required.
Furthermore, I have referenced previous tribunal decisions in
similar cases, which confirm that a contravention cannot occur
for non-payment where the parking session falls within a free
allowance. In those cases, appeals were upheld on the same
basis. I respectfully request that this PCN be cancelled
accordingly.
#Post#: 65962--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council PCN received. Is their evidence enough ?
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: April 7, 2025, 9:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No mention of the impossibility of obtaining a physical ticket
because, according to you, the machine which was outside
PaddyPower 7 months ago(as per GSV) is no longer there?
#Post#: 65967--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council PCN received. Is their evidence enough ?
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: April 7, 2025, 9:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well you rushed into that without telling us what you were up
to.
#Post#: 69662--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council PCN received. Is their evidence enough ?
DIR By: ashthemash
Date: May 2, 2025, 3:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The council has rejected my challenge. Should i bite the bullet
and pay up or wait for the letter for full charge and appeal to
the Councils Parking section?
#Post#: 69673--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council PCN received. Is their evidence enough ?
DIR By: catnip
Date: May 2, 2025, 4:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ashthemash link ---
>
> The council has rejected my challenge. Should i bite the
bullet and pay up or wait for the letter for full charge and
appeal to the Councils Parking section?
>
--- End Quote ---
Post their reply please.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page