DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 90794--------------------------------------------------
PCN - Incorrect Parking Location (1 digit)
By: LondonTraveller84 Date: September 20, 2025, 5:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Guys!
Silly mistake, I parked up, the first hour is free, if you book
in via RingGo, which I did, on my return noticed a PCN! Double
checked incase I had forgotten to make the booking, but it was
there with half an hour remaining, on further inspection the
code was '6081226' instead I had booked it under '6081222'
They've hit me a Contravention 11 - Parked without payment of
the parking charge
See attached -
HTML https://imgur.com/a/6OOuSjJ
Both codes are for the same borough, would it not be sufficient?
I will reply tonight stating the typo in booking being genuine,
as there is a valid booking, hopefully the council will make an
exception, or i have a feeling they'll be heartless and still
reject!
#Post#: 90796--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Incorrect Parking Location (1 digit)
By: stamfordman Date: September 20, 2025, 6:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We see plenty of these from Redbridge, which like some other
councils is now rejecting challenges for honest mistakes on
location codes - and now it's created longer codes which must be
a factor.
Also not paying for free parking is a nonsense contravention but
some tribunal adjudicators just go with the wrong code without
even checking the traffic order.
Just send a polite challenge saying it was an honest mistake on
a 7 digit location code that was for another Redbridge location
and there was in any case no payment payable for the half hour
you were there.
#Post#: 90863--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Incorrect Parking Location (1 digit)
By: LondonTraveller84 Date: September 21, 2025, 3:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have replied with the following, await their rejection :)
"This was an honest mistake, which your warden would have seen
as I had purchased a permit as required prior to leaving the
car, which was still active when the warden issued the ticket,
please see attached. However the issue that has result in this,
is that the ticket was for another location while still in the
Redbrdige borough, this was due to the fact I had a digit
incorrect for the location code when booking, this can clearly
be seen by the code used against the code at the location in
question.
Also there is technically no payment due for the first one.
I am hoping you can review this case on it's own basis and see
that this was a genuine mistake an the intention were correct,
as a result I ask you please cancel this ticket."
#Post#: 93709--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Incorrect Parking Location (1 digit)
By: LondonTraveller84 Date: October 11, 2025, 10:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All/[member=2249]stamfordman[/member],
As expected, received a reply from the council, not excersising
any discretion considering the circumstance.
See attached response - how best to proceed or what should I
reply with?
I guess from a perspective of the regulations the code is
incorrect even though it's by a single digit - Would the
adjudicator take the same view, as I was once told her they go
based on the law/rules/regulations and not assumption etc. If
this is the case then I stand little chance at ajudication.
HTML https://ibb.co/HDNDRFt0
HTML https://ibb.co/WvgfKWrp
#Post#: 93720--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Incorrect Parking Location (1 digit)
By: stamfordman Date: October 11, 2025, 12:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They say the wrong location renders the session invalid but the
contravention is not paying, not for not having a valid or
invalid session.
We should also start putting councils to the test of duty to act
fairly - this is set out in statutory guidance.
I would go on with this. The 7-digit code is also getting silly
now.
#Post#: 93725--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Incorrect Parking Location (1 digit)
By: LondonTraveller84 Date: October 11, 2025, 12:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=stamfordman link=topic=8127.msg93720#msg93720
date=1760202974]
the contravention is not paying, not for not having a valid or
invalid session.
[/quote]
I've heard about this point in a number of other posts on FTLA
and one where its mentioned that its a free charge so how can
one pay, while it logically makes sense, I've never gone with
this ground and am worried I would not be able to argue my case
other then just make the statement, with the ajudicator going
with the point the ticket was not there, ie not paid (even
though its free)
[quote author=stamfordman link=topic=8127.msg93720#msg93720
date=1760202974]
We should also start putting councils to the test of duty to act
fairly - this is set out in statutory guidance.
[/quote]
How though? councils clearly don't care, teh reasoning makes no
difference in an email, an email won't make a difference, the
ajudicators can't do nothing other then look at the case on the
day.
#Post#: 93728--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Incorrect Parking Location (1 digit)
By: stamfordman Date: October 11, 2025, 1:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In formal reps the question about fairness can be put, as to how
this meets the statuary guidance to act fairly in the public
interest, and any or no response can be taken to the tribunal.
One outcome that is possible is an adjudicator can refuse the
appeal but recommend cancellation.
#Post#: 99450--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Incorrect Parking Location (1 digit)
By: LondonTraveller84 Date: November 23, 2025, 3:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Received the NTO,
HTML https://ibb.co/yJv0bZm
HTML https://ibb.co/CK44t898
Any advice or guidance on drawing up a appeal for the formal rep
that can win over the adjudication, as the council stance is
clear, the fact that they literally ignore the point about non
payment says it all also.
I believe the first formal rep will go to LA again?
I have another thread open for a similar where
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member] posted a recent adjudication
for a similar wrong code scenario, and it was rejected :(
#Post#: 99493--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Incorrect Parking Location (1 digit)
By: stamfordman Date: November 24, 2025, 4:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is from the statutory guidance.
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.
Enforcement authorities have a duty not to fetter their
discretion, so should ensure that PNCs, NtOs, leaflets and any
other advice they give do not mislead the public about what they
may consider in the way of representations.
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.
Authorities should formulate (with advice from their legal
department) and then publish their policies on the exercise of
discretion. They should apply these policies flexibly and judge
each case on its merits. An enforcement authority should be
ready to depart from its policies if the particular
circumstances of the case warrant it.
#Post#: 101618--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Incorrect Parking Location (1 digit)
By: LondonTraveller84 Date: December 8, 2025, 5:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Responded with a lengty response, hopefully it'll do the job if
not here then at ajudication
1. The Contravention Did Not Occur
1(a) A payment was made – therefore the alleged contravention is
factually incorrect
Contravention 11 requires the motorist to have failed to make a
payment. The enforcement authority’s rejection letter confirms
that a parking session was created and that a payment was made,
but under the wrong location code. This means the contravention
as stated on the PCN is factually incorrect.
If the authority believes the issue was that the payment was
allocated to the wrong location, that is a different
contravention entirely, and not the one stated on the PCN. A PCN
must match the facts alleged; if it does not, it is
unenforceable - Therefore, the contravention as stated did not
occur.
1(b) Additional point: the parking charge was £0.00 – no
monetary payment was due
This is a crucial point, the location in which the vehicle was
parked carried a £0.00 parking charge during the relevant
period.
Where the required payment is £0.00, it is
impossible to “fail to pay the parking charge” because:
* No monetary payment is required,
* No monetary payment is possible, and
* A charge of £0.00 cannot logically be “unpaid.”

If the authority’s position is that a free session was not
correctly registered due to a location-code error, then that is
not the contravention on the PCN. Code 11 explicitly requires
non-payment of a charge, but when the charge is £0.00, the
contravention cannot occur in law or in logic - It is therefore
impossible for the alleged contravention to have taken place.
2. Failure to Consider Circumstances and Exercise Discretion
The Traffic Management Act 2004 statutory guidance requires
councils to properly consider representations and exercise
discretion fairly and proportionately. My error was a genuine
and minor human mistake — a single incorrect digit/location code
input while using the RingGo app. I made a good-faith effort to
comply and made the required payment (even though the charge was
£0.00).
[**** Intersted your extract from the General Guidance Here
*****]
The rejection letter does not indicate that due consideration
was given to mitigation or discretion. It uses a standardised
explanation of policy rather than addressing my specific
circumstances. The purpose of parking enforcement is compliance,
not punishment. Penalising a minor clerical mistake — especially
when the charge was £0.00 — is disproportionate, with my
intention to comply being clear, this is precisely the type of
situation where statutory discretion should be applied
Conclusion -
* The contravention as stated did not occur,
* It is logically impossible to “not pay” a charge of £0.00,
* The authority’s own evidence confirms a payment was made,
* The authority failed to consider the cirsumstances and fairly
and proportionately
* And the enforcement action is disproportionate and
unreasonable.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page