DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97266--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN for incorrect Ringo location by one digit
DIR By: Captainships
Date: November 7, 2025, 9:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK so I've drafted the following for the NtO that seems to have
been issued in error :
I make this representation against the Notice to Owner on the
grounds that the penalty charge is not payable due to procedural
errors and duplicate enforcement.
1. No PCN Was Served on the Vehicle
I did not receive any PCN relating to the alleged contravention
recorded at 15:04. The only PCN that was physically attached to
my vehicle was issued at 15:08, which was at the same location,
for the same alleged contravention, by the same enforcement
officer. I have already challenged the 15:08 PCN (AF11197984)
and will make formal representation in due course.
2. Incorrect Location Stated on the Notice to Owner
The Notice to Owner states that the vehicle was parked on
Hamilton Road. However, the Council’s own photographic evidence
clearly shows the vehicle parked on Mildmay Road. This is a
substantive error which undermines the validity of the PCN.
Under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and The Civil Enforcement
of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, a
PCN (and any subsequent Notice to Owner) must accurately state
the grounds on which the enforcement authority believes the
penalty is payable. This includes the correct location of the
alleged contravention. If the location stated is inaccurate, the
PCN fails to properly identify the contravention and therefore
cannot be enforced.
3. Duplicate PCNs for the Same Incident
As stated above, I am currently in the process of appealing a
PCN/NtO for this very same incident, i.e. the 15:08 PCN (see PCN
no. AF11197984). That PCN correctly stated Mildmay Road as the
location and was the only PCN I found attached to the car. The
PCN referenced in this Notice to Owner (issued at 15:04) relates
to the same incident and was issued by the same Civil
Enforcement Officer just four minutes earlier.
Therefore two PCNs have been generated for the same alleged
contravention, which is both procedurally improper and unfair.
London Tribunals and other adjudications have consistently
confirmed that only one PCN may be issued for any one continuous
contravention.
4. Likely Error by the Civil Enforcement Officer
The timing, location discrepancy, and the absence of the 15:04
PCN on the vehicle strongly indicate that the officer mistakenly
recorded the contravention incorrectly at 15:04, realised the
error, and then issued the corrected PCN at 15:08. However, it
appears that the earlier, erroneous PCN was not cancelled on the
system, resulting in this Notice to Owner being issued
incorrectly.
For the reasons above, I request that the Council cancel this
PCN in full. It was:
Not properly served,
Incorrectly recorded,
And amounts to duplicate enforcement for the same incident,
which is contrary to established adjudication principles.
I look forward to your confirmation that the Notice to Owner has
been cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 97277--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN for incorrect Ringo location by one digit
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: November 7, 2025, 10:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's much too long and confusing - you could cut it down to a
few sentences.
The contravention did not occur.
This appears to be an NTO for a PCN that the CEO did not serve
and failed to cancel before issuing PCN xxxx a few minutes later
at xxxx.
The reason is likely the CEO realised it is for the wrong
location - xxxx instead of xxxxx.
As this NTO has been served in error I look forward to your
early confirmation of cancellation.
#Post#: 97298--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN for incorrect Ringo location by one digit
DIR By: Captainships
Date: November 7, 2025, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK thanks, will shorten and send.
#Post#: 102592--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN for incorrect Ringo location by one digit
DIR By: Captainships
Date: December 15, 2025, 5:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I forgot to update:
1. They've cancelled one of the pcns (the one that had the
incorrect road name) saying "Thank you for your letter regarding
the above Penally Charge Notice.
The matter has been considered and as a resultit is considered
that there are suffcient grounds for the notice to be cancelled.
No further action wilbe taken."
2. For the PCN that had the correct road name (which is what the
original post here is about), we recieved the NtO giving the
reason as" parked without payment of the parking charge". Here
is the NtO:
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/faL1lZx
I have only until tomorrow I believe to submit a rep (however
the NtO says 28 days from when the letter was served, which
would mean I have another two days or so).
I've lost the discount so can someone help with the rep? Should
I just re submit what I sent for the challenge?
Many thanks
#Post#: 102739--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN for incorrect Ringo location by one digit
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: December 16, 2025, 4:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I would repeat the challenge adding you are disappointed they
did not address the statutory guidance to act fairly and request
they address this if they reject again.
And saying again that the contravention of not paying a charge
could not have occurred in the less than 1 hour you showed you
were there.
#Post#: 105612--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN for incorrect Ringo location by one digit
DIR By: Captainships
Date: January 12, 2026, 5:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
They sent the Notice of Rejection just before Xmas, dated
22/12/24. They rejected the rep despite the letter:
-acknowledging that it was a genuine mistake and no financial
loss occurred
-acknowledging that the car was indeed parked for less than an
hour (within the one hour free parking)
-acknowledging "payment was made" for a session, albeit in a
different location (NB no payment was made, it was a Ringo
booking for a one hour free parking).
Additionally, the letter responds to my request for discretion
by saying:
"Regarding your request for discretion, enforcement authoritles
are required to act fairly and proportionately. While we
appreciate that this was a genuine mistake and that no financial
loss occurred to the Council, the contravention is enforceable
under the Traffic Management Act 2004. After reviewing the
circumstances, we are satisfied that the contravention
occurred....and remains payable"
Please can you advise what to do next?
Here is a link to the full NoR letter:
Page 1:
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/fvZb73J
Page 2:
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/fvZbR4a
#Post#: 105617--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN for incorrect Ringo location by one digit
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 12, 2026, 5:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I would take them to London Tribunals; their letter of rejection
is a disgrace and shows their venality and rapacity in neon
lights ! OK, you've got to risk the full penalty, but appeals
have been won in the aspect of how can one pay for a free
parking period.
#Post#: 105645--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN for incorrect Ringo location by one digit
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: January 13, 2026, 4:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They say the use of 7 digit codes is standard practice - well it
isn't. They are mostly 5 digit in my view.
The problem with the rejection of acting fairly is the tribunal
can't act fairly and will probably record that the council chose
not to use discretion and is entitled to enforce. But we need to
see this tested properly as it is statutory guidance.
But I would have a go as if you get the right adjudicator the
ground of not paying for a free thing is sometimes allowed, and
you could also get a recommendation to cancel even if appeal
refused.
They also say the code rendered the session invalid - but this
is not the contravention on the PCN.
#Post#: 105682--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN for incorrect Ringo location by one digit
DIR By: Captainships
Date: January 13, 2026, 7:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree. It's a disgraceful letter from the Council. I'm happy
to take it to tribunal if anyone here is able to help with the
appeal?
#Post#: 105688--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN for incorrect Ringo location by one digit
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: January 13, 2026, 7:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll help.
This case from yesterday references the statutory guidance. It
concern a removal but the principle is there.
------------
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
Reasons
was unable to purchase a permit I until 12 51 as a result of a
poorly performing computer system.
On parking a vehicle in any type of bay the motorist is allowed
a reasonable time to f do whatever is necessary to validate the
parking, in this case to obtain a permit. In these days of
virtual permits it seems to me one should take a fairly generous
view of what is a reasonable time in cases where the motorist is
experiencing IT difficulties of some kind. However the point has
eventually to be reached after a few minutes where the motorist
has to accept that the attempt to obtain a permit has failed ,
and move the vehicle elsewhere, inconvenient and irritating
though that would obviously be.
I see no reason at all to doubt the evidence in this case as to
the difficulties experienced with computer system. However as
the Appellant is unable to state the time the vehicle was
initially parked It is impossible to make say how long the
vehicle had been parked, attempting to obtain a permit , prior
to the issue of the PCN. It sounds as if it might well have been
some considerable time and I am not satisfied that this is a
case of a PCN being issued to a vehicle prematurely within the
few minutes allowable for permit to be obtained. The vehicle was
therefore in contravention and it cannot be said the PCN was
issued anything other than lawfully. The circumstances of course
amount to mitigation, but as an Adjudicator I have no power in
law to allow appeals on the basis of mitigation, the exercise of
discretion on that basis being a matter for the Council, not an
Adjudicator.
The vehicle was , however , subsequently removed. The Appellant
contends this was unnecessary ; and there seems to be no obvious
reason for it. I therefore adjourned the case for the Council to
“ to demonstrate that in removing the vehicle it has complied
with its statutory duty to have regard to the guidance of the
Secretary of State.”. The Council, in its response has re-stated
my request as “The Adjudicator has directed that the Enforcement
Authority to provide details of the removal” which is not what I
directed ; and the Council’s response in this form rather
suggests that it is completely unaware of the Guidance and its
statutory duty to comply with it , let alone having any evidence
that it has done so. As I am unable to be satisfied the Council
has complied with its statutory duty I am not satisfied that the
removal of the vehicle was lawful.
The Appeal is therefore allowed to the extent of requiring the
Council to refund the release fees (only ) leaving the Appellant
to bear the cost of the PCN as a more proportionate penalty for
the contravention
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page