DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 105783--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN for incorrect Ringo location by one digit
DIR By: Captainships
Date: January 13, 2026, 5:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you mate. Please let me know what to do.
#Post#: 105792--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN for incorrect Ringo location by one digit
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 13, 2026, 6:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, first, if you're going to take them to London Tribunals,
is to register an appeal with them, and in the reps box, you put
"I rely on my formal representations". This can be added-to
later before the hearing. Do NOT opt for a papers-only
adjudication as we see these lose more often than not. Hearings
are by phone or video.
#Post#: 123679--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN for incorrect Ringo location by one digit
DIR By: Captainships
Date: July 3, 2026, 8:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, really sorry but I forgot to update you all that they
scheduled a hearing for Thursday 9th of July, 16:30
Via online Teams
Is anyone able to help anymore? Or is it too short of a notice
now?
#Post#: 124367--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN for incorrect Ringo location by one digit
DIR By: Captainships
Date: July 11, 2026, 3:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I attended this on behalf of my wife. It was online and the
adjudicator was late by 45 minutes.
Despite the adjudicator seeming to understand and acknowledge
the central arguments I made (which were provided in writing as
well ahead of the hearing), he has refused the appeal and didn't
even address the central arguments, instead focusing on the
keying error.
The central arguments were that the contravention of "parked
without payment of the parking charge" did not and could not
have occurred as no payment was due. It was a free session and
Council acknowledged that the car did not stay behind beyond
this free period. We also submitted that the Council did not
address the points repeatedly made around acting fairly and
proportionately as per statutory guidance. This too was ignored
by the Adjudicator in his written decision.
Here is what he has said in the written judgement thta has been
emailed to us:
"I can fully accept that the appellant did not seek to avoid
payment. I have however disagreed with her arguments that the
Council has been at fault in pursuing the penalty charge under
appeal.
"The appellant failed to pay the charge which was an alternative
to registering correctly for the hour which was gratis provided
registration was done correctly.
"Errors with long numbers have a long history and the forbears
of young motorists will remember how
misdials were common and indeed frequent in the days when
telephones were ones with rotary dials. In
more modern days I know one time passwords also get miskeyed
frequently and that too is irritating. I do not however see the
length of the bay locator number as opearting as legal defence
in this case.
"Unfortunately for motorists making keyboard mistakes the
Councils have strong legal ground for insisting on
a penalty charge when the there is a motorist keyboard error.
The line of authority for this in this tribunal
derives from Lady Walmsley’s Case where the Court of Appeal held
that it was not payment that was crucial
but payment for the correct registration. By analogy I accept
that the motorist has responsibility if
registering for doing so with the correct bay locator.
"I do not identify the error in this case as explained by
weighty mitigation and I do not consider the Council
has wrongly failed to assess whether the case warranted
discretionary cancellation. The penalty charge
claimed is the lawful amount. The amount has been correctly set
and lawfully approved in London. It
lawfully has the character of a standard amount and it is not
legally disproportionate.
"Gerald Styles
Adjudicator
10th July 2026"
#Post#: 124395--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN for incorrect Ringo location by one digit
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 11, 2026, 9:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Full decision. Must say Adjudicator Styles sounds early 20th
century wiith his dial phone reference. Misdialling a telephone
number doesn't (usually) cost you £110.
I still think the 7 digit codes cross into territory where
statutory guidance on fairness should come into play.
Plus of course there is the nonsense of not paying for a free
thing.
But it looks like we'll have to accept that unless you get one
of the few friendly adjudicators there is no defence to
Redbridge pushing these through.
I would add though that we can push for a non-binding
recommendation to cancel, and that the TMO provided to the
tribunal stands up in court.
-----------
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
arranged for 9 July. The Council was not expected to attend and
did not do so.
Her case to tribunal was set out at length and can be
conceniently recorded in full below. It was presented at the
hearing by her husband Mr xxxxx.
I am submitting these final representations ahead of my hearing.
I formally contest that the alleged contravention of "not paying
a parking charge" did not occur. My vehicle was parked for less
than one hour, during which time a free, one-hour parking
session
was available and active. Consequently, as the parking period
was
free of charge, the allegation of failing to pay is a factual
impossibility. Furthermore, even if a technical contravention
occurred, I submit that it was the result of a genuine, minor
keying error, and the Council has failed to act in accordance
with its statutory duty to exercise fairness and
proportionality.
1. Failure to Address Statutory Duty of Fairness
I am deeply disappointed that in both my initial challenge and
my
formal representation, I explicitly requested that the Council
address its statutory duty to act fairly and with discretion.
The
Council’s rejection letters failed to address this requirement
entirely. The Council’s response demonstrates an apparent lack
of
awareness regarding this statutory guidance, let alone evidence
that it has been applied.
2. Contradiction of the Alleged Contravention
The Council has formally acknowledged in its Notice of Rejection
that my vehicle was parked for less than one hour. As the
parking
session was free for the first hour, the contravention of "not
paying a parking charge" is a factual impossibility. I left the
space before the free session ended; therefore, no payment was
required, and no loss was suffered by the Council.
3. Mischaracterisation of "Standard Practice"
The Council asserts that the use of 7-digit location codes is
"standard practice". I dispute this; 7-digit codes are not the
industry standard, and their use inherently increases the risk
of
minor human error. Furthermore, the Council argues that the
incorrect code rendered the session "invalid," yet this is not
the contravention stated on the PCN, which specifically alleges
"not paying a parking charge".
.4,Proportionality and Evidence of Intent
I have provided a RingGo receipt confirming a session was booked
for the relevant time, along with a Monzo bank statement showing
a purchase made at the Ilford Exchange during that same period.
These documents objectively prove my presence at the location
and
my clear intention to comply with parking requirements. In light
of the fact that no payment was required, the enforcement of a
penalty charge is an excessive and disproportionate response to
a
minor, honest administrative error.
Conclusion
I respectfully request that the Adjudicator considers that the
Council has failed to demonstrate it has complied with its
statutory duty to act fairly. I ask that this appeal be allowed,
or, at a minimum, that a recommendation be made for the Council
to cancel the PCN given the absence of any financial loss or
intent to evade charges.
…..
I can fully accept that the appellant did not seek to avoid
payment. I have however disagreed with her arguments that the
Council has been at fault in pursuing the penalty charge under
appeal.
The appellant failed to pay the charge which was an alternative
to registering correctly for the hour which was gratis provided
registration was done correctly.
Errors with long numbers have a long history and the forbears of
young motorists will remember how misdials were common and
indeed frequent in the days when telephones were ones with
rotary dials. In more modern days I know one time passwords also
get miskeyed frequently and that too is irritating. I do not
however see the length of the bay locator number as opearting as
legal defence in this case.
Unfortunately for motorists making keyboard mistakes the
Councils have strong legal ground for insisting on a penalty
charge when the there is a motorist keyboard error. The line of
authority for this in this tribunal derives from Lady Walmsley’s
Case where the Court of Appeal held that it was not payment that
was crucial but payment for the correct registration. By analogy
I accept that the motorist has responsibility if registering for
doing so with the correct bay locator.
I do not identify the error in this case as explained by weighty
mitigation and I do not consider the Council has wrongly failed
to assess whether the case warranted discretionary cancellation.
The penalty charge claimed is the lawful amount. The amount has
been correctly set and lawfully approved in London. It lawfully
has the character of a standard amount and it is not legally
disproportionate.
#Post#: 124398--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN for incorrect Ringo location by one digit
DIR By: Glitch
Date: July 11, 2026, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Effing bar stewards :-X
I'm facing exactly the same for my representation.
So it looks like lucky dip with the adjudicator you get, No
change there then.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page