DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97760--------------------------------------------------
PCN Contravention 16s (Redbridge) - Incorrect Parking Location
Code
By: LondonTraveller84 Date: November 11, 2025, 3:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Guys,
Actually gutted on this one, as there was no intention to
decieve or avoid booking the ticket, I actually
booked it with every intention to avoid a ticket but get to my
car and there's a big yellow PCN!
16s - Parked in a permit space without a valid virtual permit
HTML https://ibb.co/wZt3p6Pg
HTML https://ibb.co/jv8F1gDP
Redbridge, offer the first hour of parking free but it has to be
booked via Ringo, it seems that they take advantage of this,
when user accidently input a incorrect location - So the booking
code (6081228) I used was 1 digit different to the correct one
(6081226).
I know the council will respond stating that the owness is on
the customer to ensure location etc
I booked as follows:
1. I selected the location from the list pre populated within
RingGo based on location/nearest.
2. Location said Ilford Town, which is where I was, so selected
it -
HTML https://ibb.co/9kkbHtnr
3. Based on the above I automatically assumed location code was
correct, coupled with it looking or having the similar digits,
that I remembered from when I glanced at the P&D board (ie
60812...)
I noticed that the P&D board had a sticker on the location code,
suggesting the code has been changed at some point. Therefore
not sure if the 6081226 is a new code, hence why it had not
appeared automatically in the Ringo list, rather would have had
to be manually input and previously the location was in fact
6081228 hence why it appeared - Although the council will not
care. (See below)
HTML https://ibb.co/VpCNRfBJ
HTML https://ibb.co/ZRHz6Yqk
I'm sure when the wardens put in a plate, it brings up all
permits in that borough currently active, they would have seen
it say 6081228 - Ilford Town, yet applied no discretion.
#Post#: 97763--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Contravention 16s (Redbridge) - Incorrect Parking Locat
ion Code
By: Hippocrates Date: November 11, 2025, 3:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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
The Appellant attended the video linked hearing. The Authority
was not represented.
The Enforcement Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle
was parked without payment of the parking charge when in Beal
Road on 26 April 2025 at 13:27.
The Appellant's case is as follows: 'I paid the £2 receipt
attached but in error I put in location 7107 instead of 7157. I
typed in wrong code which said parked in Grove Road, Wanstead.
My £2 was paid on 13.06pm on 26 April. Note I cannot be parked
in 2 places at the same time. It was a typo error by typing in
7107 instead of 7157. Proof attached of my payment to LBR of £2
on 13.06pm . Please cancel the penalty based on the above
grounds as you can clearly see its a honest mistake and I cannot
be parked with the same car at 2 locations at once.'
I have considered the evidence and I find that Appellant's
vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge when in
Beal Road on 26 April 2025.
I find that the Appellant paid to park his vehicle in location
7107, which is Grove Park and not 7157, which is Beal Road.
I find that it does remain the driver's responsibility to
provide the correct location code before
obtaining a parking session using the RingGo service or any
parking payment service. The parking application cannot decide
where a motorist's vehicle is actually parked - that is why
location codes are provided.
I find this error by the Appellant only goes to mitigating
circumstances, which have already been considered by the
Authority; they do not provide a defence or raise an exemption.
The Adjudicator decides appeals by making findings of fact and
applying the law as it stands. The Adjudicator has no power to
quash a penalty charge on the basis of mitigation submitted.
The appeal is refused
#Post#: 97768--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Contravention 16s (Redbridge) - Incorrect Parking Locat
ion Code
By: LondonTraveller84 Date: November 11, 2025, 3:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hey Hippocrates!
My knight in shining armour, although this time it seems that
you're asking me to lower the shield and accept defeat as the
outcome will be as you've posted :'( that too of a very very
recent case.
I get it from a persepctive of did it happen or did it not, its
clear cut, but one would have thought some discretion could have
been applied, we know the councils do not this anymore.
I saw in another post for a different issue, the below was
mentioned, could it fall within this or not really?
"Under general principle of public law, authorities have a duty
to act fairly and porportionately and are encouraged to
excercise discretion sensibly and reasonably andwith due regard
to public interest"
#Post#: 97769--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Contravention 16s (Redbridge) - Incorrect Parking Locat
ion Code
By: stamfordman Date: November 11, 2025, 3:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is different from the usual Redbridge ones because it's a
shared use permit/pay bay and the contravention is not having a
permit in a shared use bay (the suffix s is shared use). The
usual code in shared use bays is 12 as most are resident permit
bays - we'd have to look at the order to see what permits are
allowed there.
But a challenge can still be made on having a pay/free session -
Redbridge has recently changed to 7 digit location codes which I
think is bound to result in more errors where there us just one
end digit different among similar location names.
And if the CEO could tell there was a live pay session for a
nearby location I'd say a Lower level code 19 should have been
issued.
#Post#: 97770--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Contravention 16s (Redbridge) - Incorrect Parking Locat
ion Code
By: LondonTraveller84 Date: November 11, 2025, 4:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=stamfordman link=topic=8734.msg97769#msg97769
date=1762898386]
This is different from the usual Redbridge ones - we'd have to
look at the order to see what permits are allowed there.
[/quote]
Interesting, I've noticed (from experience of being hit) they
usually issues a '11 - Parked without payment of the parking
charge' or similar, but those were P&D bays - I assume I'll have
to ask the parking team at Redbridge for the TMO for that bay?
[quote author=stamfordman link=topic=8734.msg97769#msg97769
date=1762898386]
And if the CEO could tell there was a live pay session for a
nearby location I'd say a Lower level code 19 should have been
issued.
[/quote]
110% the CEO would have seen a live session nearby, I actually
think the code I had is used on side road of the one I was on,
although not sure what the other codes such as 19 would have
meant for me in this case? assume it doesn't mean they've used a
wrong contravention code and a way out for us?
[quote author=stamfordman link=topic=8734.msg97769#msg97769
date=1762898386]
But a challenge can still be made on having a pay/free session -
Redbridge has recently changed to 7 digit location codes which I
think is bound to result in more errors where there us just one
end digit different among similar location names.
[/quote]
Redbridge will ignore that challange for sure, question is if we
took it to adjudication would that hold against this?
Yes agree, which is whats annoying, as this is my second error
(have another post which you've posted on, currently awaiting
NTO to further appeal), but same thing although on that occasion
I typed it in with the last digit incorrect!
#Post#: 97774--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Contravention 16s (Redbridge) - Incorrect Parking Locat
ion Code
By: stamfordman Date: November 11, 2025, 4:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the order.
I think the bay you were in is in a permit parking area - do you
know what the entry signs say? Usually the signed bays are not
for permit holders.
What is the latest Maps link.
HTML https://store.traffweb.app/redbridge/documents/parkmap/sched/1.%20The%20Redbridge%20(Waiting,%20Loading,%20Stopping%20and%20Street%20Parking%20Places)%20Consolidation%20Order%202021.pdf
#Post#: 97777--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Contravention 16s (Redbridge) - Incorrect Parking Locat
ion Code
By: LondonTraveller84 Date: November 11, 2025, 5:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks! A very long order, not sure what bit I should be looking
at :/
The location is
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/SAHtMPFf4vmfUyNt6,
the
lampost sign states it is a Shared Bay (Resident and P&D), not
sure of any other signage that I saw ie entering the roads/area,
however I believe it is part of a CPZ.
There are some parts of the road with no bay marking at all, nor
any yellow line markings, so my understanding was I could park
there, however I asked a CEO (to be safe) said, only residents
with parking permit can park there, anyone else would get a
ticket, it doesnt need to have a marked bay, nor a lampost with
signage, nor a yellow line, as its in a CPZ - True?
UPDATE - Having checked around the boundary of the CPZ, There
are 5 entry points, from GSV, I see the following
Point 1.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/mjN7MB8MYQycGbxy8
- Permit
Holders Only, Except Signed Bays
Point 2.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/94zNGkL39M3BBz7n6
- Permit
Holders Only, Except Signed Bays
Point 3.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/PrHDWMPUEYbHbtL27
- CPZ Sign
Point 4.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/VcwPCy8e89QEmabU7
- CPZ Sign
Point 5.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/5ZHKxZm53oR7NPWj8
- Nothing
#Post#: 97781--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Contravention 16s (Redbridge) - Incorrect Parking Locat
ion Code
By: stamfordman Date: November 11, 2025, 6:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It's a PPA not a CPZ - I just thought it odd that permit holders
can also use the signed bays when they also have the unmarked
kerbside.
The parking sign doesn't say resident though.
[img width=800 height=600]
HTML https://i.ibb.co/MD8dJWqF/r1.jpg[/img]
[img width=800
height=1067]
HTML https://i.ibb.co/6Rnx4ntQ/r2.jpg[/img]
#Post#: 97825--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Contravention 16s (Redbridge) - Incorrect Parking Locat
ion Code
By: Hippocrates Date: November 12, 2025, 5:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ironically I happened to listen in on the case cited. Does the
council's evidence show the car in relation to the sign?
#Post#: 97872--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Contravention 16s (Redbridge) - Incorrect Parking Locat
ion Code
By: H C Andersen Date: November 12, 2025, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, it's the wrong contravention.
A motorist has 2 options to procure parking rights:
1. To display a valid permit or hold a virtual permit; or
2. To pay the parking charge.
IMO, the only possible contravention description is 12. It
cannot be 16 because having a valid paid parking session is not
a defence against failing to display/hold a permit.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page