DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 105283--------------------------------------------------
Winchester, Reg 10 Drive-Away PCN – Contravention 73, Cossack Ln
Car Park
DIR By: sipttsd
Date: January 9, 2026, 4:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good evening,
I'm looking for some advice on a Regulation 10 PCN I received
yesterday. I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time, but
am the registered keeper.
PCN & evidence
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/NdPYPLa
This took place at Cossack Lane Car Park in central Winchester:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/15PDhqKEmunai4D77
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/15PDhqKEmunai4D77
From what I’ve been told by the driver, they parked with the
intention of paying via RingGo. However, due to poor mobile
reception they were unable to do so. Lacking the correct change,
the driver attempted to find another driver to exchange cash
with. After a few unsuccessfull minutes, they returned to the
vehicle intending to leave and find an alternative car park.
At this point, the driver noticed the CEO near the vehicle. Due
to limited English speaking proficiency, the driver chose to
drive away without attempting to communicate with the CEO.
The PCN states that the CEO had begun preparing the PCN before
the vehicle was driven away. However, I note a discrepancy of
approximately six minutes between the timestamps on the CEO’s
photographs (16:35) and the stated contravention time (16:41).
This may be a very weak argument, but would I be correct in
thinking that the timestamps on the photographs do not
necessarily establish when the PCN was actually “begun?
Is it at all possible to obtain the CEO’s notes and any
timestamps as part of the evidence?
I'm questioning if there's any chance of appealing this
successfully, or if I should just pay the discounted £25.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/NdPYPLa
#Post#: 105288--------------------------------------------------
Re: Winchester, Reg 10 Drive-Away PCN – Contravention 73,
Cossack Ln Car Park
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 9, 2026, 6:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
All you can really do is submit representations on the lines you
have told us here, emphasising the poor mobile reception and the
other attempts to pay. I a convinced councils think mobile
coverage is ubiqitous everywhere, whereas any mobile user knows
this is not the case. The council's attitude is that if you
can't make payment then you should drive off and park somewhere
else, which is exactly what happened. Of course, it is your
money, but if you submit reps within the discount period, it is
almost certain they will re-offer the discount. Please post a
draft here for review then after submission, post their
inevitable letter of rejection. You can then decide whether it
is worth taking to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Note that time
is always allowed to purchase parking time. In this case none
was purchased because it couldn't be, but the principle is the
same. How long was the driver in the car park ?
#Post#: 105292--------------------------------------------------
Re: Winchester, Reg 10 Drive-Away PCN – Contravention 73,
Cossack Ln Car Park
DIR By: Phantomcrusader
Date: January 9, 2026, 6:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Whatever you choose to write in your challenge, I suggest you
include the following paragraph.
I also put it to the Council that there was no parking device in
the car park that satsified the definition of "parking device"
as described under section 35(3B)of the Road Traffic Reguation
Act 1984. Ringo is not a "parking device" when it fails to
connect to a device. If a ticket machine is out of order it is
expected to be covered over and clearly publicly noticed as such
and no parking penalty is imposed. Consequently, if a internet
connection is out of order or unconnectable this should be made
public and not be automatically assumed to be the fault of the
customer. If you search your Ringo records you will find that
they have admitted their service does at times fail. On this
occassion it failed and I am not at fault. If you disagree,
please provide me with all email notifications from Ringo in the
last 12 months so that I can prepare for my defence at
adjudication. If necessary, please consider this request as a
formal Freedom of Information request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.
#Post#: 105293--------------------------------------------------
Re: Winchester, Reg 10 Drive-Away PCN – Contravention 73,
Cossack Ln Car Park
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 9, 2026, 7:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Phantomcrusader link ---
>
> Whatever you choose to write in your challenge, I suggest you
include the following paragraph.
>
> I also put it to the Council that there was no parking device
in the car park that satsified the definition of "parking
device" as described under section 35(3B)of the Road Traffic
Reguation Act 1984. Ringo is not a "parking device" when it
fails to connect to a device. If a ticket machine is out of
order it is expected to be covered over and clearly publicly
noticed as such and no parking penalty is imposed. Consequently,
if a internet connection is out of order or unconnectable this
should be made public and not be automatically assumed to be the
fault of the customer. If you search your Ringo records you will
find that they have admitted their service does at times fail.
On this occassion it failed and I am not at fault. If you
disagree, please provide me with all email notifications from
Ringo in the last 12 months so that I can prepare for my defence
at adjudication. If necessary, please consider this request as a
formal Freedom of Information request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.
>
--- End Quote ---
Fine, but the ticket machine was in order, but the driver hadn't
the correct change. Havinng said that, one can always over-pay
to get a ticket with what one has in ones pockets. This matter
will only be resolved, in my opinion, at adjudication, so it's
important all the ducks are in a row. The council will just say,
OK, Ringo didn't work so you should have used the machine. Lack
of change is not a reason to cancel the PCN. However I
appreciate your research on the matter.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1