Hi,

I received a PCN from camden council for overstaying in a paid bay.

I paid for 90 mins parking expiring at 17:03.

At around 17:00 I attempted to extend the stay as I was too far away from the car with my baby daughter to make it back in time.

The ringo app generated an error and I was unable to extend the parking. My internet connection was fine on my phone so it appears their service was down. I tried several times, also connecting the phone to the pub wifi where I was eating. Again it did not work generating an error. I then tried the dial in service to extend the parking but it refused as by this point time had run out.

My friend was present and witnessed my attempts to extend and can testify as to the time.

I was issued with a ticket at 1720.

I appealed via the online service and received the attached letter. Ticket also attached.

I am very aggrieved at their refusal to waive the ticket. What do you folks suggest?

cheers,

knightrider




This post has been edited by knightrider: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 15:48

At least they correctly applied the lower level penalty of £40/£80.

Did you get a text message from Ringgo before the expiry inviting you to extend the session? I always have the text messaging enabled.

You say you tried to extend these session at 17.00 - do you have any proof of this? This is the key time.

We need to see a photo of the traffic sign stating no return etc. I cannot find one on GSV.

The call logging might be difficult to overcome re. the times;however this one may help:-


"No Return" prohibition triggered once original pay by phone session had expired. Unable to extend by phone.

This is a Camden case

217005313A

The Appellant said that he tried to renew his paid for parking vi RINGO but the system would not allow an extension within two hours of the original.

The Authority's records show that the Appellant purchased 45 minutes of parking at 16:26. At 17:11, the Appellant sought to renew his parking but the system would not allow it.

The Authority's case is that as the parking session finishes, the vehicle must be driven away. It would then be subject to a no return provision. It follows that parking cannot be be extended at or after 17:11.

The Appellant's submission is that the no return condition has not been stipulated on the sign. The Authority disagrees. It says that there is a sign indicating that one may only renew before paid for parking expires. After paid for parking expires, motorists must relocate their vehicles and not return within one hour.

The issue here is not whether the Appellant drove away and returned before he was allowed. The Authority's case is that he should have left when his paid for session expired thereby enabling a no return condition to bite, and the system's refusal to allow a further session was justified.

I have some concerns about this approach. First, the Appellant paid for his parking up to 17:11. It is arguable that the sessio0n had not expired at 17:11 when he tried to extend his session.

Secondly, while I can take notice that time-limited parking tends to have a no return condition, the Authority has not satisfied me that the Traffic Management Order provides for a condition requiring motorists to leave the save upon expiry of a parking session.

Thirdly, the Authority has not produced a clear image of a sign which informs motorists that they must relocate their vehicle when the parking session has lapsed so I am not satisfied that this condition has been brought to the attention of the Appellant.

I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I allow the appeal.

The Appellant seeks his costs. I do not consider the Authority's action in this case to be vexatious or frivolous, or any of its decisions to be wholly unreasonable.

As a matter of law generally and common sense would dictate that one must extend a parking session before it expires.There is a distinct possibility that the parking session has expired. The Appellant was therefore not extending his parking session but starting a fresh one. Just because one can extend by phone does not mean that one can start a fresh session by phone. The Appellant had no legitimate expectation that it is allowed. I would refuse the application for costs.
-----------------
Mick

I cannot prove that I tried to extend at 1700. The issue is that the app appears to have been down and not logging my attempts to renew. In my panic I didn’t think to take screenshots of the error message and afterwards it was too late. My friend who was there can corroborate the time as I told him I was trying to extend and I told him at the time that it was about to expire. I don’t see how else I can prove my attempts to renew within the time.

Also it appears that you cannot extend during the 10 minute grace period but only before the initial term expires. This is harsh if true.

Thanks for this suggestion, I enabled the alerts after this incident!




I will try and get some photos of the street / signage and post them here. Would this potentially help my case?

Thank you very much for this. I did take a photo just before I parked and it appears the detailed terms and conditions board was absent. Google street view shows a different sign present. There is a mark on the post where it was. I will go back there and get another photo later in the week to be sure and post it here.

My photo


Google


This post has been edited by knightrider: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 10:41

A pay by phone only bay!!!!!

I would investigate the Camden traffic orders on their website and if you find, as I think you will, that this bay is also noted as pay and display bay you have a second appeal ground.

https://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/d...sset_id=2838758

"north side: from a point 23.5 metres east of the north eastern kerb-line of Eton Villas, eastwards for a distance of 18 metres"--your bay I think.

I cannot see that the traffic orders impose an exclusive pay by phone situation.

The other issue, of course, is whether any UK Council can impose this sort of condition. I can see how special bays for doctors or businesses have credence but giving phone users priority in a bog standard parking bay must breach the equality legislation and the ECHR.

Mick

IMO, the authority's case is hopeless, but no doubt they'll writhe and squirm.

The traffic sign does not include reference to, therefore it does not convey any limit on, returning, therefore such a restriction, even if included within the relevant order, cannot be enforced.

This is not a guessing game.

As regards the sign, a motorist is entitled to pay for parking at any time, the only restriction is that the vehicle must not be stationary for more than 4 hours. You weren't.

At 17.17, a time at which they acknowledge you attempted to pay, you had the means to pay but were prevented through the unlawful restriction placed on the Ringo system procedure by the officers who agreed its specification.

Hearsay, anecdote, received wisdom, doing what we want rather than what we may etc. are the bane of professional local government officers' lives, I should know.

I would write back to the authority for clarification..

PCN etc...
I refer to my challenge dated *** and your letter dated *** in which my representations were not allowed.

In particular, I refer to your comment that a lawful restriction applies to the location which precludes a motorist from returning within a specified period. I also refer you to the enclosed photo of the applicable traffic sign. As you will see, the sign makes no reference to any such restriction and therefore, whether such a restriction is underpinned by a restriction in a TMO or not, cannot be enforced, neither may it be imposed through restrictions on payment of the parking charge which is the basis of the authority's reasoning in rejecting my representations.

Would you therefore please clarify the following:
1. Is there a restriction in a TMO regarding such a restriction? If so, please provide a copy.
2. If so, why have the council chosen to not include this within the traffic sign?
3. If not, the lawful authority by which it is being applied by officers.

For information, by 'traffic sign' I refer to a sign prescribed or authorised under s64 of the RTRA which, by virtue of the 2016, excludes ad hoc additional information published or displayed other than within a traffic sign.

Hugs

They'll probably ignore or whatever, but this is not a sprint.

I didnt know I could just write to them with further submissions - I will do so - thanks very much for the above.

Some new information has come to light that may be material.

On the day i parked i took a photo of the sign post. This shows the detailed information board on ringo app was absent, there is a mark on the pole where it may previously have been, so the only signs on the day of parking were the larger ones higher up the pole.

I went back yesterday and there is a brand new sign with shiny bolts on it that must have been attached after I got my ticket. Photos of this sign are below i.e. before and after.

Photo on day of ticket


photo yesterday showing new sign


fresh fixings

Just received word from Camden (after 4 months!) that this PCN has been cancelled!

The accepted grounds were that the signage regarding terms of the pay by phone/app parking at the bay was absent at the time of the alleged offence.

I went back to the bay about a month after the ticket and spotted a brand new sign which I could prove had not been there at the time of the alleged offence. Camden caved. I don't think we can establish any particular precedent but if the terms and conditions sign is absent then you have a chance of getting off.

Well done.

As I posted many months ago: IMO, the authority's case is hopeless, but no doubt they'll writhe and squirm

They got there, eventually.

Thank you very much for your input (and everyone else who responded).

It is very gratifying to achieve a just outcome and defeat the forces of bureaucracy. A friend told me that Camden have an app which directs the wardens to Ringo tickets that are about to expire to increase the chances of catching people out who overstay even by a very short time. It has made me extremely wary of parking there and furthermore I don't trust that I can count on being able to extend my stay via the app. Any problems with it and you are on your own as far as Camden are concerned.

"A friend told me that Camden have an app which directs the wardens to Ringo tickets that are about to expire to increase the chances of catching people out who overstay even by a very short time."

Find out more if you can. It does sound like an urban legend though. Also, there is a 10 min grace on these ones.

Urban legend ? Hmm...I think it would be typical of the venal money-grubbers called London Councils to create something like this, even though they are already drawing shedloads of money out of parking penalties. They want ever last cent.

I will see what I can do. I definitely think it is technically possible. You could plot the ticket expiry times on a map in real time and use an algorithm to direct the warden to the nearest expiring ticket. They race around on mopeds so can cover a great deal of ground quickly. This would definitely increase detection and therefore yield.