Redbridge - Code 11 - paid using app in South Woodford, Silly mistake or grounds to contest? Options

[samosa111]

Helpful souls

I am back here seeking your help.

The council's sign said "Pay By Phone" (see below for photo) so I opened the app and paid for parking in South Woodford (Redbridge).

However on returning to the vehicle I discovered a PCN (front and back of ticket is linked below).

I contacted Redbridge via their portal on 19th February explaining they have made a mistake and I provided evidence from the Pay By Phone app that I had paid for parking. But they have written back on 23rd March (received on 28th March) that Redbridge use a company named "Ringo", not "Pay By Phone" and that I must pay the fine.

I now realise that I may have used the incorrect app to pay for parking, but I only did so after following the instructions on their sign which referred to "Pay By Phone" and this is the name of the app I used.


Where do I stand now? Do I have any grounds to challenge this or shall I just pay up the discounted £30 (soon to be £60)?


PCN - click here

Photo of council sign (taken by the CEO) - click here

Copy of rejection letter from Redbridge - click here

[Advertisement]

[samosa111]

Dear all

I believe Redbridge have completely messed up!


For the benefit of all, I have summarized the timeline here again:

Here's a summary of what has happened to date:

1. PCN issued on 13/2/2020

2. 19/2/2020 I challenged the PCN using Redbridge's online PCN portal in which I explained that I had, in fact, paid for parking on the date/time in question. I provided screenshots of the App used to pay for parking together with an SMS confirming the payment for parking using the company/App "Pay By Phone"

3. 23/3/2020 Redridge wrote to me (letter) advising that I had used the incorrect App and should have used RingGo. They will not cancel the PCN. Furthermore they added there is sufficient signage providing the company name and the phone number. (Point to note - I concur the sign displays the phone number. However RingGo is not stated anywhere on the signage). The whole crux of my argument is that the captisation of the "Pay by Phone" suggests this is the name of the company (and not a method of payment). Their misleading captisation lead me to pay for parking using the App named "Pay by Phone".

4. 7/4/2020 I wrote to Redbridge with a details of all the signs on the street and the misleading manner in which they are labelled. I also pointed out that other machines in the locality do state RingGo clearly on them, but in my particular location this is not the case (copy of letter here)

5. 16/4/2020 Redbridge issued a NTO (the charge has now increased to £60) addressed to my car leasing company which I received via email on 23/4/2020.

6. 23/4/2020 the leasing company wrote to Rebridge with a "Third Party Authorisation Letter" in which they provide my name and address.

7. NTO (with my company name) was issued on 14th May 2020 which happens to be with the same PCN number as the original PCN.

8. I then made a formal representation (via their website which they acknowledged) on 29th May 2020

9. They have sent me a Charge Certificate (click here to view) dated 29 June 2020 received a few days later. The Charge Certificate claims that "No representations were made in response to the NTO" which is factually incorrect.



Have they slipped up enough to jeopardize their case?

Since they have failed to reject my formal representation, I now have no way of appealing this with the adjudicator. What shall I do?

This post has been edited by samosa111: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 - 13:25

[cp8759]

Wait for the Order for Recovery and then file a witness statement on the basis that you made a representation, but did not receive a Notice of Rejection. The process is explained here: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/unde...ment-process#ws

AS the council had in fact received your representation, the charge certificate is a procedural impropriety meaning that if we get this in front of an adjudicator, it should be an easy win.

[samosa111]

Wait for the Order for Recovery and then file a witness statement on the basis that you made a representation, but did not receive a Notice of Rejection. The process is explained here: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/unde...ment-process#ws

AS the council had in fact received your representation, the charge certificate is a procedural impropriety meaning that if we get this in front of an adjudicator, it should be an easy win.

Many thanks for your swift reply.

I have read the link you have provided. So basically, after I have completed the witness statement (and it is accepted that the L.A have made an error), then effectively the NTO will have to be served again and the whole process starts again (with me having to make a formal representation which is then rejected and then I have to appeal). Is my assumption correct?

[cp8759]

Not quite: Your witness statement, provided it is made in time, will be automatically accepted. The case then gets referred to the tribunal, where you simply argue that the council had received the representations (you presumably have a copy of the acknowledgment) and in the circumstances, the council was required to consider them, and it issued a charge certificate instead. As this is a procedural impropriety of the most serious type (it's the only procedural impropriety explicitly spelt out in the regulations), the ground of appeal is made out and the appeal must be allowed.

The merits of the original contravention become very much by-the-by in a case like this.

[samosa111]

Surprise surprise... I received a letter from Redbridge today advising that they have now accepted my representation and cancelled the PCN. It appears to me they have realized they messed up and are now conceding.

Thank you to everyone for all your help and guidance.

Another win for the collective at PePiPoo!

[Incandescent]

Well done !!

How does it go ?

"Frustrate their politics
Confound their knavish tricks"

[stamfordman]

A good example of seeing if they mess up and worth doing when the penalty is small, especially during covid times.