Council PCN issued despite full payment on APP

Lucyxcxcxc

Hello - I tried to find an exisiting thread for this query - apologies if I have missed it.

I have a PCN - Ealing Council traffic warden issued - twice challenged and twice declined. Now battling with the desire to have it gone away (just pay £55) and fury at the unfairness of it (terrible council in every way)

Here are the facts - will try and be brief as I'm sure you have better things to do. Many thanks for advice.

Full PayByPhone payment was made for period 15:16 to 17:16. The PCN was issued at approximately 15:47.

When paying on the app I selected “nearest location” option app while walking away from my vehicle. I believe that I must have crossed between adjacent parking zones on the same street when I hit the pay button. The 2 locations are approx 100 metre apart at nearest point.

I have payby phone receipt. I have identified myself as the registered keeper.

In challenge, I asked for removal of fined given to the fact that:

• a parking payment was made before the PCN was issued;
• the payment was made for the correct vehicle registration
• the payment covered the entire period during which the vehicle was parked;
• the incorrect location was selected inadvertently using the “nearest location” function;
• the two locations are approximately 100 metres apart at their closest point; and
• there was clearly no attempt to evade payment.

DECLINED - twice.

What should I do ? Feels unfair because they got their money and the two locations are so close - but what are my chances?

Thanks so much

Lucy x

Coupon-mad

I think your chances are zero but to get expert advice on council PCNs, ask not on MSE but on FTLA forum (Google it).

daveyjp

Basic facts are you paid for parking in an area you weren't parked.

You will need examples of similar cases where the adjudicator has made the decision that such an error wasn't a deliberate attempt to evade and the PCN should be cancelled. It can run both ways.

Both these are from a ChatGPT query and from FTLA cases

1. Basingstoke & Deane – Castons Yard / Castons Car Park

Appeal refused

Traffic Penalty Tribunal · 2025

This is a particularly close factual comparison, although it concerns two adjacent car parks rather than two street locations.

• The motorist parked at Castons Yard car park, location code 1914.
• She used RingGo but the app had preselected Castons Car Park, code 1908.
• The two car parks were approximately 30 metres apart, on opposite sides of the same road.
• Both had the same parking charges.
• The council acknowledged that it had received a payment matching the vehicle and time, but for the wrong location.
• The motorist explained that the mistake was inadvertent and that she had intended to pay.

The Traffic Penalty Tribunal adjudicator refused the appeal, treating the wrong location as a mitigating circumstance rather than a statutory ground of appeal.

Why it matters: This is a useful case to understand the potential difficulty with an argument based solely on having paid for a nearby location. Even where the locations are very close and the council has received the money, that alone does not guarantee success.

Redbridge – George Lane / The Shrubberies

Appeal allowed

London Tribunals · 9 January 2025

Case reference: 2240522705

Read the adjudicator's full decision

This is probably the most useful case for your circumstances.

The motorist parked on George Lane and used RingGo.

The relevant facts were:

• RingGo displayed location code 7176, which was 18 yards away.
• The next nearest location, code 7092, was 32 yards away.
• The motorist selected the nearest location presented by RingGo.
• The council argued that the location selected was The Shrubberies, rather than George Lane.
• The motorist provided evidence that The Shrubberies was actually part of George Lane.
• There was no pay-and-display machine at the location, so motorists relied on RingGo.

Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade allowed the appeal.

The particularly important reasoning was that although motorists must check they have selected the correct location, the enforcement authority also has a responsibility to ensure that parking restrictions are clear and adequately communicated.

The adjudicator said that, where the council relied on RingGo as its payment system, it was not unreasonable for a motorist to assume that the app would provide the correct information.

He concluded that he could not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that a contravention had occurred.

Why this matters: This is an actual successful adjudicator decision involving an app presenting a nearby but disputed parking location. The geographical proximity, the app's suggested location and the absence of alternative payment facilities were all relevant to the decision. 

Lucyxcxcxc

Thank you very much for your thought on this. SOunds like it may not be worth my time at the moment despite some successful precedents. My council is notoriously hardnosed and money grabbing. I really appreciate your response though. All best.