Wrong Number, Right Car: How a Croydon Driver Won Her Parking Appeal — and What It Means for You

A Mistake Anyone Could Make

Picture this: you're trying to pay for parking on your phone, but the WiFi is patchy and the app won't load. You ring your son for help. He pays on your behalf — the right amount, for the right car park, at the right time. The only problem? He accidentally used your car's old registration number. A few weeks later, a Penalty Charge Notice drops through your letterbox.

That is exactly what happened to Mrs Babalola when she parked in the London Borough of Croydon. And here is the thing: she fought the fine — and she won.

This case is worth understanding in detail, because it highlights two completely separate legal principles that together demolished the council's case. It also raises a practical question that millions of drivers face every day: what happens when you pay correctly in every meaningful sense, but something goes slightly wrong with the paperwork?

What Happened

Mrs Babalola parked her car in a pay-to-park bay in Croydon. She struggled to connect to the WiFi in the area and could not download the parking app herself. She called her son, who was at work, and asked him to make the payment on her behalf using his own app.

Her son had previously saved her car's registration number in his app. However, unbeknown to him, the registration number stored was her old plate — the one the vehicle had before a DVLA-recorded number change. When he clicked to pay, he paid for the old registration, not the current one.

A Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) came along, checked the bay, found no valid payment linked to the current registration, and issued a Penalty Charge Notice for "parked without payment of the parking charge."

Mrs Babalola appealed. She had proof of payment, proof that the vehicle's registration had changed, and documentation from the DVLA confirming the two registrations referred to the same car. Crucially, the money had not been refunded — it was still sitting with the council.

The Arguments

What Mrs Babalola argued:

Her case was essentially this: the correct amount of money was paid, at the correct location, at the correct time, for the correct car — just under the wrong plate number. The error was an honest mistake made under difficult circumstances, the payment was genuine, and the council had retained the funds without refunding them.

She supported her appeal with:

• Proof of payment from her son's parking app
• DVLA documentation confirming the vehicle's registration had been changed
• Evidence linking the old and new registration numbers to the same physical car

What the council argued:

Croydon took a firm line. Its position was straightforward: the rules require the correct registration number to be entered when paying for parking. An incorrect registration means no valid payment, regardless of the circumstances. The council declined to use its discretion to cancel the PCN.

Notably, the council did not attend the hearing. It submitted written evidence only.

The Decision

The adjudicator allowed the appeal — meaning Mrs Babalola won and the Penalty Charge Notice was cancelled.

However, the reasoning is more nuanced than you might expect. The adjudicator did not simply say "she paid, so she wins." The decision rested on two distinct pillars, and understanding both is important.

The Legal Reasoning Explained

Pillar One: The Wrong Registration Number

The adjudicator accepted that Mrs Babalola's documents established a clear chain of evidence: payment was made, it was for this location and time, and the old registration referred to the same vehicle as the new one.

The council's argument — that the correct registration must always be entered — is not without merit in principle. Parking enforcement systems are built around registration numbers. They are how CEOs check whether a vehicle has paid. If you enter the wrong plate, the system shows no payment, and the officer issues a ticket. That is how the technology works.

However, the adjudicator had to weigh that technical breach against the reality of what happened: a genuine payment was made, money changed hands, and the council kept it. There was no evasion of the parking charge. The spirit of the requirement — that you pay to park — was met. The letter of it — entering the exact current plate — was not.

This argument alone might or might not have been sufficient to win the appeal. But the adjudicator had a second, arguably stronger, ground to rely on.

Pillar Two: The Signage Was Illegible

This is where the case becomes particularly instructive. Under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the associated Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations, a local authority must demonstrate that its parking restrictions were properly and legibly signed. It is not enough to say a sign existed — the sign must have adequately communicated the parking conditions to drivers.

The CEO's photographs, submitted as the council's own evidence, showed the car parked near a sign plate. But the image of that sign was blurred and illegible. The adjudicator could not read the terms of parking from the photographic evidence provided.

This matters enormously. The burden of proof in a parking appeal lies with the council, not the driver. The council must prove the contravention occurred. If it cannot show that the signage adequately communicated the parking conditions — including, presumably, the requirement to enter a correct registration number — then its case falls apart.

In plain English: the council's own photographs were too blurry to read. That meant the adjudicator could not confirm that the rules were properly displayed. The council failed to prove its own case.

This is a well-established principle in parking tribunal decisions. Councils invest significant effort in photographing vehicles and issuing notices, but the quality of their signage evidence is sometimes overlooked. When it is poor, it can be fatal to the authority's case.

Lessons for Drivers

1. Keep evidence of every parking payment

Screenshots, email confirmations, app receipts — save them all. If something goes wrong, your evidence of payment is your most powerful tool. Mrs Babalola won partly because she could prove payment had been made.

2. If someone else pays on your behalf, double-check the registration

It is increasingly common for family members or colleagues to pay for parking remotely. If someone else is making the payment, confirm they are using your current registration number. A quick text message with your plate could have avoided this entire situation.

3. Challenge blurred or illegible signage evidence

When you receive a PCN, you are entitled to request the council's evidence pack. This will include the CEO's photographs. If the signage in those images is unclear, blurred, or unreadable, that is a legitimate ground of appeal. The council must prove the signs were adequate — if the photos do not show that, say so.

4. Councils must prove their case — you do not have to prove your innocence

The legal burden sits with the authority. If the council's evidence is incomplete, contradictory, or simply of poor quality, the adjudicator cannot find in its favour. Always look critically at what the council has actually submitted, not just what it claims.

5. Retained payments strengthen your position

If the council has kept your payment and not refunded it, that is a significant factor. It is difficult for an authority to argue you did not pay while simultaneously holding your money.

The Key Takeaway

A parking fine is not automatically valid just because you made a technical error — the council still has to prove its case with proper evidence.

Mrs Babalola's win came from two directions at once: her own strong documentation, and the council's failure to produce legible signage photographs. Either issue could have been decisive on its own. Together, they made the appeal unanswerable.

The lesson for every driver is this: do not assume a PCN is correct simply because it arrived in an official envelope. Look at the evidence. Check the signs in the photographs. Gather your own proof. The tribunal process exists precisely for situations like this — and as this case shows, it can and does work.