DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 114975--------------------------------------------------
Ealing, 12r - parked in bay without valid permit. Wrong number
Plate on App
DIR By: iispartan
Date: March 31, 2026, 2:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Again on behalf of a friend.
She parked and paid for a session on the app for a day
(screenshot to prove), however realised that she had entered the
wrong number plate on the app. For reference, the number plate
is L14ENM, but she entered LI4ENM (hard to distinguish this on
the app).
She appealed informally however this was rejected. Now she has
received an NtO and wondering whether it’s worth going all the
way and on what grounds. Obviously this was a genuine mistake, a
session was paid for so no revenue loss to the council and
number plate was different by one digit so feels excessive.
Appreciate any advice.
All pics in attached link:
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/yTFI3Af
Also pasting below her initial appeal:
I had paid for the full day on the pay by phone app for this
vehicle. Details in screenshot. I realise there was letter wrong
on the number plate as I have only recently been insured and
started using this vehicle as my previous one has been sent back
. I entered the letter I instead of number 1 on the app by
mistake . I realised this error as went to look for a way to
correct it on the pay by phone app as payment for the full day
parking had already gone through however before I found a
solution at 9.05 I already had a ticket. I spoke to the ticket
warden who issued the ticket and showed her my payment and
receipt through the app and she said if I appeal the ticket this
fine would be cancelled. Please help as it was an innocent
mistake and I do have records of paying and doing the right
thing to be parked there
#Post#: 114978--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 12r - parked in bay without valid permit. Wrong
number Plate on App
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 31, 2026, 4:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We see the O (Oscar) and 0 zero issue a lot as the VRM font is
identical and some adjudicators allow this.
I (India) and 1 (one) are also identical in the VRM font but I
(India) is not used in VRMs but how would you know that.
They say you should check on the app but I just tried with
Ringgo and the font is identical for I/1... I'll try with
Paybyphone tomorrow.
They also have a duty to act fairly.
As it's at NTO dated 30/3 plenty of time to work up reps.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/35MQWX16/afu-Mg-IB-xl.jpg
#Post#: 115001--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 12r - parked in bay without valid permit. Wrong
number Plate on App
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: April 1, 2026, 3:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have now looked at the contravention and the council evidence
is she was in a permit bay not a pay bay or shared use bay.
The 12r code though should be a code 16 as the parking sign just
says permit holders - but the r suffix for residents bay is
correct with code 12 so this isn't going to win IMO.
So the question is was this a visitors permit or did she just
park in a permit bay by mistake thinking it was a public pay
bay.
Also if no visitor permit we can check if the bay she was in did
allow public parking but I can't see any such bays on Sutherland
Road.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/ch6c7LZS/Screenshot-2026-04-01-at-09-48-18.png
HTML https://i.ibb.co/sdC1WqqY/Screenshot-2026-04-01-at-09-47-47.png
#Post#: 115077--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 12r - parked in bay without valid permit. Wrong
number Plate on App
DIR By: iispartan
Date: April 1, 2026, 5:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
She paid for a visitors permit, I believe the screenshot also
shows this in the link I attached.
#Post#: 115169--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 12r - parked in bay without valid permit. Wrong
number Plate on App
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: April 3, 2026, 9:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK so the permit was valid bar the I instead of a 1. These are
identical on a numberplate and if you type in the reg the I is
accepted on the app (I checked) so you wouldn't know you'd done
anything wrong.
I'll suggest reps later and will find a relevant case if poss.
#Post#: 115497--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 12r - parked in bay without valid permit. Wrong
number Plate on App
DIR By: iispartan
Date: April 10, 2026, 2:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks a lot. I’m happy to start drafting reps, if you could
point me to the right cases then that would be helpful
#Post#: 115735--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 12r - parked in bay without valid permit. Wrong
number Plate on App
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: April 13, 2026, 12:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've pasted some cases below (one refused, some on O/0) and
highlighted bits.
I've also looked at the law on the numberplate font and what's
interesting is that the number zero isn't there presumably
because it's the same as the letter O, and the number 1 is there
but not letter I (which I think is still used in Northern
Ireland but not sure).
The point stands that you can enter the letter I instead of 1
and pay by phone system will accept it - you can try a dummy
session with the app and take screenshots of what happens and
whether the character I looks any different from the numeral one
on the VRM font.
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/561/schedule/4
HTML https://i.ibb.co/XZZL1ckX/Screenshot-2026-04-13-at-18-40-25.png
----------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Reasons
location at 11.26am for one hour until 12.26 pm. I used the
PayBy Phone App.'
According to the Authority ‘A wrong VRM was used to make a
payment to park. Letter I was used instead of number 1. It is
the motorist’s responsibility to ensure the correct VRM is used
when paying for parking.’
There is no realistic prospect that another car was parked ,
that Mr Corner gained any unfair benefit or that the Council
lost money or suffered any real inconvenience.
The Council has relied on a distinction without a difference.
This is a trifling matter. The law is not concerned with a
trifle.
The appeal is allowed.
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Owner.
Reasons
Exchange, accompanied by his daughter, who gave evidence on his
behalf. Mr Ali, for the council, attended the hearing via
telephone. The contravention alleged in these proceedings was
that this vehicle was parked in a permit space without a valid
permit. There was no dispute that although a visitor parking
permit had been obtained for the vehicle via RingGo, it was
purchased against vehicle registration mark RJ140LR. The
registration mark of this vehicle as shown on its plates is
RJ14OLR. On the council's case, as put by Mr Ali, the permit
that was obtained did not provide cover for the vehicle against
its registration mark given the digit '0' was used instead of
the letter 'O'. I acknowledged what is said, but in Regulation
15 of, and Schedule 4 to, The Road Vehicles (Display of
Registration Marks) Regulations 2001, the prescribed font
provides that the letter ‘O’ and the digit ‘0’ are identical,
(as are the letter ‘I’ and the digit ‘1’). That being so I was
not satisfied that this vehicle was parked without a valid
permit where required and I accordingly found that the
contravention did not occur.
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Reasons
person. The authority did not appear.
The main question to be considered is whether the authority has
complied with its duty to act fairly.
The Appellant’s case is that payment of the parking charge was
made in full, except that the digit ‘0’was entered instead of
the letter ‘O’.
The case of the authority is that it is the driver’s
responsibility to ensure that the letter ‘O’ should have been
entered instead of the digit ‘0’.
In Regulation 15 of, and Schedule 4 to, the Road Vehicles
(Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 the prescribed
font provides that the letter ‘O’ and the digit ‘0’ are
identical, as are the letter ‘I’ and the digit ‘1’.
I am unable to be satisfied that the authority has complied with
its duty to act fairly because it has failed to consider
Regulation 15 of, and Schedule 4 to, the Road Vehicles (Display
of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001.
It is the authority’s responsibility to ensure that when
collecting payment for the parking charge the computer program
is such that it ensures that that the letter ‘O’ and the digit
‘0’ are identical, as are the letter ‘I’ and the digit ‘1’ so
that the parking charge can be allocated to the correct vehicle
registration, location and duration of parking and thereby avoid
the issuing of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) as in this case.
I am unable to be satisfied that the authority has complied with
its duty to act fairly.
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Reasons
person. The authority did not appear.
The main question to be considered is whether the authority has
complied with its duty to act fairly.
The Appellant’s case is that payment of the parking charge was
made in full, except that the digit ‘0’was entered instead of
the letter ‘O’.
The case of the authority is that it is the driver’s
responsibility to ensure that the letter ‘O’ should have been
entered instead of the digit ‘0’.
In Regulation 15 of, and Schedule 4 to, the Road Vehicles
(Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 the prescribed
font provides that the letter ‘O’ and the digit ‘0’ are
identical, as are the letter ‘I’ and the digit ‘1’.
I am unable to be satisfied that the authority has complied with
its duty to act fairly because it has failed to consider
Regulation 15 of, and Schedule 4 to, the Road Vehicles (Display
of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001.
It is the authority’s responsibility to ensure that when
collecting payment for the parking charge the computer program
is such that it ensures that that the letter ‘O’ and the digit
‘0’ are identical, as are the letter ‘I’ and the digit ‘1’ so
that the parking charge can be allocated to the correct vehicle
registration, location and duration of parking and thereby avoid
the issuing of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) as in this case.
I am unable to be satisfied that the authority has complied with
its duty to act fairly.
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Reasons
Ms Blatchley submitted ‘I did pay for parking using RingGo and
made a genuine effort to follow the rules. However, the vehicle
registration was mistakenly entered as LL67X0X instead of
LL67XOX due to a small input error over the phone. This was not
intentional, and payment was made for the correct location and
time. Additionally, RingGo usually saves and prompts you to
repark the same vehicle, so I believed the correct details were
in use. I respectfully request that this be considered a minor
error made in good faith.’
Ms Blatchley provided a receipt.
The Council accepts that the said mistake solely caused the
alleged contravention. It received payment.
This is a trifling mistake. The law is not concerned with a
trifle.
Further,’ 0’ and ‘o’ are used interchangeably in the English
language.
HTML https://www.dictionary.com/browse/o
‘o
/ əʊ /
noun
1.
alphabet
2.
English as in code, pot, cow, move, or form
3.
The appeal is allowed.
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
within 28 days.
Reasons
Appellant’s Authorised Representative. The Authority did not
attend and had not been expected to. Ms Astley confirmed receipt
of the Authority's evidence pack. I reserved my decision, which
is set out below.
2. Ms Astley explained that, in summary, the Appellant was
carrying out work at a property for a Mr Davidson. Mr Davidson
purchased a visitor's permit on 18 June 2025 for the vehicle at
10:12 for two hours. The Appellant and Mr Davidson have now
realised that Mr Davidson mistakenly entered an uppercase "I"
instead of the digit "1" when inputting the Appellant's vehicle
registration mark (VRM) on the RingGo app. Ms Astley submitted
that the Authority had not responded to Mr Davidson's
representations within 56 days, and that Mr Davidson had been
unable to reach anyone at the Authority by telephone to clarify
the reason why the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued. Ms
Astley has provided a statement from Mr Davidson, copies of the
permit purchased, correspondence with the Authority and a
document showing different fonts used by RingGo and the
Authority, in which "I" and "1" appear identical.
3. Ms Astley said that she did not feel the matter should have
got to this stage. The alleged contravention occurred as the
result of a genuine mistake. There was no intention to avoid
payment, Mr Davidson and the Appellant believed a valid permit
had been obtained. The Authority is not out of pocket, the
permit was valid for the location, time and date. Ms Astley said
that the penalty was disproportionate and the Appellant was
being treated as if he had intentionally tried to evade the
charge. The Authority is not acting fairly or reasonably in its
decision not to exercise its discretion. Ms Astley relied on her
written submissions and evidence and I reserved my decision to
considered all of the written submissions and evidence provided
by Ms Astley on the Appellant's behalf before reaching my
decision.
4. The PCN was issued at 10:16 on 18 June 2025. The photographs
taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) show the
Appellant’s vehicle parked in a bay and the relevant sign, which
advises that from Monday to Friday parking is for resident
permit holders only from 10am to Noon. The CEO's notes record
that RingGo was checked and no permit was found. In the
circumstances that they observed, the CEO was entitled to issue
a PCN as the vehicle was parked in a bay during its hours of
restriction without a valid permit.
5. In its Case Summary the Authority acknowledges that there was
a RingGo session purchased for the relevant time, but that
vehicle HN7IUTJ was paid for instead of HN71UTJ. The Authority
refers to the Service terms and conditions for purchasing
permits on RingGo. The Authority has highlighted the relevant
part, which sets out at Section 3 that the motorist/service user
is:
"responsible for providing all of the necessary and correct
details for your parking action, such as vehicle number plate
... The details you provide about your parking action are key
for us to correctly process your parking fees. You alone are
responsible for providing us with the correct details for your
parking action and you will be responsible for paying any
penalty charge or parking fee issued as a result of incorrect
parking action details... incorrect use might
lead to penalty charges"
6. Based on the evidence before me I accept Ms Astley's account
of events in full and I accept that there was a genuine error
when entering the VRM, and there was no intention to avoid
payment. Indeed, a parking session was purchased for the
relevant date and time, albeit for VRM HN7IUTJ and not HN71UTJ,
which was the vehicle that was parked. However, the Authority’s
position is correct in law. The session purchased by Mr Davidson
was not valid as it was not purchased for the Appellant's
correct VRM. Therefore, as a matter of fact, a contravention
occurred.
7. The fact that the Authority did receive payment for parking,
albeit for registration number HN7IUTJ, is not a basis upon
which I can allow this appeal. The circumstances described by Ms
Astley, the Appellant and Mr Davidson are mitigating
circumstances. Mitigating circumstances do not amount to a
statutory ground of appeal. They provide mitigation as to why
the contravention occurred; they do not "undo" the contravention
itself. The Adjudicator is unable to allow an appeal on the
basis of mitigating circumstances. It is only the Authority is
able to exercise its discretion and cancel a PCN on the basis of
mitigating circumstances, and it has decided not to do so on
this occasion. This is not a decision that I can interfere with.
Procedural impropriety
8. Procedural impropriety occurs where there is a failure by an
Authority to observe any requirement imposed upon it by (a) the
Traffic Management Act 2004, (b) the General Regulations, or (c)
the Appeals Regulations.
9. Ms Astley has provided Mr Davidson's email to the Authority,
sent on 18 June. The email challenged the PCN and the
Authority's automated reply stated that a response would be
provided within 56 days.
10. The Authority has also provided the correspondence between
the parties, which shows the Appellant's submission to the
Authority. This submission is undated, but refers to Mr
Davidson's earlier email. The Appellant's submissions must have
been sent after receipt of the Notice to Owner dated 17 July
2025. The Notice of Rejection was then issued on 20 August 2025.
11. In the Appellant's updated letter to the Tribunal, filed on
7 December, he states that Mr Davidson did not receive a reply
to his email of 18 June until 11 September, after the 56 days.
12. The 56-day statutory deadline for an Authority to respond to
representations refers to the "formal representations", in this
case it means the representations received after service of a
Notice to Owner. Mr Davidson's email of 18 June would be
considered an "informal representation". It appears that it was
not linked to this case, as it was from a third party and not
the Appellant. The Authority's 11 September response to that
email, which is not before me, would not be subject to the
56-day statutory deadline. The response was evidently sent after
the deadline stated in the automated reply, but this delay does
not constitute a procedural impropriety based on which I could
allow this appeal.
13. The evidence before me shows that the Authority complied
with the 56 day time limit as the Appellant's formal
representations had to have been made after the Notice to Owner,
dated 17 July, and the Notice of Rejection was issued 35 days
later.
Conclusion
14. I have found that the contravention occurred. The Appellant
and Ms Astley have not established a statutory ground of appeal.
I am therefore bound to refuse this appeal.
#Post#: 115749--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 12r - parked in bay without valid permit. Wrong
number Plate on App
DIR By: iispartan
Date: April 13, 2026, 1:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks for the cases - very useful. I’ve drafted the below.
Would appreciate if you could review. My friend is going abroad
on Friday for 2 weeks so would like to submit reps before she
goes.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: PCN [INSERT NUMBER]
Vehicle Registration: L14ENM
I wish to challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.
At the time of parking, I paid in full for the required parking
session using the PayByPhone app. However a minor keying error
when entering my vehicle registration number, inputting “LI4ENM”
instead of “L14ENM” resulted in the PCN being issued. This arose
because the characters “I” (capital i) and “1” (one) are
visually indistinguishable in the font used.
I submit that the PCN should be cancelled for the following
reasons:
1. A valid payment was made – no loss to the authority
Payment was made for the correct location, time and duration.
There has been no financial loss, no unfair advantage, and no
misuse of the parking system.
2. This is a minor keying error (de minimis)
The error involves a single character substitution that is
visually identical.
This position is supported by tribunal decisions:
- Case reference 2250021604 (Peter Corner v London Borough of
Barnet, the adjudicator held that “there is no realistic
prospect that another car was parked, that Mr Corner gained any
unfair benefit or that the Council lost money… This is a
trifling matter. The law is not concerned with a trifle.”
Similarly, in Florence Blatchley v London Borough of Haringey
the adjudicator found a similar VRM input error to be:
“a trifling mistake. The law is not concerned with a trifle.”
3. Identical characters in law (I = 1 / O = 0)
In Jonathan Peter Holl v London Borough of Brent, the
adjudicator relied on Regulation 15 and Schedule 4 of the Road
Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001,
noting that the prescribed font makes the letter “I” and the
digit “1” identical.
Similarly, in Oliver Smart v Royal Borough of Kingston upon
Thames, the adjudicator held that authorities must act fairly
where such indistinguishable characters are involved, and that
systems should account for this.
4. Duty of fairness and proportionality
The tribunal has made clear that enforcement authorities must
act fairly and proportionately, particularly where:
- payment has been made in full, and
- the only issue is a trivial input error.
Penalising a motorist in these circumstances would be
disproportionate and contrary to the principles applied in the
above cases.
5. The payment can clearly be linked to my vehicle
The near-identical VRM, combined with matching time, location
and payment record, clearly demonstrates that the parking
session relates to my vehicle.
---
In light of the above, I request that the PCN be cancelled.
I have enclosed evidence of payment to support this appeal along
with proof that the two digits appear identical in the app.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 116009--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 12r - parked in bay without valid permit. Wrong
number Plate on App
DIR By: iispartan
Date: April 15, 2026, 1:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Any thoughts on draft? Hoping to send off tonight
#Post#: 116019--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 12r - parked in bay without valid permit. Wrong
number Plate on App
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: April 15, 2026, 3:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It covers most things but I would also address their rejection
about the app prompting to get it right, as I assume it just
confirms what you can see on the numberplate!But testing it
would confirm.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page