URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 116705--------------------------------------------------
       Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
       (0/O) in Arndale Car Park
   DIR By: Hardwired7223
       Date: April 22, 2026, 10:23 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       My wife received this as the keeper of the car for an alleged
       contravention on 20/02/2026 (MC04774743). The last digit of the
       reg was entered as a 0 instead of an O. She had previously
       received a PCN for the same issue on 10/12/2025 (MC04614190) and
       it was cancelled after an informal appeal with the council's
       response stating,
       "On this occasion, I am satisfied that you had paid for your
       parking time and your (PCN) has now been cancelled. Please be
       aware should you receive another ticket for the same reason we
       may not be able to cancel it."
       The informal appeal (on two attempts) on the second PCN was
       rejected with them saying,
       "We wrote to you to advise you that future PCNs may not be
       cancelled, as such this PCN will not be cancelled. I have
       carefully considered your case and I am satisfied that your PCN
       was issued correctly, and as such, I have taken the decision not
       to cancel it."
       We both think it's outrageous to get a fine when there's been no
       attempt to avoid paying for parking and it's only been triggered
       due to honest manual error. We decided not to pay the discounted
       rate and wait for the NTO to arrive so we can challenge it
       formally. This arrived a couple of weeks ago. I've seen that
       there has been at least one other case
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/nasty-review-of-0o-mistake-on-vrm/msg74126/#msg74126<br
       />where the appeal was rejected by an adjudicator for a similar
       issue so I'm just coming here (admittedly quite late on in the
       process as I didn't know about the forum before yesterday), for
       some advice on how best to proceed.
       Here are the docs thus far:
       The latest PCN (MC04774743):
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/VpFH8cg_xl.jpg
       The first informal appeal rejection letter:
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/r7xJVib_xl.jpg
       The second informal appeal rejection letter (which was also sent
       to us in the post):
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/rSpzCcF_xl.jpg
       NTO:
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/pQaomnO_xl.jpg
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/eIggpZp_xl.jpg
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/tZ5gEMu_xl.jpg
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/m6N4Cam_xl.jpg
       For background, the acceptance of the first informal appeal
       letter:
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/JU7RzCo_xl.jpg
       Apologies for not coming here first before challenging the
       ticket informally and also not coming here until I have a
       reduced number of days to submit my formal appeal (I believe I
       have 28 days from the issuing of the NTO to do so, so by 11th
       May 2026).
       Any guidance you can provide here would be appreciated about the
       best action to take.
       #Post#: 116723--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
       (0/O) in Arndale Car Park
   DIR By: stamfordman
       Date: April 22, 2026, 12:16 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       There is a duty not to fetter discretion - applying a rule not
       to consider a subsequent PCN afresh - but they did put you on
       notice of probably not cancelling for the same error and this
       may be in a policy.
       In fact we see councils increasingly not even letting people off
       with a first time trivial error.
       That said, the earlier cancellation says they were satisfied you
       paid, and the contravention is not paying, but you did so the
       contravention did not occur although they may well have a
       traffic order saying payment must be for a specific vehicle.
       How was the mistake made? Was the car wrongly set up on a pay by
       phone app or was it at a machine.
       
       #Post#: 116726--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
       (0/O) in Arndale Car Park
   DIR By: Hardwired7223
       Date: April 22, 2026, 12:49 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The reg was entered in a machine at the site, so is prone to
       error since not in an app, but even so it's a simple mistake to
       make (in my mind). I'd even go as far as suggesting the machine
       should be smart enough to validate whether the right character
       format (i.e. number or letter) has been entered, but this is
       just in my pre-problem-solving head.
       #Post#: 117804--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
       (0/O) in Arndale Car Park
   DIR By: Hardwired7223
       Date: May 5, 2026, 6:46 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Ok, so I'm planning to send my appeal in today, stating
       something around the following (drafted with the help of an AI
       LLM):
       Parking Services – Manchester City Council
       Reference:
       - MC04774743 (issued&#8239;20&#8239;Feb&#8239;2026)
       
       Formal Appeal – Cancellation of MC04774743
       
       Dear Sir/Madam,
       
       I am writing to formally appeal against MC04774743, issued to
       the vehicle registered FL15NFO on 20&#8239;February&#8239;2026
       at the Arndale Car Park. I respectfully request that this notice
       be cancelled on the following grounds.
       
       Grounds for Appeal
       - Previous Cancellation for an Identical Error – The same
       registration&#8209;entry mistake (0&#8239;vs&#8239;O) led to an
       earlier PCN, which was cancelled after an informal appeal with
       the council’s written confirmation: “I am satisfied that you had
       paid for your parking time and your PCN has now been cancelled.”
       
       - No Loss to the Council – Regulations allows for cancellation
       if the contravention was not committed. Here, the vehicle paid
       for the allotted parking period, so no contravention occurred.
       
       - Payment for Parking was Completed – Attached receipt shows
       full payment for the 20&#8239;Feb&#8239;2026 session was made at
       the Arndale Car Park machine on 20&#8239;Feb&#8239;2026 at
       10:12&#8239;am, within the allotted time. The council requires a
       PCN only when the vehicle has not paid or has exceeded the paid
       period; neither condition applies.
       
       - Reasonable and Honest Mistake – The mistake—substituting the
       digit “0” for the letter “O” is a common, foreseeable error when
       entering registration details manually. Under the [i]reasonable
       person_ test and the principle of _fairness_ detailed in the
       Local Government Regulations, such a mistake should not attract
       a financial penalty.
       
       - Council’s Own Precedent – The council has already demonstrated
       that, in cases of a simple registration entry error coupled with
       payment, a PCN can be cancelled. Refusing to honour this
       precedent in the current case contradicts the council’s stated
       practice and undermines consistency in enforcement.
       
       - Alignment with Council’s Enforcement Policy – The Manchester
       City Council Parking Services Annual Report 2024–25 (p.&#8239;8)
       emphasises that enforcement must be “reasonable and
       proportionate”, support safe and sustainable transport
       solutions, and deliver an equitable, neighbourhood&#8209;focused
       service. Imposing a fine for a non&#8209;contravention would
       conflict with these commitments.
       
       Evidence Provided
       - Proof of payment for the 20&#8239;Feb&#8239;2026 session
       (receipt/online confirmation).
       
       Request
       Given the abovw, I respectfully request that:
       
       1. MC04774743 be cancelled in its entirety.
       
       2. No penalty fee, late&#8209;payment fee, or any other charge
       be applied.
       
       I am prepared to provide any further documentation or attend an
       adjudication hearing if required. Please acknowledge receipt of
       this appeal and advise of the next steps.
       
       Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
       
       Yours faithfully,
       
       [Name]
       
       Attachments
       1. Copy of the earlier PCN and its cancellation letter.
       
       2. Proof of payment for 20&#8239;Feb&#8239;2026.
       [/i]
       Any help/guidance would be gratefully received.
       #Post#: 118695--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
       (0/O) in Arndale Car Park
   DIR By: Hardwired7223
       Date: May 14, 2026, 10:39 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       So, today I received a rejection letter. I'm thinking to go for
       the appeal to an independent adjudicator. Thoughts?<br><br>
       Here is the letter:<br><br>
       Here are the docs:<br>
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/thiBk4l_xl.jpg<br>
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/EOjoXMX_xl.jpg<br>
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/YJjalfp_xl.jpg<br>
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Tn3aDVb_xl.jpg<br>
  HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/EnN05Ul_xl.jpg<br>
       #Post#: 118705--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
       (0/O) in Arndale Car Park
   DIR By: fraser.mitchell
       Date: May 14, 2026, 1:26 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The official font for number plates has no character for '0'
       (zero), the letter 'O' is used instead, so I would take them to
       TPT, but be aware the full PCN penalty will be in play.
       #Post#: 118780--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
       (0/O) in Arndale Car Park
   DIR By: stamfordman
       Date: May 15, 2026, 11:28 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The discount is gone so you may as well appeal.
       I think you may lose if they contest as you were on notice but
       as I said they have a duty not to fetter discretion.
       If so the adjudicator may consider it trivial.
       --------
       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
       hearing. The Council did not attend and was not represented.
       Mrs Keating’s written appeal stated’ My son the driver of the
       vehicle at the time suffers from ADHD and has very mild learning
       disabilities. And takes various important documents with him .
       Like for example the V11 tax reminder form . It shows clearly on
       this government form the difference between a O and 0 .
       When you look at this form the number plate clearly shows an O ,
       not a 0 (zero) this is what my son uses to put his registration
       in . This is massive error on the DVLA part . That is the reason
       for this appeal on both tickets , my son did not do anything
       wrong .’
       I could not discern the difference on the V11 document.
       The Council evidence, including the photographs and notes of the
       civil enforcement officer , establishes that the car
       registration plate reads ‘LG09 RVK’.
       The Council submitted ‘ although a payment for parking was made
       through RingGo, this was for vehicle registration LGO9RVK
       (letter O) and not for LG09RVK (number 0). It is the
       responsibility of the driver to ensure they make payment for the
       correct vehicle registration. Whilst we appreciate that payment
       for parking had been made at the time of the contravention, as
       this parking session was allocated the wrong VRM, the parked
       vehicle did not have a valid parking session, thus the
       contravention is deemed to have occurred.’
       The Ringgo text issued to Mr Keating junior’s phone read ‘LG09
       RVK’.
       There is no realistic prospect that another car was parked ,
       that Mr Keating gained any unfair benefit or that the Council
       lost money or suffered any real inconvenience.
       The Concise Oxford English Dictionary page 984 reads:
       ‘O.. the fifteenth letter in the alphabet……….. also zero (in a
       series of numerals, especially when spoken’
       The Council relies on a blurred distinction without a real
       difference.
       This is a trifling matter. The law is not concerned with a
       trifle
       ------------
       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
       being parked in a resident's or shared use parking bay or zone
       in Grange Park Road without a valid virtual permit or without
       clearly displaying a valid physical permit or voucher or pay and
       display ticket where required or without payment of the parking
       charge.
       I have looked at the CEO's photographs and these show that Dr
       Eslami's car was parked in a permit holder only parking bay
       during controlled hours. Dr Eslami has explained that he was
       given a courtesy car while his own vehicle was being repaired
       and that he had changed the registration on the permit. It is
       not in dispute that Dr Eslami has a resident's permit. The
       Council says that the incorrect vehicle registration had been
       entered for the courtesy car because the registration was
       entered as KF23 OHX instead of KF23 0HX. The “O” and the “0”
       were interchanged.
       The keyboard entry 0 may denote a zero but it may, in my
       judgement, properly be read in the alternative as a letter and
       the same applies the other way round. If someone wrote 0, it
       could properly be read as a zero or as the letter of the
       alphabet. I find that the alleged contravention did not occur.
       #Post#: 118797--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
       (0/O) in Arndale Car Park
   DIR By: NorthernUpholder
       Date: May 15, 2026, 3:03 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Manchester is not the only council that lets people off for
       making an error once.
       I think the principle is that if you make the mistake once, they
       let you off and you should treat it as a warning to be more
       careful in future, and a prompt to learn from their mistake and
       be less careless in future.
       #Post#: 120505--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
       (0/O) in Arndale Car Park
   DIR By: Hardwired7223
       Date: June 3, 2026, 3:49 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thanks for the responses. I'm going to submit the appeal today.
       I've come up with the below:
       [BR]
       • At 09:15 on 20/02/26, my wife successfully made the required
       parking payment via the parking payment machine in the Arndale
       Car Park
       • The payment was successful, and I have attached a photo of the
       Visa payment receipt for the transaction that was issued by the
       machine at the time
       • Despite the payment being made at 09:15, she was issued the
       PCN at 09:52, claiming non-payment of the parking charge.
       • According to the Council the registration that was entered was
       FL15 NF0 instead of FL15 NFO. The “O” and the “0” were
       interchanged.
       • The keyboard entry 0 may denote a zero but it may properly be
       read in the alternative as a letter and the same applies the
       other way round. If someone wrote 0, it could properly be read
       as a zero or as the letter of the alphabet, so I believe it to
       be unfair to penalise someone for a valid entry that anyone
       could honestly use at any time
       • If the zero entry is not allowed, it should not be available
       as a button to press on the parking machine or it should be
       adjusted such that pressing a zero adds the correct 'O'
       character to avoid such situations and confusion
       • My wife did not gain any unfair benefit from parking here as
       the payment was made in good faith and so the Council lost no
       money or suffered any real inconvenience
       Do you think it's worth me mentioning that they let us off in
       the first instance, to show that if it's ok once, it should be
       each time after that? in my mind I think it unfair but the
       adjudicator might see that point differently.
       #Post#: 120516--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
       (0/O) in Arndale Car Park
   DIR By: stamfordman
       Date: June 3, 2026, 4:44 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Yes you should mention the previous PCN as it's in their
       rejection.
       I would just say:
       Regarding the previous PCN, I understand you have a duty not to
       fetter discretion and must look at each case afresh. On our part
       we will take steps to ensure this error with the identical
       character won't happen again.
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 5
   DIR Next Page