DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 121600--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: Hardwired7223
Date: June 12, 2026, 8:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> 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
>
> Where is this pl?
>
--- End Quote ---
The receipt is below:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/T5M9DMn_xl.jpeg
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> The Council submits that upon purchasing parking time
motorists are required to accurately enter the full vehicle
registration by using the correct letters/numbers on the keypad
(Evidence 17).
>
> 17. Photographs of keyboard at paystation
>
> ??
>
--- End Quote ---
Paystation & keyboard photos are below:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/FoehI0L_xl.png
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/0ksfZg0_xl.png
--- Quote ---
>
> The requirement to enter the VRM must be in the Order. If it
isn't and all it requires is payment, then this isn't at issue
and your appeal must be allowed.
>
> Where are items 19 and 20 pl?
>
--- End Quote ---
19 is here
HTML https://paperless-ngx.netgeneration.co.uk/share/TMzGim4uL4O1frCwjdu51pUGLAtuToT5L41g2n5s5MyyAPPhA7
20 is here
HTML https://paperless-ngx.netgeneration.co.uk/share/aOKOibeeRSG5ngNYZD1F8zdhhLKP7f4lNrwTY9KOcwgCKkFaVP
Apologies for not adding this all earlier.
#Post#: 121602--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: Hardwired7223
Date: June 12, 2026, 8:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Video Hearing has now been set for 14/07/2026.
#Post#: 121617--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 12, 2026, 10:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks.
Nothing in the receipt which confirms the entered VRM. What
exactly is the procedure and does it wholly rely on reading a
small screen in what might be questionable lighting conditions?
The pay machine does not include 'wrong reg' as a contravention
for which a penalty charge is payable.
I can't get into your links, if you just write the order's
citation I should be able to access through the TPT Traffic
Order library online.
#Post#: 121635--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: June 12, 2026, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So you look at the numberplate on the car, and you are offered
the below keyboard choice. On the numberplate, the zero and
letter O are identical. So what do you choose?
This is why some adjudicators allow appeals but not necessarily
if you are on notice for a second 'offence'.
Of course the traffic order must also be put to the test.
This thankfully is also 'only' a punt of £25, the lowest such
penalty in England and Wales.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/ccpvLkj4/image.png
#Post#: 121650--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: Hardwired7223
Date: June 12, 2026, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The ref for the case is MC00061-2606. Hopefully, this is what
you need. I will also update the previous posts with links that
work shortly.
Edit: Links updated.
#Post#: 121668--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 12, 2026, 5:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
27. Subject to Articles 29 and 35 of this Order, should no
indication appear on the hand held
device that payment of the parking charge has been made or an
indication that the parking
period for which payment of the parking charge was made has
expired it shall be presumed
unless the contrary is proved, that either -
(a) the parking charge has not been duly paid tn respect of that
vehicle, or
(b) the parking period for which payment of the parking charge
was made
has already expired, or
(c) the free parking period has not been registered, or
(d) the free parking period has expired.
But from what I can see, you have proved and they have accepted
'the contrary'.
This is about failure to comply with the provisions in an Order,
so which provision do they claim was breached given that they
accept that the 'owner' who they are pursuing paid.
Have they highlighted the provisions which they are drawing to
the adjudicator's attention?
#Post#: 124559--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: Hardwired7223
Date: July 13, 2026, 3:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> 27. Subject to Articles 29 and 35 of this Order, should no
indication appear on the hand held
> device that payment of the parking charge has been made or an
indication that the parking
> period for which payment of the parking charge was made has
expired it shall be presumed
> unless the contrary is proved, that either -
> (a) the parking charge has not been duly paid tn respect of
that vehicle, or
> (b) the parking period for which payment of the parking charge
was made
> has already expired, or
> (c) the free parking period has not been registered, or
> (d) the free parking period has expired.
>
> But from what I can see, you have proved and they have
accepted 'the contrary'.
>
> This is about failure to comply with the provisions in an
Order, so which provision do they claim was breached given that
they accept that the 'owner' who they are pursuing paid.
>
> Have they highlighted the provisions which they are drawing to
the adjudicator's attention?
>
--- End Quote ---
Coming back to this for pre-hearing cramming/prep...
I can't see that they have highligted the provisions but have
provided their statement on the matter here:
The Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) recorded that the vehicle
was parked in a pay-on-arrival car
park without payment for a parking session being made.
The information on the car park signage states that ‘A
parking session must be purchased at the
time of parking’ and a penalty charge notice will be issue
for being ‘Parked without payment of
the parking charge’ (Evidence 15-16).
The CEO carried out their observations and checked for a parking
payment on their handheld
computer, however a parking session for vehicle registration
FL15NFO could not be found
(Evidence 3).
The Council submits that the vehicle registration was entered as
FL15NF0 (zero) and not
FL15NFO:
The Council submits that upon purchasing parking time motorists
are required to accurately
enter the full vehicle registration by using the correct
letters/numbers on the keypad (Evidence
17).
A previous Penalty Charge Notice was cancelled when the vehicle
registration was incorrectly
entered and the appellant was advised that further Penalty
Charge Notices issued for the same
reason may not be cancelled (Evidence 21).
The Council is satisfied that the contravention occurred and the
registered keeper is liable for
the outstanding charge.
I've written out the following as my crib notes:
Points to mention in hearing:
A 0 can be used in place of a O as per in normal language
If there's a 0 on the keypad, it can be perceived as tripping
users up
They should not fetter discretion
There has been no loss by the mistake
The font on car number plates is exactly the same for zero and
letter O
The legislation doesn't indeed include zero so that the letter O
is used as a zero really shouldn't be allowed e.g. The number 1
is included but not the letter I and the letter is not used
presumably because of confusion but of course these two are also
still confused
The pay machine does not include 'wrong reg' as a contravention
for which a penalty charge is payable.
#Post#: 124562--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 13, 2026, 4:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Tney are mixing separate issues:
1.Was the PCN issued correctly based upon the CEO's knowledge?
Yes, there was no indication on their HHC that payment had been
made in respect of that vehicle?
2. Should the authority have rejected your reps HAVING ACCEPTED
that payment was made in respect of that vehicle based upon
evidence supplied by you to the authority which WAS NOT
AVAILABLE to the CEO?
IMO, no, the authority should have accepted your reps.
The contravention is for NOT PAYING, it is NOT for not inputting
a VRM and, as the Order makes clear, where payment in respect of
a vehicle is proved by means other the the VRM indicator then no
contravention occurs.
#Post#: 125825--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: Hardwired7223
Date: July 26, 2026, 8:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Apologies for not coming back sooner but I attended the hearing
and my appeal was rejected on the basis grounds that as the
council had already allowed the first appeal and given a
warning, they shouldn’t be expected to accept another. Sadly,
the adjudicator agreed.
I’ll post the full detail up here as soon as I get some time to
do so as I’ve been very busy lately. I do feel this is unfair
but unless the keypads or policies change, I can easily see
others falling foul of the same issue. It really does seem
unjust that the characters are available on the keyboards
without being valid but if the adjudicators see this as a valid
PCN, what hope if there of changing things?
#Post#: 125837--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 27, 2026, 4:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If we don't see the council's evidence pack, then this limits
what can be advised.
The law:
They[enforcement authorities] should approach the exercise of
discretion objectively and without regard to any financial
interest in the penalty or decisions that may have been taken at
an earlier stage in proceedings.
This is not in any regs, instead it's in the Secretary of
State's Statutory Guidance to which, by virtue of the TMA,
councils must have regard. Including this:
Authorities should formulate (with advice from their legal
department) and then publish their policies on the exercise of
discretion.
So, was their policy submitted or are we just dealing with the
whim and received wisdom of council officers?
Pl post the decision(the actual decision pl, not a transcript)
as soon as you're able.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page