DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 125858--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: Hardwired7223
Date: July 27, 2026, 6:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is the decision info:
"Mr [REDACTED] attended a remote hearing before me today. The
Council were represented by Mr Cahill.
In summary appeal submissions, Mr [REDACTED] states:
“• 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
• 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, notwithstanding the
comments about the issues with the keyboard and characters that
can be pressed when entering a licence plate number in the car
park.”
3. In correspondence the Council explained:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/7GOPsxR_xl.png
4. In their submissions the Council also state:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/w36Nb2u_xl.png
5. The relevant TRO provides that the vehicle’s
registration must be entered in order for exemption to apply:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/87T6vFS_xl.png
6. Whilst I accept that the incorrect entry of a VIN is
an easy mistake to make, I am bound to conclude that payment for
parking time was not made in respect of the specific
registration of the vehicle in question and such that the
contravention did occur.
7. Unlike the Council, the Adjudicator has no power to
cancel a penalty notice on the basis of mitigating circumstances
alone. The Council does not have to prove “intent”
to commit a contravention. Whilst I accept this was a genuine
mistake, the Council were entitled – in the exercise of
their discretion – to take account of that fact that they
had waived a PCN issued to the same vehicle on 10 December 2025
at the same location and in respect of which the same mistake
– and with an express written warning that should the same
circumstances arise again that the PCN may not be waived.
8. I must accordingly dismiss the appeal."
I haven't paid the ticket yet but I'm not given any option other
than paying the fine when looking at the Tribunal site.
#Post#: 125862--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 27, 2026, 6:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You would have been better served by coming on this forum before
going to the TPT.
We see lots of these 0/O errors and what some adjudicators at
TPT seem to be completely ignorant of, is the fact that the
offical font for number plates does not include the number '0',
the letter O is to be used instead. I suggest you request a
review of the decision stating that the adjudicator is
uninformed on the error made and point out that the official
font for numberplates does not have the number '0', the letter
'O' is to be used instead. Therefore the PCN should not have
been served until a check had been made using the alternative
character.
I have to say that some adjudicators at TPT seem to be woefully
ignorant of many aspects of motoring law, and hopefully will
move on soon to make way for those that are prepared to make
themselves aware of all aspects of motoring law. The public
should surely expect nothing less.
#Post#: 125868--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 27, 2026, 7:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You didn't pick up the point I made about the numberplate and
translating it to the keyboard. The VRM font looks more like a
zero on that keyboard than a letter O.
#Post#: 125905--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 27, 2026, 10:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I asked that you post the actual decision letter, is this not
possible?
I have no idea when your window for requesting a review ends.
And pl post all the TRO which was submitted in evidence by the
council.
As I explained in post #25, the alleged contravention is
'non-payment' it is NOT failing to insert the correct VRM.
That part of the TRO which deals with what evidence constitutes
failure to pay is NOT 25, it's 27.
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 in respect of that
vehicle,
I can only see 25 in what you've posted.
IMO,
If 27 was presented, then the adjudicator reached a conclusion
which was not supported by the evidence, or
If 27 was not presented, then you have 'interests of justice'
grounds because this and only this establishes the alleged
contravention and it was withheld by the council.
#Post#: 125929--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 27, 2026, 2:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
And today, I came up behind a car with registration starting
'OOOn abc' The first three characters were identical and the
letter O, the number 0 was not used.
#Post#: 125952--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: Hardwired7223
Date: July 27, 2026, 5:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> You didn't pick up the point I made about the numberplate and
translating it to the keyboard. The VRM font looks more like a
zero on that keyboard than a letter O.
>
--- End Quote ---
I did state this in the actual hearing and was very explicit in
my explanation of all points. I also stated this in the appeal
TPT points prior to the hearing, as below:
"Grounds of Appeal:
The alleged parking contravention did not occur.
Explanation:
• 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
• 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, notwithstanding the comments about
the issues with the keyboard and characters that can be pressed
when entering a licence plate number in the car park."
#Post#: 125953--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: Hardwired7223
Date: July 27, 2026, 5:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> I asked that you post the actual decision letter, is this not
possible?
>
> I have no idea when your window for requesting a review ends.
--- End Quote ---
Apologies, I provided the document as a post as some of the
images used in the Adjudicator's response were obscured on the
right hand side. The redacted doc is here
HTML https://paperless-ngx.netgeneration.co.uk/share/X2MZIprxAPL31rGAnn6xsKbxi5AzJv4J3C0f1OVyojl24Me7bS.<br
/>If necessary, I will provide each page as an image within a
forum post. Hopefully this helps with the review window
evalulation.
--- Quote ---
> And pl post all the TRO which was submitted in evidence by the
council.
--- End Quote ---
This and all Council evidence is provided in this dropbox link
here
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/kcumks3ct2ynhw27u2mgq/AJ-Bol40evGkTAfqFgZISUk?rlkey=tzzrk4y07o6kv7zl73loa5x3u&st=qjo9fp6m&dl=0
--- Quote ---
> As I explained in post #25, the alleged contravention is
'non-payment' it is NOT failing to insert the correct VRM.
>
> That part of the TRO which deals with what evidence
constitutes failure to pay is NOT 25, it's 27.
>
> 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 in respect of
that vehicle,
>
> I can only see 25 in what you've posted.
>
> IMO,
> If 27 was presented, then the adjudicator reached a conclusion
which was not supported by the evidence, or
>
> If 27 was not presented, then you have 'interests of justice'
grounds because this and only this establishes the alleged
contravention and it was withheld by the council.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hopefully, I've provided all you need for clarity. Appreciate
all the work to help me with this.
#Post#: 126190--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 29, 2026, 9:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would request a review under the grounds of 'Interests of
justice'.
I submit that the adjudicator failed to consider all the
evidence before them which led to them making an unsupported
determination which no adjudicator acting reasonably could have
reached.
Facts:
Para 6. of the decision states:
Whilst I accept that the incorrect entry of a VIN (sic) is an
easy mistake to make, I am bound to conclude that payment for
parking time was not made in respect of the specific
registration of the vehicle in question and such that the
contravention did occur.
Article 21 of the Traffic Regulation Order is cited in support.
I suspect that their attention was focused on this issue because
the council considers that whether a contravention has occurred
is a binary matter based solely upon the input of a correct VRM.
But the TRO makes it clear that this is not the case.
The provisions which determine whether a parking charge has been
paid are set out clearly in Articles 26 and 27 under the very
precise heading of 'Indications of Payment of Parking Charge as
Evidence' which I have set out in full below.
(I can't copy and paste this, you'll have to do it)
In as much as the adjudicator had regard to these provisions,
they did not get further than 26, whereas 27 makes clear that
'should no indication appear on the hand held device that
payment of the parking charge has been made ......it shall be
presumed unless the contrary is proved
(a) the parking charge has not been paid in respect of that
vehicle....
It is not at issue whether the parking charge was paid and
therefore I submit that 'the contrary having been proved' the
provisions of 27(a) (which is the correct TRO reference for this
contravention, not Article 25) do not apply and that the only
reasonable determination in the face of all the evidence is that
the contravention did not occur, that the adjudicator's
reasoning shows that they did not consider all the evidence and
that had they done so they could not have reached their
decision.
Some thoughts.
But if you are to submit a review application this must be made
within 14 days of you being notified. I can't find the written
decision in the mass of files.
However, had the
understand the distinction between Article 25 and Article 26 and
therefore made a determination which
#Post#: 126200--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: Hardwired7223
Date: July 29, 2026, 10:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the review. The decision letter is here
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/kcumks3ct2ynhw27u2mgq/AJcg6LJFgs6WzwRirYnxXg4/Decision_206771_MC00061-2606.pdf?rlkey=tzzrk4y07o6kv7zl73loa5x3u&st=tuf5ggbt&dl=0<br
/>and is dated in the same day as the hearing (14/07/2026) so I
am
one day out if I send it in now. Is there any chance that will
still work?
#Post#: 126203--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 29, 2026, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can only try. You should give a reason for being outside the
period e.g. taking advice but this took longer than anticipated
or whatever else you can think of.
Remember, requesting a review does not stop the enforcement
clock so in parallel I would notify the council that you've
requested a review and ask them to stay further enforcement
until you've received a response and confirm this in writing.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page