DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 117617--------------------------------------------------
Bradford Council - 318 - Keying Error
DIR By: Peekaboo97
Date: May 3, 2026, 4:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Im seeking advice before appealing a PCN from Bradford Council.
A visitor permit was active for the time and location, but I
entered the vehicle registration incorrectly the correct reg
is BT14OCZ, but I mistakenly entered BT140CZ (used the number
0 instead of the letter O).
So the permit was valid, just linked to the slightly incorrect
registration due to a genuine typo.
Does anyone have experience with Bradford Council in this
situation, and are they likely to accept an appeal or are they
strict on exact matches?
Any advice appreciated.
HTML https://www.imghippo.com/i/xXzv4408QLI.jpg
#Post#: 117620--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bradford Council - 318 - Keying Error
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 3, 2026, 4:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Presumably this was a virtual permit, so you typed a '0' instead
of an 'O'. The official font for number plates has no '0', the
number plate maker uses the same character for both, so an easy
mistake and one that has won appeals at London Tribunals, but we
have no way of looking at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal
statutory register.
If you're prepared to take Bradford there, then you would have a
good chance of a win, but you'd have to risk the full PCN
penalty. There are no additional costs, and if you win you pay
nothing, of course. But first you would have to go through the
rigamarole of submitting an informal challenge, (optional), and
then waiting for the Notice to Owner. This is sent to the
owner's address as recorded on the V5C Registration Certificate.
So, are you the owner ? If not, who is, because the owner has
legal responsibility for all PCNs ?
#Post#: 117622--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bradford Council - 318 - Keying Error
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: May 3, 2026, 4:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
On 0/O, have a good read of this thread, which contains useful
tribunal cases and images of fonts from the regulations
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/ealing-12r-parked-in-bay-without-valid-permit-wrong-number-plate-on-app/msg115735/#msg115735
Post a draft of your initial challenge here for comment before
submitting.
#Post#: 117705--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bradford Council - 318 - Keying Error
DIR By: Peekaboo97
Date: May 4, 2026, 6:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Please see my draft below:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write to make formal representations against the above PCN.
A visitor permit was validly purchased and active for the
relevant date, time and location. However, when entering the
vehicle registration, I made a genuine typing error. The correct
registration is BT14OCZ, but it was entered as BT140CZ,
mistakenly using the number 0 instead of the letter O.
This is a minor keying error involving a single character. The
registration entered is clearly very similar to the correct
vehicle and does not represent a different or unrelated vehicle.
The permit itself was valid and paid for, and the vehicle was
entitled to park. There was no attempt to avoid payment or the
parking restrictions, and there has been no financial loss to
the council.
I appreciate that the VRM must be entered correctly, however I
respectfully ask that discretion be applied in this case. The
purpose of the scheme has been fulfilled a valid permit was in
place and the penalty has arisen solely due to a minor human
error.
In light of the above, I request that the PCN be cancelled.
#Post#: 117713--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bradford Council - 318 - Keying Error
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 4, 2026, 7:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Why did you make the mistake - are you the car owner. Most of us
who tax and insure vehicles know the numberplate format.
#Post#: 117716--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bradford Council - 318 - Keying Error
DIR By: tincombe
Date: May 4, 2026, 7:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You are making informal, not formal, reps.
The permit was not valid, it was displayed in the wrong vehicle.
But it was valid(as far as we know) in all other respects other
than the typo error.
...as the authority will see(from its records/the copy permit
enclosed and the CEO's photos(presumably), I was displaying a
permit which was valid in every regard other than a '0'/'O'
typo. * I hope that it can be seen that I made every attempt to
pay and I apologise for my error which I hope will not cost me
£** !
Obviously, use your own words.
*- I understand stamfordman's question because normally a '0'
for a 'O' is not a typo because they're not adjacent on a
keyboard(certainly not mine). I wonder whether there's anything
else you could throw into the mix e.g. only had the car a short
while/you are not the owner(and therefore can only see the VRM
which would look like a '0' etc.
Have you posted the PCN, my link doesn't work.
#Post#: 117720--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bradford Council - 318 - Keying Error
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 4, 2026, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We've seen adjudicators get tough where people in the know are
careless rather than understandably ignorant.
If you were say using a hire car and you live in Timbuktu you
would have no idea the letter O on the numberplate is not a
number zero.
#Post#: 117722--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bradford Council - 318 - Keying Error
DIR By: Peekaboo97
Date: May 4, 2026, 9:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the reply.
Just to add some context this was for my sister who has
recently passed and this is her first car. She sent me the
registration to input for the visitor permit as she was coming
over to visit.
We live on a permit holders only street with Bradford Council,
so I had to arrange and pay for a visitor permit for her to park
there.
Ive clearly made a genuine mistake when entering it, mixing up
the letter O with the number 0. The permit itself was active
and paid for, and the vehicle was entitled to be parked there.
Having read tincombes reply, I understand the importance of VRM
accuracy, but this is a single-character error and the entered
VRM is very close to the correct one, not a completely different
vehicle.
There was no attempt to avoid payment or gain any advantage
just a simple input error.
Do you think this is something worth pursuing on the basis of a
minor keying error and genuine compliance?
#Post#: 117727--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bradford Council - 318 - Keying Error
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 4, 2026, 9:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do you own a car yourself? If so what is the VRM?
#Post#: 117728--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bradford Council - 318 - Keying Error
DIR By: tincombe
Date: May 4, 2026, 9:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
'this crossed with stamfordman's post but follows the same
thread'
Sorry to hear the news about your sister, you've probably got
enough on your plate at the moment.
We're here to give advice on the law and 'The permit itself was
active and paid for, and the vehicle was entitled to be parked
there.' is incorrect: it was not entitled to be parked.
The requirements are clear: the correct VRM must be entered and
anything else goes to mitigation i.e. asking the authority to
exercise discretion/asking an adjudicator to decide that the
contravention was de minimis. I don't think the owner** would
succeed at adjudication on the latter(adjudicators may not as a
matter of law allow an appeal based in mitigation) and therefore
IMO in order to get the authority onside would require a
particular tone of challenge.
But in truth this may all be secondary because of the sad
circumstances surrounding the issue.
** - the person liable for the penalty is the registered keeper
on the day. So, who was this please? If your sister, then IMO a
completely different challenge should be submitted which we
could assist in drafting.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page