Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered (0/O) in Arndale Car Park

You can also say the font on car numberplates is exactly the same for zero and letter O.

You can also say the font on car numberplates is exactly the same for zero and letter O.

Agreed! I'll have this post/crib notes open to prompt me during the call if necessary.

The font for numberplates has no separate "0" (zero), the "O" is used instead. see here: -


YU'll see that the same character "O" is used for both numeric and alpha

The legislation doesn't indeed include zero so that the letter O is used as a zero really shouldn't be allowed.

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 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?


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

??

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?

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?

The receipt is below:

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

??

Paystation & keyboard photos are below:

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?

19 is here


20 is here


Apologies for not adding this all earlier.

The Video Hearing has now been set for 14/07/2026.

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.

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.

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.

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? 

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.