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

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:


4.        In their submissions the Council also state:


5.        The relevant TRO provides that the vehicle’s registration must be entered in order for exemption to apply:

 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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. If necessary, I will provide each page as an image within a forum post. Hopefully this helps with the review window evalulation.

And pl post all the TRO which was submitted in evidence by the council.

This and all Council evidence is provided in this dropbox link here

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.

Hopefully, I've provided all you need for clarity. Appreciate all the work to help me with this.

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

Thanks for the review. The decision letter is here 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?

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.

So I submitted the review request along with some explanation for doing this after the 14 day deadline (seeking advice and some other personal extenuating circumstances). I received the standard auto reply so will wait to see whether the request is accepted or not.

Thanks.

So... I got a result; the review was rejected. Here is the complete (but redacted) decision letter:



Is it worth taking this further?

Edit: The letter image in the post appears blurry but if you right-click it and open it in a new tab it's clearer.

Yet another TPT decision siding with the council when the error is de minimis, and also ignoring the fact that on number plates, the 'O' and the '0' are the same.

TPT is frankly getting to be a Fob-Off tribunal in my view with adjudicators totally unwilling to examine appellants arguments in full, unlike London Tribunals, where the adjudicators are, perhaps, more up-to-speed on council gaming of the system. That's my view, anyway.

End of the line but tincombe may have thoughts.