Free Traffic Legal Advice

Again on behalf of a friend.

She parked and paid for a session on the app for a day (screenshot to prove), however realised that she had entered the wrong number plate on the app. For reference, the number plate is L14ENM, but she entered LI4ENM (hard to distinguish this on the app).

She appealed informally however this was rejected. Now she has received an NtO and wondering whether it’s worth going all the way and on what grounds. Obviously this was a genuine mistake, a session was paid for so no revenue loss to the council and number plate was different by one digit so feels excessive. Appreciate any advice.

All pics in attached link: https://imgpile.com/p/yTFI3Af

Also pasting below her initial appeal:

I had paid for the full day on the pay by phone app for this vehicle. Details in screenshot. I realise there was letter wrong on the number plate as I have only recently been insured and started using this vehicle as my previous one has been sent back . I entered the letter I instead of number 1 on the app by mistake . I realised this error as went to look for a way to correct it on the pay by phone app as payment for the full day parking had already gone through however before I found a solution at 9.05 I already had a ticket. I spoke to the ticket warden who issued the ticket and showed her my payment and receipt through the app and she said if I appeal the ticket this fine would be cancelled. Please help as it was an innocent mistake and I do have records of paying and doing the right thing to be parked there

I have now looked at the contravention and the council evidence is she was in a permit bay not a pay bay or shared use bay.

The 12r code though should be a code 16 as the parking sign just says permit holders - but the r suffix for residents bay is correct with code 12 so this isn't going to win IMO.

So the question is was this a visitors permit or did she just park in a permit bay by mistake thinking it was a public pay bay.

Also if no visitor permit we can check if the bay she was in did allow public parking but I can't see any such bays on Sutherland Road.

OK so the permit was valid bar the I instead of a 1. These are identical on a numberplate and if you type in the reg the I is accepted on the app (I checked) so you wouldn't know you'd done anything wrong.

I'll suggest reps later and will find a relevant case if poss.

I've pasted some cases below (one refused, some on O/0) and highlighted bits.

I've also looked at the law on the numberplate font and what's interesting is that the number zero isn't there presumably because it's the same as the letter O, and the number 1 is there but not letter I (which I think is still used in Northern Ireland but not sure).

The point stands that you can enter the letter I instead of 1 and pay by phone system will accept it - you can try a dummy session with the app and take screenshots of what happens and whether the character I looks any different from the numeral one on the VRM font.





----------

Case reference   2250021604
Appellant   Peter Corner
Authority   London Borough of Barnet
VRM   LR16LGL
   
PCN Details
PCN   AG46739796
Contravention date   01 Oct 2024
Contravention time   11:51:00
Contravention location   Golders Green Road
Penalty amount   GBP 80.00
Contravention   Parked without payment of the parking charge
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   05 Apr 2025
Adjudicator   Martin Hoare
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons   Mr Corner explained ‘I paid for a parking session at the location at 11.26am for one hour until 12.26 pm. I used the PayBy Phone App.'
According to the Authority ‘A wrong VRM was used to make a payment to park. Letter I was used instead of number 1. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure the correct VRM is used when paying for parking.’
There is no realistic prospect that another car was parked , that Mr Corner gained any unfair benefit or that the Council lost money or suffered any real inconvenience.
The Council has relied on a distinction without a difference.
This is a trifling matter. The law is not concerned with a trifle.
The appeal is allowed.


Case reference   2240559283
Appellant   Jonathan Peter Holl
Authority   London Borough of Brent
VRM   RJ14OLR
   
PCN Details
PCN   BT21872909
Contravention date   30 Apr 2024
Contravention time   10:38:00
Contravention location   Oaklands Road
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Parked in permit space without a valid permit
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   28 Jan 2025
Adjudicator   Andrew Harman
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons   The appellant appeared before me today at Chancery Exchange, accompanied by his daughter, who gave evidence on his behalf. Mr Ali, for the council, attended the hearing via telephone. The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this vehicle was parked in a permit space without a valid permit. There was no dispute that although a visitor parking permit had been obtained for the vehicle via RingGo, it was purchased against vehicle registration mark RJ140LR. The registration mark of this vehicle as shown on its plates is RJ14OLR. On the council's case, as put by Mr Ali, the permit that was obtained did not provide cover for the vehicle against its registration mark given the digit '0' was used instead of the letter 'O'. I acknowledged what is said, but in Regulation 15 of, and Schedule 4 to, The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001, the prescribed font provides that the letter ‘O’ and the digit ‘0’ are identical, (as are the letter ‘I’ and the digit ‘1’). That being so I was not satisfied that this vehicle was parked without a valid permit where required and I accordingly found that the contravention did not occur.

Case reference   2250059618
Appellant   Oliver Smart
Authority   Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM   AF14OSY
   
PCN Details
PCN   QT10022448
Contravention date   15 Nov 2024
Contravention time   14:12:00
Contravention location   St Philips Car Park
Penalty amount   GBP 60.00
Contravention   Parked without payment of the parking charge
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   02 Apr 2025
Adjudicator   Michel Aslangul
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons   This was a video hearing. The Appellant appeared in person. The authority did not appear.
The main question to be considered is whether the authority has complied with its duty to act fairly.
The Appellant’s case is that payment of the parking charge was made in full, except that the digit ‘0’was entered instead of the letter ‘O’.
The case of the authority is that it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that the letter ‘O’ should have been entered instead of the digit ‘0’.
In Regulation 15 of, and Schedule 4 to, the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 the prescribed font provides that the letter ‘O’ and the digit ‘0’ are identical, as are the letter ‘I’ and the digit ‘1’.
I am unable to be satisfied that the authority has complied with its duty to act fairly because it has failed to consider Regulation 15 of, and Schedule 4 to, the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001.
It is the authority’s responsibility to ensure that when collecting payment for the parking charge the computer program is such that it ensures that that the letter ‘O’ and the digit ‘0’ are identical, as are the letter ‘I’ and the digit ‘1’ so that the parking charge can be allocated to the correct vehicle registration, location and duration of parking and thereby avoid the issuing of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) as in this case.
I am unable to be satisfied that the authority has complied with its duty to act fairly.

Case reference   2250059618
Appellant   Oliver Smart
Authority   Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM   AF14OSY
   
PCN Details
PCN   QT10022448
Contravention date   15 Nov 2024
Contravention time   14:12:00
Contravention location   St Philips Car Park
Penalty amount   GBP 60.00
Contravention   Parked without payment of the parking charge
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   02 Apr 2025
Adjudicator   Michel Aslangul
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons   This was a video hearing. The Appellant appeared in person. The authority did not appear.
The main question to be considered is whether the authority has complied with its duty to act fairly.
The Appellant’s case is that payment of the parking charge was made in full, except that the digit ‘0’was entered instead of the letter ‘O’.
The case of the authority is that it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that the letter ‘O’ should have been entered instead of the digit ‘0’.
In Regulation 15 of, and Schedule 4 to, the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 the prescribed font provides that the letter ‘O’ and the digit ‘0’ are identical, as are the letter ‘I’ and the digit ‘1’.
I am unable to be satisfied that the authority has complied with its duty to act fairly because it has failed to consider Regulation 15 of, and Schedule 4 to, the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001.
It is the authority’s responsibility to ensure that when collecting payment for the parking charge the computer program is such that it ensures that that the letter ‘O’ and the digit ‘0’ are identical, as are the letter ‘I’ and the digit ‘1’ so that the parking charge can be allocated to the correct vehicle registration, location and duration of parking and thereby avoid the issuing of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) as in this case.
I am unable to be satisfied that the authority has complied with its duty to act fairly.

Case reference   225043512A
Appellant   Florence Blatchley
Authority   London Borough of Haringey
VRM   LL67XOX
   
PCN Details
PCN   ZN16286104
Contravention date   28 Mar 2025
Contravention time   13:39:00
Contravention location   Frome Road
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   08 Jan 2026
Adjudicator   Martin Hoare
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons   Neither party attended this video appeal hearing.
Ms Blatchley submitted ‘I did pay for parking using RingGo and made a genuine effort to follow the rules. However, the vehicle registration was mistakenly entered as LL67X0X instead of LL67XOX due to a small input error over the phone. This was not intentional, and payment was made for the correct location and time. Additionally, RingGo usually saves and prompts you to repark the same vehicle, so I believed the correct details were in use. I respectfully request that this be considered a minor error made in good faith.’
Ms Blatchley provided a receipt.
The Council accepts that the said mistake solely caused the alleged contravention. It received payment.
This is a trifling mistake. The law is not concerned with a trifle.
Further,’ 0’ and ‘o’ are used interchangeably in the English language.
‘o
/ əʊ /
noun
1.   the 15th letter and fourth vowel of the modern English alphabet
2.   any of several speech sounds represented by this letter, in English as in code, pot, cow, move, or form
3.   another name for nought’.
The appeal is allowed.


Case reference   2250459820
Appellant   Antonio Da Cruz Oliveira
Authority   London Borough of Islington
VRM   HN71UTJ
   
PCN Details
PCN   IZ35843058
Contravention date   18 Jun 2025
Contravention time   10:16:00
Contravention location   Mercers Road
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   23 Jan 2026
Adjudicator   Cordelia Fantinic
Appeal decision   Appeal refused
Direction   Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons   1. Gale Astley attended by Teams video call as the Appellant’s Authorised Representative. The Authority did not attend and had not been expected to. Ms Astley confirmed receipt of the Authority's evidence pack. I reserved my decision, which is set out below.
2. Ms Astley explained that, in summary, the Appellant was carrying out work at a property for a Mr Davidson. Mr Davidson purchased a visitor's permit on 18 June 2025 for the vehicle at 10:12 for two hours. The Appellant and Mr Davidson have now realised that Mr Davidson mistakenly entered an uppercase "I" instead of the digit "1" when inputting the Appellant's vehicle registration mark (VRM) on the RingGo app. Ms Astley submitted that the Authority had not responded to Mr Davidson's representations within 56 days, and that Mr Davidson had been unable to reach anyone at the Authority by telephone to clarify the reason why the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued. Ms Astley has provided a statement from Mr Davidson, copies of the permit purchased, correspondence with the Authority and a document showing different fonts used by RingGo and the Authority, in which "I" and "1" appear identical.
3. Ms Astley said that she did not feel the matter should have got to this stage. The alleged contravention occurred as the result of a genuine mistake. There was no intention to avoid payment, Mr Davidson and the Appellant believed a valid permit had been obtained. The Authority is not out of pocket, the permit was valid for the location, time and date. Ms Astley said that the penalty was disproportionate and the Appellant was being treated as if he had intentionally tried to evade the charge. The Authority is not acting fairly or reasonably in its decision not to exercise its discretion. Ms Astley relied on her written submissions and evidence and I reserved my decision to considered all of the written submissions and evidence provided by Ms Astley on the Appellant's behalf before reaching my decision.
4. The PCN was issued at 10:16 on 18 June 2025. The photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) show the Appellant’s vehicle parked in a bay and the relevant sign, which advises that from Monday to Friday parking is for resident permit holders only from 10am to Noon. The CEO's notes record that RingGo was checked and no permit was found. In the circumstances that they observed, the CEO was entitled to issue a PCN as the vehicle was parked in a bay during its hours of restriction without a valid permit.
5. In its Case Summary the Authority acknowledges that there was a RingGo session purchased for the relevant time, but that vehicle HN7IUTJ was paid for instead of HN71UTJ. The Authority refers to the Service terms and conditions for purchasing permits on RingGo. The Authority has highlighted the relevant part, which sets out at Section 3 that the motorist/service user is:
"responsible for providing all of the necessary and correct details for your parking action, such as vehicle number plate ... The details you provide about your parking action are key for us to correctly process your parking fees. You alone are responsible for providing us with the correct details for your parking action and you will be responsible for paying any penalty charge or parking fee issued as a result of incorrect parking action details... incorrect use might
lead to penalty charges"
6. Based on the evidence before me I accept Ms Astley's account of events in full and I accept that there was a genuine error when entering the VRM, and there was no intention to avoid payment. Indeed, a parking session was purchased for the relevant date and time, albeit for VRM HN7IUTJ and not HN71UTJ, which was the vehicle that was parked. However, the Authority’s position is correct in law. The session purchased by Mr Davidson was not valid as it was not purchased for the Appellant's correct VRM. Therefore, as a matter of fact, a contravention occurred.
7. The fact that the Authority did receive payment for parking, albeit for registration number HN7IUTJ, is not a basis upon which I can allow this appeal. The circumstances described by Ms Astley, the Appellant and Mr Davidson are mitigating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances do not amount to a statutory ground of appeal. They provide mitigation as to why the contravention occurred; they do not "undo" the contravention itself. The Adjudicator is unable to allow an appeal on the basis of mitigating circumstances. It is only the Authority is able to exercise its discretion and cancel a PCN on the basis of mitigating circumstances, and it has decided not to do so on this occasion. This is not a decision that I can interfere with.
Procedural impropriety
8. Procedural impropriety occurs where there is a failure by an Authority to observe any requirement imposed upon it by (a) the Traffic Management Act 2004, (b) the General Regulations, or (c) the Appeals Regulations.
9. Ms Astley has provided Mr Davidson's email to the Authority, sent on 18 June. The email challenged the PCN and the Authority's automated reply stated that a response would be provided within 56 days.
10. The Authority has also provided the correspondence between the parties, which shows the Appellant's submission to the Authority. This submission is undated, but refers to Mr Davidson's earlier email. The Appellant's submissions must have been sent after receipt of the Notice to Owner dated 17 July 2025. The Notice of Rejection was then issued on 20 August 2025.
11. In the Appellant's updated letter to the Tribunal, filed on 7 December, he states that Mr Davidson did not receive a reply to his email of 18 June until 11 September, after the 56 days.
12. The 56-day statutory deadline for an Authority to respond to representations refers to the "formal representations", in this case it means the representations received after service of a Notice to Owner. Mr Davidson's email of 18 June would be considered an "informal representation". It appears that it was not linked to this case, as it was from a third party and not the Appellant. The Authority's 11 September response to that email, which is not before me, would not be subject to the 56-day statutory deadline. The response was evidently sent after the deadline stated in the automated reply, but this delay does not constitute a procedural impropriety based on which I could allow this appeal.
13. The evidence before me shows that the Authority complied with the 56 day time limit as the Appellant's formal representations had to have been made after the Notice to Owner, dated 17 July, and the Notice of Rejection was issued 35 days later.
Conclusion
14. I have found that the contravention occurred. The Appellant and Ms Astley have not established a statutory ground of appeal. I am therefore bound to refuse this appeal.

Any thoughts on draft? Hoping to send off tonight

This is a useful case from yesterday but it's frustrating that the adjudicator didn't also twig that the numberplate font looks like an I so that's what you may enter on the app anyway.

----------


Case reference   2250608115
Appellant   Antonio Pedro Da Cruz Oliveira
Authority   London Borough of Islington
VRM   HN71UTJ
   
PCN Details
PCN   IZ35766729
Contravention date   17 Jun 2025
Contravention time   10:15:00
Contravention location   Mercers Road
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   27 Apr 2026
Adjudicator   Mackenzie Robinson
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons   1.   Mr Oliveira appeals on the basis that a temporary permit was arranged by the man for whom he was conducting work, Mr Davison, who is the resident. It appears that when Mr Davison was entering the vehicle registration mark on the permit application, he entered it incorrectly by one character, entering a capital 'I' instead of a '1'.
2.   A copy of the permit application has been produced, showing that the capital 'I' was indistinguishable from a '1'.
3.   The enforcement authority contest the appeal on the basis that it is the responsibility of the user of the permit to ensure that the correct vehicle details are entered. The authority is, I find, correct in its statement of the law - in general terms. It is indeed the responsibility of the user of the permit to spot that a minor error has taken place, and so if, for example, a '3' has been entered as an 'E', even though it might be quite easy to miss such an error, nevertheless, the error can be identified, and it is the responsibility of the permit user if it is not identified.
4.   However, I find that this is one of the rare situations in which the error could not have been identified by Mr Oliveira. Since 'I' and '1' appear identical in the typeface used on screen for the permit application, there is no way that even the most observant person could have spotted the error.
5.   I therefore find that not only was the error not adequately drawn to Mr Oliveira's attention, it was not drawn to his attention at all.
6.   Since this was not an error which even the most observant person would ever have been able to identify, I find that no contravention occurred, or alternatively, that the breach was so minimal that the 'de minimis' rule applies.
7.   This appeal is allowed.