Free Traffic Legal Advice

My wife received this as the keeper of the car for an alleged contravention on 20/02/2026 (MC04774743). The last digit of the reg was entered as a 0 instead of an O. She had previously received a PCN for the same issue on 10/12/2025 (MC04614190) and it was cancelled after an informal appeal with the council's response stating,



"On this occasion, I am satisfied that you had paid for your parking time and your (PCN) has now been cancelled. Please be aware should you receive another ticket for the same reason we may not be able to cancel it."



The informal appeal (on two attempts) on the second PCN was rejected with them saying,



"We wrote to you to advise you that future PCNs may not be cancelled, as such this PCN will not be cancelled. I have carefully considered your case and I am satisfied that your PCN was issued correctly, and as such, I have taken the decision not to cancel it."



We both think it's outrageous to get a fine when there's been no attempt to avoid paying for parking and it's only been triggered due to honest manual error. We decided not to pay the discounted rate and wait for the NTO to arrive so we can challenge it formally. This arrived a couple of weeks ago. I've seen that there has been at least one other case where the appeal was rejected by an adjudicator for a similar issue so I'm just coming here (admittedly quite late on in the process as I didn't know about the forum before yesterday), for some advice on how best to proceed.



Here are the docs thus far:


The latest PCN (MC04774743):








The first informal appeal rejection letter:







The second informal appeal rejection letter (which was also sent to us in the post):







NTO:













For background, the acceptance of the first informal appeal letter:





Apologies for not coming here first before challenging the ticket informally and also not coming here until I have a reduced number of days to submit my formal appeal (I believe I have 28 days from the issuing of the NTO to do so, so by 11th May 2026).

Any guidance you can provide here would be appreciated about the best action to take.

The reg was entered in a machine at the site, so is prone to error since not in an app, but even so it's a simple mistake to make (in my mind). I'd even go as far as suggesting the machine should be smart enough to validate whether the right character format (i.e. number or letter) has been entered, but this is just in my pre-problem-solving head.

So, today I received a rejection letter. I'm thinking to go for the appeal to an independent adjudicator. Thoughts?<br><br>
Here is the letter:<br><br>
Here are the docs:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>

The discount is gone so you may as well appeal.

I think you may lose if they contest as you were on notice but as I said they have a duty not to fetter discretion.

If so the adjudicator may consider it trivial.

--------

Case reference   2240419047
Appellant   Briony Keating
Authority   Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM   LG09RVK
   
PCN Details
PCN   QT09170448
Contravention date   22 May 2024
Contravention time   15:50:00
Contravention location   MILNER ROAD
Penalty amount   GBP 110.00
Contravention   Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   17 Oct 2024
Adjudicator   Martin Hoare
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons   Mr Keating senior represented Mrs Keating at this appeal hearing. The Council did not attend and was not represented.
Mrs Keating’s written appeal stated’ My son the driver of the vehicle at the time suffers from ADHD and has very mild learning disabilities. And takes various important documents with him . Like for example the V11 tax reminder form . It shows clearly on this government form the difference between a O and 0 .
When you look at this form the number plate clearly shows an O , not a 0 (zero) this is what my son uses to put his registration in . This is massive error on the DVLA part . That is the reason for this appeal on both tickets , my son did not do anything wrong .’
I could not discern the difference on the V11 document.
The Council evidence, including the photographs and notes of the civil enforcement officer , establishes that the car registration plate reads ‘LG09 RVK’.
The Council submitted ‘ although a payment for parking was made through RingGo, this was for vehicle registration LGO9RVK (letter O) and not for LG09RVK (number 0). It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they make payment for the correct vehicle registration. Whilst we appreciate that payment for parking had been made at the time of the contravention, as this parking session was allocated the wrong VRM, the parked vehicle did not have a valid parking session, thus the contravention is deemed to have occurred.’
The Ringgo text issued to Mr Keating junior’s phone read ‘LG09 RVK’.
There is no realistic prospect that another car was parked , that Mr Keating gained any unfair benefit or that the Council lost money or suffered any real inconvenience.
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary page 984 reads:
‘O.. the fifteenth letter in the alphabet……….. also zero (in a series of numerals, especially when spoken’
The Council relies on a blurred distinction without a real difference.
This is a trifling matter. The law is not concerned with a trifle

------------

Case reference   2250650767
Appellant   Amir Eslami
Authority   London Borough of Waltham Forest
VRM   KF23OHX
   
PCN Details
PCN   FR6600583A
Contravention date   19 Jul 2025
Contravention time   11:23:00
Contravention location   Grange Park Road
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   07 Apr 2026
Adjudicator   Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons   This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a resident's or shared use parking bay or zone in Grange Park Road without a valid virtual permit or without clearly displaying a valid physical permit or voucher or pay and display ticket where required or without payment of the parking charge.
I have looked at the CEO's photographs and these show that Dr Eslami's car was parked in a permit holder only parking bay during controlled hours. Dr Eslami has explained that he was given a courtesy car while his own vehicle was being repaired and that he had changed the registration on the permit. It is not in dispute that Dr Eslami has a resident's permit. The Council says that the incorrect vehicle registration had been entered for the courtesy car because the registration was entered as KF23 OHX instead of KF23 0HX. The “O” and the “0” were interchanged.
The keyboard entry 0 may denote a zero but it may, in my judgement, 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. I find that the alleged contravention did not occur.