The 0/O error is routinely allowed on appeal at the tribunal. The rejection letter does not address any of the issues you raised least of all this. It's predatory by the council to target a resident like this and I would take them to the tribunal - if an adjudicator finds in your favour as they should all the PCNs will fall.
But with this number PCNs this needs thought and other views.
Here are some recent cases.
-----------
2240383584
Decision Date 14 Nov 2024
According to the Council there was no valid payment. The correct car registration number is WF09CXV.
Ms Akter entered ‘WFO9CXV’.
It is common ground that the Council received payment. The distinction is trifling .the law is not concerned with a trifle.
In any event, according to the Oxford English Dictionary
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/o_1?q=o‘O used to mean ‘zero’ when saying phone numbers, etc.
• My number is six o double three (= 6033).’
The Council has relied on a distinction without a difference.
----------------
2240448963
Decision Date 14 Nov 2024
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. Whether or not the Appellant was aware of it the digit “0” correctly represented the letter on his number plate. Although one can understand why the CEO issued the PCN, in fact it was incorrectly issued and the Appeal must be allowed.
-----------
2240419047
Decision Date 17 Oct 2024
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.
-------------
2240412933
Decision Date 22 Oct 2024
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a resident's or shared use parking bay or zone in Wolsey Close 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 the appellant's car was parked in the shared use bay. It is not in dispute that a payment to park had been made or that the session remained current at the time of issue of the PCN. The Council says that the payment was made for the incorrect vehicle registration because the letter O was entered as 0. The keyboard entry 0 may denote a zero but it may, in my judgement, properly be read in the alternative as a letter. 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.
There is also no evidence of any warning signage to motorists telling them that they will be liable to receive a PCN if a payment is made for the incorrect vehicle registration. There are still many car parking areas which do not even require the entry of a vehicle registration and it must be made clear to motorists where a failure to enter a correct registration may result in the issue of a PCN.
I allow the appeal for these reasons.
-------------
2240452097
Decision Date 12 Nov 2024
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a resident's or shared use parking bay or zone in Allington 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 the appellant's car was parked in the resident permit holder only use bay. It is not in dispute that a 10 hour visitor's permit had been purchased with the session having having commenced at 8.30am. The Council says that the payment was made for the incorrect vehicle registration because the letter O was entered as 0. The keyboard entry 0 may denote a zero but it may, in my judgement, properly be read in the alternative as a letter. 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.
