Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Hardwired7223 on April 22, 2026, 04:23:44 pm
-
And throw in the SoS's Stat Guidance:
Authorities should take account of the CEO’s actions in issuing the penalty charge but should always give challenges and representations a fresh and impartial consideration.
An authority has a discretionary power to cancel a PCN at any point throughout the process. It can do this even when an undoubted contravention has occurred if the authority deems it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
my emphasis.
-
I think related to this, adjudicator Carl Teper has gathered this together in a couple of recent decisions. One below and worth noting.
As he says, simply:
As explained in Susan Cook, the fact that a contravention has occurred cannot be a reason not to exercise discretion to cancel a penalty, on the contrary there must have been a contravention in the first place or else there is nothing for the Authority to consider at all.
---------
Case reference 2260333192
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Sutton
VRM LY25CYL
PCN Details
PCN SU75865093
Contravention date 07 Feb 2026
Contravention time 16:48:00
Contravention location Throwley Road
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Parked wholly/partly in a suspended bay or space
Referral date -
Decision Date 27 Jul 2026
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a suspended bay when in Throwley Road on 7 February 2026 at 16:48.
The Appellant denies the contravention and has submitted substantial mitigation for the Authority to consider. Further, that the bay was not in actual use for the suspended purpose.
I have allowed this appeal because I find that the Authority has fettered its discretion by limiting it to “…emergency situations…” in the Notice of Rejection.
The parties are referred to my decision in case 2250689988, which I have copied below in full.
'In Susan Cook v Trafford Borough Council (TR05993K, 25 January 2013) Adjudicator Kennedy said as follows (all emphasis in the original):
'A council must in each case decide if it is appropriate that the penalty charge be waived either because:
(i) one of the statutory grounds applies and therefore no penalty is payable; or
(ii) although there was a contravention in the particular circumstances of the case no penalty should be payable.
It is this second point which reflects the discretion given to a council to waive any penalty charge at any time. Discretion is the power to act as one thinks appropriate in the circumstances, but it is relevant in this context only when a penalty would otherwise be due. Discretion is not necessary or relevant when no penalty is due.
If there was no contravention then the Council’s discretion would be irrelevant because if there was no contravention the penalty must be cancelled regardless of the surrounding circumstances. The case would end at the first of the two stages above.
It follows that discretion cannot be refused because a contravention has occurred; there must have been a contravention otherwise there is nothing for the Council to consider.
A council will not be criticised for refusing to exercise discretion favourably if it is clear that the individual considering the case has acted sensibly, reasonably, fairly and proportionately taking into account all the individual merits of the case.
A council is entitled to be shrewd in its analysis, but must avoid rigid or “blanket” policies. The words of the Operational Guidance express the approach clearly and with considerable wisdom:
"11.3 It is in the interests of the authority and the vehicle owner to resolve any dispute at the earliest possible stage. Authorities should take account of the CEO's actions in issuing the PCN, but should always give challenges and representations a fresh and impartial consideration.
11.4 An authority has a discretionary power to cancel a PCN at any point throughout the CPE process. It can do this even when an undoubted contravention has occurred if the authority deems it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately’” and are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard for the public interest.
11.5 Enforcement authorities have a duty not to fetter their discretion, so should ensure that PCNs, NtOs, leaflets and any other advice they give do not mislead the public about what they may consider in the way of representations. They 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. Authorities should formulate (with advice from their legal department) and then publish their policies on the exercise of discretion. They should apply these policies flexibly and judge each case on its merits. An enforcement authority should be ready to depart from its policies if the particular circumstances of the case warrant it."
[...]
There are a number of points the Council have failed to observe or practice in this case and, one suspects, this occurs also in their approach to other cases. This letter, dated 15 March 2012, epitomises their attitude to this Appellant:
"With respect to the above, your comments have been considered however the penalty charge will not be waived on this occasion as the vehicle was observed parked without a valid permit or visitor card on display. I have checked our records and | can confirm that a previous Penalty has been waived under Trafford Councils 15 waiver policy for vehicles parked in a permit holder's only as on that occasion the vehicle was also parked on Normans Place without a valid permit or visitor card clearly on display. When parking the onus does lie with the driver of the vehicle to ensure that they display a valid permit or visitor card clearly and securely to exempt from the restrictions in place."
The first failure appears in the first paragraph and is the refusal to waive the penalty because there was a contravention. The fact of contravention cannot be a reason for refusing to waive the penalty.
That case was decided under the 2007 Regulations but no substantive changes were made by the 2022 regulations under which this appeal is to be determined.
In Stanmore Quality Services Ltd v London Borough of Lambeth (2220882479, 7 January 2023) Adjudicator Jack Walsh (as he then was) held in similar circumstances that (my emphasis):
The response from the EA did not engage with the points made by the appellant company or the evidence it had provided. It did not refer to any applicable exemptions, or the lack of them. The response said: "We have noted the circumstances explained in your correspondence to us. It is unfortunate that you were unfamiliar with the rules that were in force. However, it is still up to drivers to be aware of signs and road markings and obey them." The responsibility of the EA is not merely to 'note' the representations, as the first sentence tends to suggest, but to consider them. I find that the second sentence is presumptuous and patronising. The third sentence is irrelevant and is simply a statement of the obvious. The notice of rejection did not provide a meaningful response to the representations made by the appellant company, to which it had clearly devoted some time and care. I am driven to the conclusion, and find on the balance of probabilities, that the EA, contrary to the bald assertion earlier in the notice of rejection that it had 'carefully considered' what the appellant company had said, had in fact done no such thing. I find that the EA had indeed merely 'noted' the representations and failed to consider them. This is a serious departure from the requirements of the statutory scheme, as I explained in Jones v. LB Havering (2190374806, 9 October 2019) a case cited by Mr. Murray-Smith. The PCN is thereby rendered unenforceable.
I find that the Notice of Rejection does not address the Appellant's representations at all. And can properly be distinguished from the case of Halton
In this case the Appellant made detailed representations based on compelling mitigation, the Notice of Rejection states that:
After carefully considering your Representations and any mitigating circumstances, I am satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued and that there is no reason for it to be cancelled.
The fact that the PCN was correctly issued was not in dispute and is besides the point: as explained in Susan Cook there must be a correctly issued PCN or else there is no discretion for the Authority to consider. This means that the only reason provided by the Authority for why the PCN was not cancelled is that "there is no reason for it to be cancelled".
Like Adjudicator Walsh in the case above, I am driven to the conclusion that despite the assertion that the Authority has "carefully considered" the representations, it has done no such thing. I find as a fact that the Authority never considered at all whether, notwithstanding the fact that a penalty was correctly issued by the CEO, it should nonetheless exercise its statutory power under regulation to accept representations made under regulation 5(2)(b)(ii) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022, which entitle an Authority to cancel a penalty where, even when a penalty has been correctly issued, "there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the enforcement authority should cancel the penalty charge and refund any sum paid to it on account of the penalty charge.".
In its case summary the Authority states that:
"While the Authority acknowledges the appellant’s need to attend a court hearing, this does not exempt a motorist from complying with parking restrictions. It remains the responsibility of the driver to ensure that their vehicle is parked in accordance with the prevailing terms and conditions, regardless of the purpose of their journey. The availability of parking, or lack thereof, does not override the restrictions in force.
The fact that the availability of parking, or lack thereof, does not override the restriction in force, is completely besides the point. The case summary confirms that the Authority never contemplated with an open mind the question of whether, despite a contravention of the restrictions in force, nonetheless the penalty should be cancelled. As explained in Susan Cook, the fact that a contravention has occurred cannot be a reason not to exercise discretion to cancel a penalty, on the contrary there must have been a contravention in the first place or else there is nothing for the Authority to consider at all.
The case summary also states that:
"In light of the above, the Authority is satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued correctly. Accordingly, the appeal is refused."
I take it that in the passage above the Authority means that the representations are refused, as the determination of the appeal is a matter for me. However this paragraph helpfully confirms that the representations were refused because a contravention had occurred and the PCN was issued correctly, which cannot be a reason to refuse to exercise discretion, it is a pre-requisite for the power of discretion to arise in the first place. As far as failures to consider go, the Authority's case summary is tantamount to a confession.
Like Adjudicator Kennedy, I find that an Authority cannot be criticised for refusing to exercise discretion favourably if it is clear that the individual considering the case has acted sensibly, reasonably, fairly and proportionately taking into account all the individual merits of the case. However, I find as a fact that in this case the Authority has done no such thing and has instead decided that because the contravention had occurred no further consideration was required and that would be the end of the matter.
I find that I am dealing with a complete failure to consider within the meaning of Halton Borough Council, R (On the Application Of) v Road User Charging Adjudicators [2023] EWHC 303 (Admin). I therefore find as a fact that the Authority failed to consider whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the penalty and because this is a mandatory duty under the regulations, I find that service of the Notice of Rejection occurred otherwise than as authorised by the Regulations, which is a procedural impropriety.
Regulation 7(5)(a) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations provides that if the Adjudicator concludes that a ground specified in the Regulations above applies, the Adjudicator must allow the appeal. There is no discretion about this."
I find that the Authority in this case has fettered its discretion by limiting its consideration of mitigation to emergency situations only.
Finally, for the same reasons as stated in the case of Melanie Green 2250689988 this appeal must be allowed.
-
There you go.
An adjudicator who doesn't understand the distinction between what justifies a PCN being issued in the first place and the authority's separate duty to consider representations.
Using their logic, NO reps for assisted alighting or boarding, loading, delivering etc. when away from a vehicle would ever succeed because the PCN was issued correctly in the context of what was known to the CEO at the time.
But this isn't the issue.
It's whether a penalty may be pursued by the council in light of all the facts, some of which only surface after the event.
But whereas these ideas could have been developed at the appeal, it was difficult after the event and with this 'lip service' approach to a thorough review doomed to fail.
C'est la vie!
-
I’ve uploaded the redacted pdf to Dropbox here (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ds286htho2xmbnysqv8da/2026-08-02-14.24.01.pdf?rlkey=2j4zfv4givwkyx7myhecsetia&st=65df728v&dl=0)
-
It's out of focus on my ipad, I'm afraid.
-
End of the line but tincombe may have thoughts.
-
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.
-
So... I got a result; the review was rejected. Here is the complete (but redacted) decision letter:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/dpycJrx_xl.png)
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.
-
Thanks.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Thanks for the review. The decision letter is here (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/kcumks3ct2ynhw27u2mgq/AJcg6LJFgs6WzwRirYnxXg4/Decision_206771_MC00061-2606.pdf?rlkey=tzzrk4y07o6kv7zl73loa5x3u&st=tuf5ggbt&dl=0) 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?
-
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
-
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 (https://paperless-ngx.netgeneration.co.uk/share/X2MZIprxAPL31rGAnn6xsKbxi5AzJv4J3C0f1OVyojl24Me7bS). 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 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/kcumks3ct2ynhw27u2mgq/AJ-Bol40evGkTAfqFgZISUk?rlkey=tzzrk4y07o6kv7zl73loa5x3u&st=qjo9fp6m&dl=0)
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/7GOPsxR_xl.png)
4. In their submissions the Council also state:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/w36Nb2u_xl.png)
5. The relevant TRO provides that the vehicle’s registration must be entered in order for exemption to apply:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/87T6vFS_xl.png)
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
(https://i.ibb.co/ccpvLkj4/image.png)
-
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.
-
The Video Hearing has now been set for 14/07/2026.
-
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:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/T5M9DMn_xl.jpeg)
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:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/FoehI0L_xl.png)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/0ksfZg0_xl.png)
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 (https://paperless-ngx.netgeneration.co.uk/share/TMzGim4uL4O1frCwjdu51pUGLAtuToT5L41g2n5s5MyyAPPhA7)
20 is here (https://paperless-ngx.netgeneration.co.uk/share/aOKOibeeRSG5ngNYZD1F8zdhhLKP7f4lNrwTY9KOcwgCKkFaVP)
Apologies for not adding this all earlier.
-
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 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...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/561/schedule/4
-
The font for numberplates has no separate "0" (zero), the "O" is used instead. see here: -
https://aplates.co.uk/what-font-is-used-on-uk-number-plates/
YU'll see that the same character "O" is used for both numeric and alpha
-
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.
-
You can also say the font on car numberplates is exactly the same for zero and letter O.
-
I've chosen the Video Call Hearing option as advised.
I'm not sure if there's much more to this besides what seems clear; the main points I'll be choosing to use will be that a 0 can be used in place of a O as per in normal language and also that if there's a 0 on the keypad, it can be perceived as tripping users up, that they should not fetter discretion and finally that no loss by the mistake.
-
Noted on the hearing.
The list of evidence is below:
1. Supporting Evidence (P&D, Receipt, Permit) - Added by Appellant at 11:51 on 03/06/2026
2. Penalty Charge Notice - Added by Appellant at 11:52 on 03/06/2026
3. Case Status Report/System Audit/Progression History - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
4. Penalty Charge Notice - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
5. Informal Challenge - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
6. Informal Challenge - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
7. Informal Challenge Rejection - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
8. Additional Correspondence (letters/emails) - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
9. Additional Correspondence (letters/emails) - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
10. Additional Correspondence (letters/emails) - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
11. Notice to Owner - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
12. Formal Representation - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
13. Formal Representation - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
14. Notice of Rejection of Representation - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
15. Photographs of car parked - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
16. Photographs of signage at pay station - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
17. Photographs of keyboard at paystation - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
18. Supporting Evidence (P&D, Receipt, Permit) - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
19. TRO/Schedule (add references in description) - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
20. TRO/Schedule (add references in description) - Confirmed by Authority Manager at 14:47 on 04/06/2026
The summary of the Council's explanation for dismissing the appeal:
"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."
-
The council have uploaded their evidence. Is there any benefit to choosing to have a telephone hearing rather than telling the adjudicator to make the decision based on what they see and infer from the evidence?
Post up from the Evidence Pack the list of contents and the 2-3 page summary of why the Council believe your appeal should be dismissed.
Always opt for personal (= video-link or telephone) hearing rather than on papers.
It gives you the chance to answer any questions the Adjudicator might have, to raise any points you may feel have been overlooked, and to come across as a credible witness.
-
The council have uploaded their evidence. Is there any benefit to choosing to have a telephone hearing rather than telling the adjudicator to make the decision based on what they see and infer from the evidence?
-
Thanks. I’ve added that in and sent it in with a copy of the parking receipt. I’ll come back here when I have their decision.
-
Yes you should mention the previous PCN as it's in their rejection.
I would just say:
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.
-
Thanks for the responses. I'm going to submit the appeal today. I've come up with the below:
• 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
Do you think it's worth me mentioning that they let us off in the first instance, to show that if it's ok once, it should be each time after that? in my mind I think it unfair but the adjudicator might see that point differently.
-
Manchester is not the only council that lets people off for making an error once.
I think the principle is that if you make the mistake once, they let you off and you should treat it as a warning to be more careful in future, and a prompt to learn from their mistake and be less careless in future.
-
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.
-
The official font for number plates has no character for '0' (zero), the letter 'O' is used instead, so I would take them to TPT, but be aware the full PCN penalty will be in play.
-
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>
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/thiBk4l_xl.jpg)<br>
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/EOjoXMX_xl.jpg)<br>
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/YJjalfp_xl.jpg)<br>
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Tn3aDVb_xl.jpg)<br>
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/EnN05Ul_xl.jpg)<br>
-
Ok, so I'm planning to send my appeal in today, stating something around the following (drafted with the help of an AI LLM):
Parking Services – Manchester City Council
Reference:
- MC04774743 (issued 20 Feb 2026)
Formal Appeal – Cancellation of MC04774743
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally appeal against MC04774743, issued to the vehicle registered FL15NFO on 20 February 2026 at the Arndale Car Park. I respectfully request that this notice be cancelled on the following grounds.
Grounds for Appeal
- Previous Cancellation for an Identical Error – The same registration‑entry mistake (0 vs O) led to an earlier PCN, which was cancelled after an informal appeal with the council’s written confirmation: “I am satisfied that you had paid for your parking time and your PCN has now been cancelled.”
- No Loss to the Council – Regulations allows for cancellation if the contravention was not committed. Here, the vehicle paid for the allotted parking period, so no contravention occurred.
- Payment for Parking was Completed – Attached receipt shows full payment for the 20 Feb 2026 session was made at the Arndale Car Park machine on 20 Feb 2026 at 10:12 am, within the allotted time. The council requires a PCN only when the vehicle has not paid or has exceeded the paid period; neither condition applies.
- Reasonable and Honest Mistake – The mistake—substituting the digit “0” for the letter “O” is a common, foreseeable error when entering registration details manually. Under the reasonable person_ test and the principle of _fairness_ detailed in the Local Government Regulations, such a mistake should not attract a financial penalty.
- Council’s Own Precedent – The council has already demonstrated that, in cases of a simple registration entry error coupled with payment, a PCN can be cancelled. Refusing to honour this precedent in the current case contradicts the council’s stated practice and undermines consistency in enforcement.
- Alignment with Council’s Enforcement Policy – The Manchester City Council Parking Services Annual Report 2024–25 (p. 8) emphasises that enforcement must be “reasonable and proportionate”, support safe and sustainable transport solutions, and deliver an equitable, neighbourhood‑focused service. Imposing a fine for a non‑contravention would conflict with these commitments.
Evidence Provided
- Proof of payment for the 20 Feb 2026 session (receipt/online confirmation).
Request
Given the abovw, I respectfully request that:
1. MC04774743 be cancelled in its entirety.
2. No penalty fee, late‑payment fee, or any other charge be applied.
I am prepared to provide any further documentation or attend an adjudication hearing if required. Please acknowledge receipt of this appeal and advise of the next steps.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Attachments
1. Copy of the earlier PCN and its cancellation letter.
2. Proof of payment for 20 Feb 2026.
Any help/guidance would be gratefully received.
-
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.
-
There is a duty not to fetter discretion - applying a rule not to consider a subsequent PCN afresh - but they did put you on notice of probably not cancelling for the same error and this may be in a policy.
In fact we see councils increasingly not even letting people off with a first time trivial error.
That said, the earlier cancellation says they were satisfied you paid, and the contravention is not paying, but you did so the contravention did not occur although they may well have a traffic order saying payment must be for a specific vehicle.
How was the mistake made? Was the car wrongly set up on a pay by phone app or was it at a machine.
-
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 (https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/nasty-review-of-0o-mistake-on-vrm/msg74126/#msg74126) 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):
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/VpFH8cg_xl.jpg)
The first informal appeal rejection letter:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/r7xJVib_xl.jpg)
The second informal appeal rejection letter (which was also sent to us in the post):
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/rSpzCcF_xl.jpg)
NTO:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/pQaomnO_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/eIggpZp_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/tZ5gEMu_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/m6N4Cam_xl.jpg)
For background, the acceptance of the first informal appeal letter:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/JU7RzCo_xl.jpg)
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.