Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Frustrated123 on February 19, 2025, 03:02:01 pm
-
Not having seen your challenge and their rejection, I would say wait for the Notice to Owner.
-
Many thanks for your support and responses. Please find attached the PCN. I shared the email from RingGo which showed proof of payment for the car and time with Kingston Council but they rejected it.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
As above. And I am frustrated because I do not have the PCN/VRM details.
-
There are plenty of tribunal cases where the 0/O error is ruled in your favour. Here's two from Kingston. The font used on numberplates is identical for 0 and O.
There is one adjudicator though who doesn't get this but hopefully Kingston will cancel at the next stage.
Post the PCN, your challenge and their rejection.
---------
Case Details
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 Details
Case reference 2240412933
Appellant Henrike Mueller
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM SG66POV
PCN Details
PCN QT09112769
Contravention date 24 Apr 2024
Contravention time 08:58:00
Contravention location WOLSEY CLOSE
Penalty amount GBP 110.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 22 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons Mr Michael Papadakis has attended the hearing by telephone as the authorised representative of the appellant.
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.
-
Issued with penalty notice as I keyed in number 0 instead of letter O in RingGo app. Provided them with email proof of parking with reg number and their response was "Whilst we appreciate a parking session was made, we cannot identify this with the vehicle in contravention." Should I pay the reduced charge or appeal? First time this has ever happened to me.