Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => The Flame Pit => Topic started by: stamfordman on May 31, 2025, 07:45:51 pm
-
Indeed digging into traffic orders may be useful.
Lo and behold this decision from yesterday which really misses the point, plus below that a typical one we've seen by the more friendly adjudicators up til now.
-----------
Case reference 2250068018
Appellant xxxxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Tower Hamlets
VRM FY64BBO
PCN Details
PCN TT58312847
Contravention date 24 Nov 2024
Contravention time 12:03:00
Contravention location Crispin Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 31 May 2025
Adjudicator Gerald Styles
As the appellant did not attend the video hearing arranged for 31 May I have now decided this case on the basis of correspondence and related papers sent to tribunal in connection with the case. The Council did not send a representative to the hearing.
I have accepted the officer correctly checked and found no record of relevant payment. This was because what the motorist had paid intending it for the car (FY64BBO) was sent for FY64BB0.
The final alphanumeric on the registration paid for was a zero as opposed “O” for Oscar.
This is certainly not the first time I have seen such a mistake result in a parking penalty charge. I suspect such cases have however become fewer as people in general have become more alert to Oscar/Zero confusion risks and keyboard skills at large have perhaps also improved. Also phone screens and keyboards are often clearer now than in early years.
Crucially I have agreed with the Council that the responsibility for keying the correct registration rests with motorists and a motorist mistake means the car is unlawfully parked even though money was taken and paid for time not exceeded.
I have not seen a sufficient legal basis for allowing this appeal. I find the contravention occurred.
I have taken note of what the appellant has written about her health issues but I do not see the mistake as surrounded by exceptionally high mitigation and the Council was entitled to decline a discretionary cancellation. I cannot describe the mitigation as compelling.
It is the full penalty charge which is payable. Earlier opportunity for discount is expired and cannot be reset by the adjudicator at the adjudication stage.
----------
Case reference 2240419047
Appellant xxxxxxxx
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.
xxxxxxx'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 xxxxxxx junior’s phone read ‘LG09 RVK’.
There is no realistic prospect that another car was parked , that Mr xxxxxxx 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
-
Did the TRO require a registration number to be inputted and even if it did does s.35 the RTRA 1984 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/35) allow for such a requirement?
-
So, an error of law now falls under the "interests of justice"? When was Swift J's judgment on that issue overturned?
Also struggling a bit with the concept of an admission by a party being binding in law, but actual legislation not be binding - albeit without considering whether the legislation was interpreted correctly as this is irrelevant as the party made an admission (which the pervious adjudicator's interpretation of the legislation rendered moot as it could not have been incorrect regardless of whether or not he believed it had been a mistake). I am reminded of Lord Templeman's famous fork metaphor in his judgement in Street v Mountford.
Slightly less facetious question, when an authority seeks a review, in the knowledge that a binding authority precludes the adjudicator from permitting such a review, but in the hope that he will anyway, does that constitute malfeasance, perverting the course of justice, or just local authorities doing what local authorities do?
-
Shame on Lewisham for being nasty enough to review this allowed appeal and I hope the overturn by Mr Wallington doesn't set a precedent as clearly it isn't true that everyone knows the format of VRMs and this really isn't in the interests of justice.
Hopefully the adjudicators that allow appeals for an identical font won't be put off.
The letter O and the digit 0 are intentionally identical (as are the letter I and digit 1).
In this case the reviewer may have been swayed by the driver making a similar mistake and as the owner should know better but I'm not buying that as when you're in car park wrestling with a pay by phone app conditions are not the same as say renewing 'road tax' and that's usually not done by entering the VRM anyway.
-----------
Case reference 225006412A
Appellant Mahmut Hassan
Authority London Borough of Lewisham
VRM AU67NYO
PCN Details
PCN ZY1251191A
Contravention date 14 Dec 2024
Contravention time 14:34:00
Contravention location Clarendon Rise Car Park
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 16 Apr 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The Appellant did not attend the hearing.
In entering his registration number he used the symbol”0” instead of an “O” for the last digit of his number.
In many cases an error in entering a registration number will not avail the motorist, as the result is that although payment is made, it is not technically made for the vehicle which is actually parked. It is settled law that the registration number is an essential component of the vehicle for these purposes. Nevertheless in a case such as the present, one might expect an enforcement authority to exercise discretion.
However in the present case it is unnecessary to rely on the Council’s goodwill in that regard. The Appellant has in fact entered his correct registration number. 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. It follows that no contravention occurred and the Appeal must be allowed.
Decision Date 30 May 2025
Adjudicator Graeme Wallington
Previous decision Appeal allowed
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons Review Application
1. The Enforcement Authority (EA) has made an application for a review of the decision made by adjudicator Houghton on 16 April 2025.
2. The appeal was listed for a personal video hearing on 30 May 2025 at 14:45. By 14:55 neither Enforcement Authority (EA) nor the Appellant had attended or otherwise contacted the Tribunal. I therefore proceeded to determine the case based upon the papers, as had been advised would occur in the notice of hearing sent dated 13 May 2025.
3. Under the regulations a part can apply for a decision to be reviewed on certain narrowly defined grounds as set out in Regulation 12 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022:
(I) the decision was wrongly made as the result of an administrative error;
(ii) the adjudicator was wrong to reject the notice of appeal;
(iii) a party who failed to appear or be represented at a hearing had good and sufficient reason for failing to appear;
(iv) where the decision was made after a hearing, new evidence has become available since the conclusion of the hearing, the existence of which could not reasonably have been known or foreseen;
(v) where the decision was made without a hearing, new evidence has become available since the decision was made, the existence of which could not reasonably have been known or foreseen;
(vi) the interests of justice require such a review.
4. The EA has submitted that its application satisfies the ground that the interests of justice require a review.
5. The EA submits that the adjudicator made a mistake of law as while he correctly identified the law in stating that “It is settled law that the registration number is an essential component of the vehicle for these purposes.” (the “purposes” referred to being paying for parking), he then incorrectly applied that by deciding that the Appellant recording an “0” (zero) instead of an O (letter) at the end of his registration number was not a mistake as “.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.”
6. The Appellant has not submitted any response to the review application.
7. I am satisfied that the EA has established a strong arguable case, not that the adjudicator made a mistake in law, but that the adjudicator made a findings that were not supported by the admitted facts. The Appellant stated in writing that he made a mistake in entering his vehicle registration mark when paying for parking. Having correctly identified the law, it was not open to the adjudicator to decide, notwithstanding the admission, that there was no mistake as vehicle registration plates have the same character for both “O” (letter) and “0” (zero). The adjudicator made no finding as to what the correct VRM was nor how the format of the registration plate characters could override the Appellant’s admission of a mistake and the legal requirement to pay for the correct VRM. The interests of justice therefore require a review. I allow the review, set aside the original decision and I shall decide the case afresh.
Appeal
8. This is an appeal against a penalty charge notice issued for parking without payment of the parking charge.
9. The Appellant does not dispute that his vehicle was parked at Clarendon Rise Car Park where a parking payment is required on 14 December 2024. He states that payment was made in the total sum of £10.97 for parking using the PayBPphone app. However, an error was made in entering the vehicle’s registration mark (VRM); one digit was wrong; Instead of paying for AU67NYO (letter) he paid for AU67NY0 (zero). A screen shot of the payment receipt is produced.
10. The Appellant submits that it is clear that he has paid for parking, even if he made a mistake in the VRM. He has proved that he paid by way of the screenshot of the relevant parking session purchased. Also, the payment app should not accept payment for a VRM that does not exist.
11. The Enforcement Authority (EA) states the Appellant’s vehicle was parked at Clarendon Rise Car Park at 14:34 but no payment was made for the parking of the relevant VRM. They say that there is clear signage at the location indicating the requirement to pay for parking.
12. The EA produces timed photographic evidence of the signage, the parked vehicle and the PCN affixed to the vehicle’s windscreen. They acknowledge that a payment was made for a VRM with one digit different from the Appellant’s but submit that the obligation is upon the driver/registered keeper to ensure that payment is made for the correct VRM.
13. The EA produces evidence that the Appellant has made a similar mistake in the past and the EA has exercised their discretion to cancel a previous PCN on 16 June 2024, at the same time advising the Appellant to correctly enter the VRM in the future.
14. I am satisfied from the evidence that the contravention did occur. I find that the Appellant had no intention of deliberately avoiding payment of the parking charge, but payment was inadvertently made for an incorrect VRM. The payment app must accept any VRM entered, even if not on its database, so as to allow parking to be paid for by newly registered vehicles, vehicles that have recently charged their VRM or foreign registered vehicles which may not yet be on the database or which may never be on the database.
15. I can only allow an appeal if one of the statutory grounds of appeal is established. Making a mistake does not fall within any of the grounds of appeal. Paying for the correct VRM is an essential requirement when making a parking payment.
16. Although the letter “O” and the number “0” may appear identical on a number plate, the owner of the vehicle will be well aware of their actual VRM. A VRM cannot comprise a character which can be both a number and a letter. It must be one or the other. Standard VRM’s follow a pattern of two letters; two numbers; three letters. The last character in a standard VRM will therefore always be a letter not a number. The correct VRM must be recorded in many cases, for example, paying for Road Tax, paying for parking or selling/transferring a vehicle. It is the registered keeper/owner’s obligation to ensure that the correct VRM is recorded in all these cases. If not, the incorrect vehicle will be taxed or sold or parking paid for, etc.
17. The Appellant’s submissions amount to mitigation only which the EA has already considered. Having exercised discretion in the past, the EA has declined to do so again. Adjudicators have no power to consider mitigation as confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Walmsley v Transport for London [2005] EWCA Civ 1540. No ground of appeal has been established.
18. I therefore dismiss the appeal and find that the penalty charge is payable.