Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: AdamP on August 06, 2025, 01:07:42 pm
-
Edited.
-
Only most experienced adjudicators can tell the difference between O and 0 and I and 1 on the numberplate font. It takes years of training.
(https://i.imgur.com/dGJn96Q.png)
-
Understood, it doesn't.
-
My cars VRM ? relevance ?
If you have (or have had) a car with a VRM with O or 0 you might be expected to know about digits.
-
@stamfordman
Thank you vey much for this.
My cars VRM ? relevance ?
Yes the contractor is the owner / keeper of the vehicle.
I have written back to the Council in an email suggesting that the PCN notices might be cancelled before the need to go any NTO and adjudication.
-
Do you have a car and if so what is the VRM.
You have checked the contractor is the owner/keeper of the van?
Authorities such as councils have a duty to act fairly under statutory guidance.
We have some policy docs from Ealing but nothing I can see that is helpful - I'll see if there are updates.
------------
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
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 to the public interest. Failure to act in accordance with the general principles of public law may lead to a claim for a decision to be judicially reviewed.
-
Thank you for responses. I am going to bite the bullet and continue to challenge as I feel it is completely unreasonable having clearly paid for the parking. On double checking the Pay by Phone proof of payment which I have emailed to the Council today it is in fact that I used number 0 rather than letter O, which is in actual fact exactly how the number plate reads to the naked eye.
-
I was looking at a refused appeal - the adjudicator said, rightly, that an owner should know from taxing, insuring etc a vehicle what the digits are.
But each case turns on its facts - what about an overseas visitor who hires a car, or as with you, who buys a session for someone else's vehicle.
There is also the matter of what the traffic order says.
-
OP as already advised, NTOs would be sent to the registered keeper in the first instance. The probability is that with a 65 plate the vehicle is not leased, therefore the contractor would be the RK and receive NTOs.
Would you know their practice in these situations? There's no formal discount with NTOs although it's often re-offered after unsuccessful reps, so it's worthwhile formal reps being made. You would just have to get the contractor to let you act on their behalf.
At present, it's premature for you to consider your success at tribunal because you're not there.
They have re-offered the discount and it costs £160 for you to make this go away.
-
There are a lot of allowed appeals like below for this but some adjudicators don't see it this way.
They should because the numberplate font for O and 0 is identical.
I presume though that you used the number 0 instead of the letter O...
But who is the registered keeper - if the van is leased it gets complicated.
-----------------
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
--------
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.
----------
Case reference 2240452097
Appellant Carlton Mcleod
Authority London Borough of Brent
VRM EY11OZG
PCN Details
PCN BT21537744
Contravention date 15 Mar 2024
Contravention time 09:36:00
Contravention location Allington Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 12 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons This appeal was scheduled for a personal hearing today but no-one has attended and so it is being decided on the evidence presented.
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.
-------------
Case reference 2240383584
Appellant Shaheen Akter
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM WF09CXV
PCN Details
PCN PN39070079
Contravention date 27 Jun 2024
Contravention time 16:00:00
Contravention location Shaftesbury Road Car Park
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 14 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Martin Hoare
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Ms Akter submitted ‘On 27 June 2024, I parked my vehicle at Shaftesbury Road Car Park.
• At 15:49, I successfully made the required parking payment via phone for location code 70025, which corresponds to Shaftesbury Road Car Park.
• The payment was confirmed, and I have attached a screenshot of the transaction from my phone, along with a corresponding bank statement, as evidence.
• Despite my payment being made at 15:49, I was issued the PCN at 15:55, claiming non-payment of the parking charge.’
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.
-
Extremely grateful for advice on how to proceed.
I used a Visitors Permit through the Pay by Phone app to park a contactors van and paid to cover a full day (restriction times are 9-10 am and 2-3pm)
It transpires I had used the letter O from the number plate instead of 0. The 0 in this case is the last digit on the plate, looking at other number plates the last three digits are in letter form hence my using letter O. The van received two tickets, one for each period.
The challenges have now both been declined.
The penalty will be £80.00 (reduced from £ 160.00)for each offence. This is the same penalty if I had not paid for any parking permit at all !
I think this is grossly unfair being a simple case of human error and I would like to appeal further in the hope of having these notices overturned.
The further complications being that they say in the decline I am not allowed to further challenge and the fine if not paid within 28 days will result in a Notice to Owner (a building contractor) who can then appeal.
It states - 'It is not possible to appeal to an adjudicator without making formal representation to us' therefore after the NTO is served.
I imagine there is a precedent for this case (cases), any help will be very gratefully received. I certainly don't want to end up paying 2 x £ 160.00 and really would prefer not to have to involve the owner of the vehicle.
Many thanks.