Free Traffic Legal Advice

The PCN can be seen within the link I shared. I think the confusion lies with the signage, which seems to only apply to motorcycles however the section under it is for vehicles which gave the impression it was ok to park there.

I’ll fish out the GSV link and send through shortly

Response in link https://imgpile.com/p/xlDqfMB#Mj22T9d

Thanks for this, makes sense. Does any evidence need to be attached eg pic of road sign?

Thanks - I’ve tweaked the draft

Ground: The contravention did not occur

I make formal representations on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.

The PCN was issued for contravention code 19s. This code applies where a vehicle is parked with an invalid permit, voucher, or pay and display ticket, or after the expiry of paid-for time.

At the time of the alleged contravention, there was an active pay-by-phone session with Ealing Council for Carlton Road from 08:08 to 09:30. The PCN was issued at 09:17 on Carlton Gardens, during the period of that active session. This is therefore not a case of expired time, nor a case where no payment had been made.

A live payment made for an adjacent location is not an obvious or proper fit for contravention code 19s as defined. The alleged contravention is therefore not made out.

Further, the council’s rejection states that payment by phone was not usable in this bay. This is incorrect. The council’s own photographic evidence shows signage stating “Permit holders or pay by phone…”, confirming that payment by phone is permitted at this location.

The rejection therefore fails to address the actual circumstances and relies on a clear factual error regarding the signage.

In the circumstances, the alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN must be cancelled.

NtO has arrived. Is the draft I posted above ok to send?

Many thanks for the cases - very useful. I’ve drafted the below. Would appreciate if you could review. My friend is going abroad on Friday for 2 weeks so would like to submit reps before she goes.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: PCN [INSERT NUMBER] 
Vehicle Registration: L14ENM 

I wish to challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.

At the time of parking, I paid in full for the required parking session using the PayByPhone app. However a minor keying error when entering my vehicle registration number, inputting “LI4ENM” instead of “L14ENM” resulted in the PCN being issued. This arose because the characters “I” (capital i) and “1” (one) are visually indistinguishable in the font used.

I submit that the PCN should be cancelled for the following reasons:

1. A valid payment was made – no loss to the authority 
Payment was made for the correct location, time and duration. There has been no financial loss, no unfair advantage, and no misuse of the parking system.

2. This is a minor keying error (de minimis) 
The error involves a single character substitution that is visually identical.

This position is supported by tribunal decisions:

- Case reference 2250021604 (Peter Corner v London Borough of Barnet, the adjudicator held that “there is no realistic prospect that another car was parked, that Mr Corner gained any unfair benefit or that the Council lost money… This is a trifling matter. The law is not concerned with a trifle.”

Similarly, in Florence Blatchley v London Borough of Haringey the adjudicator found a similar VRM input error to be: 
  “a trifling mistake. The law is not concerned with a trifle.”

3. Identical characters in law (I = 1 / O = 0) 
In Jonathan Peter Holl v London Borough of Brent, the adjudicator relied on Regulation 15 and Schedule 4 of the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001, noting that the prescribed font makes the letter “I” and the digit “1” identical.

Similarly, in Oliver Smart v Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, the adjudicator held that authorities must act fairly where such indistinguishable characters are involved, and that systems should account for this.

4. Duty of fairness and proportionality 
The tribunal has made clear that enforcement authorities must act fairly and proportionately, particularly where:
- payment has been made in full, and 
- the only issue is a trivial input error.

Penalising a motorist in these circumstances would be disproportionate and contrary to the principles applied in the above cases.

5. The payment can clearly be linked to my vehicle 
The near-identical VRM, combined with matching time, location and payment record, clearly demonstrates that the parking session relates to my vehicle.

---

In light of the above, I request that the PCN be cancelled.

I have enclosed evidence of payment to support this appeal along with proof that the two digits appear identical in the app.

Yours faithfully, 

She paid for a visitors permit, I believe the screenshot also shows this in the link I attached.