Show Posts - iispartan

Any thoughts on draft? Hoping to send off tonight

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, 

Thanks a lot. I’m happy to start drafting reps, if you could point me to the right cases then that would be helpful

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

Again on behalf of a friend.She parked and paid for a session on the app for a day (screenshot to prove), however realised that she had entered the wrong number plate on the app. For reference, the number plate is L14ENM, but she entered LI4ENM (hard to distinguish this on the app).She appealed informally however this was rejected. Now she has received an NtO and wondering whether it’s worth going all the way and on what grounds. Obviously this was a genuine mistake, a session was paid for so no revenue loss to the council and number plate was different by one digit so feels excessive. Appreciate any advice. All pics in attached link: https://imgpile.com/p/yTFI3AfAlso pasting below her initial appeal:I had paid for the full day on the pay by phone app for this vehicle. Details in screenshot. I realise there was letter wrong on the number plate as I have only recently been insured and started using this vehicle as my previous one has been sent back . I entered the letter I instead of number 1 on the app by mistake . I realised this error as went to look for a way to correct it on the pay by phone app as payment for the full day parking had already gone through however before I found a solution at 9.05 I already had a ticket. I spoke to the ticket warden who issued the ticket and showed her my payment and receipt through the app and she said if I appeal the ticket this fine would be cancelled. Please help as it was an innocent mistake and I do have records of paying and doing the right thing to be parked there

I believe the registered keeper is her mum, but they live at same address and she’s insured on the vehicle. Yes, below is the initial appeal that was rejected:Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice. On the date of the alleged contravention (19/03/2026), I had parked in Carlton Gardens (W5) and paid for parking using the PayByPhone app. I have attached a screenshot as evidence of this payment. However, I now understand that I mistakenly selected the location code for the opposite side of the road, where different parking zones apply. This was an honest and genuine error, as both sides of the road are in close proximity and it was not clear at the time that they required different location codes. Importantly: • A valid payment was made covering the time of the alleged contravention • There was no intention to avoid payment • The error relates only to the location code, not to non-payment Given that payment was made in full and this was a minor and understandable mistake, I kindly request that you exercise discretion and cancel this PCN. I would appreciate your consideration of this appeal and look forward to your response.

Thanks very much for the response, I’ve drafted an appeal below. I think I’ll advise her to wait for the NtO and take this all the way. Let me know your thoughts. I make formal representations on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.The PCN has been issued for contravention code 19s. This code applies where a vehicle is parked in a residents’ or shared-use bay with an invalid permit, voucher, or pay and display ticket, i.e. one that would have been valid for that parking place at some time, or where paid-for time has expired.That is not the situation here. Payment was made via the council’s pay-by-phone system for the relevant period. The issue is not that the payment was invalid in the sense required by code 19s, but rather that it was made against a different location. In such circumstances, the alleged contravention is not properly made out under code 19s.Further, the council’s rejection asserts that payment by phone is not usable in this bay. This is contradicted by the council’s own photographic evidence, which shows signage stating “Permit holders or pay by phone…”, confirming that this is a shared-use bay where payment by phone is permitted.The council has therefore both misapplied the contravention code and relied on an incorrect understanding of the applicable signage.In the circumstances, the alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN must be cancelled.

On behalf of a friend.She parked her car on Carlton Gardens and payed via the app. However she found a ticket on her windscreen and later realised the session she payed for was Carlton Road which is adjacent to it and very similar parking codes. She appealed to the council explaining the misunderstanding however unsurprisingly they have rejected the appeal (attached) but doesn’t even seem like they read it.Now the question is, is it still worth appealing further? It feels unfair especially after such a similar road name and code. Any thoughts welcomed. Link to images: https://imgpile.com/p/eJmpoeS

I received a PCN at 15:58, during which I was in the process of purchasing my session on RingGo which eventually went through at 16:04, which is 6 minutes after I got the PCN.Is there an argument here to appeal based on de minimis? Would appreciate any other advice, I just feel this is very excessive.Some context, I am a resident of a property on the street I received a PCN, but I haven’t got a permit  as my vehicle predominantly stays at my mothers address.Images are now here given Imgur has now been blocked in the UK:  https://postimg.cc/gallery/d0xrsPZHopefully no issues with the link

Fair point. The car is shared with my mother so when she visits I pay for a visitor permit as the car is usually parked at my mums address so have a permit there. She was with me at the time but I purchase the visitor permit on her behalf essentially.

Bumping this to see if anyone else can spot any fatal errors with this PCN, otherwise will appeal for discretion and likely bite the bullet

The bay sign attached. I’ll see what others say and then will try appeal for discretion but as you pointed out not getting my hopes up

Hi all,I received a PCN from Islington for parking on a resident road without a valid ticket. This is on a road where I actually live, and therefore have a visitor permit which I often use, however this time I forgot to pay.I don’t hold a full resident permit as I share this vehicle and it’s mainly parked at my mums address in Camden. Initially wanted to appeal asking for discretion from the council and showing evidence of my visitors permit and my past transactions. But wanted to get views from experts here to see if there is another angle. Below is the PCN and pics.Thanks in advance https://imgur.com/a/bMiuRLj

I initially thought this was a private PCN, but apparently this is a council PCN managed by Wing. The driver parked in an estate, and the PCN was issued on car window.See image of PCN below. I’ve read conflicting advice online with regards to whether this should be appealed/paid. Can someone pls advise?Thankshttps://imgur.com/a/tj9LMhl

I’m a bit confused, I logged in to the TfL portal to see what it says, and it’s now saying £160 due, which is the full priced PCN. I’m not saying the contravention did not occur, I don’t think I can argue that. But what I can argue is that I did not receive their response and therefore should be given the chance to pay the discounted price, but I know losing at the tribunal  would mean I’d have to pay the £160 anyways… so what can I argue?