#2 Re: Ealing, 12r - parked in bay without valid permit. Wrong number Plate on App
on 13 Apr, 2026 19:31 in Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on)
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,