Show Posts - Hardwired7223

Hi @tincombe,We parked there after 8pm... if I were to be exact, it was at 20:01-20:02 as we arrived there earlier, went around the block in traffic and then came back, after seeing no other space and assuming that it was free to park at after 20:00, therefore we did not buy a ticket.

Quote from: tincombe on 15 Sep, 2026 14:53What does the ticket machine say?Here are the photos we took after seeing the ticket on the car...To the left of the car, there was a ticket machine and there was a post, next to a tree, near to that.

Hi All,Another day another unexpected parking ticket!I went out with the family for a birthday meal, parked in a parking space on the road and although we checked the operational hours for buying a ticket (0800-2000), there was a ticket on the car on our return.Here's the ticket:Here's the google maps streetview link I took photos of the signage on the road and can now see that the yellow clearway sign states 8pm - 8am for the restriction, so all other times will require a parking ticket. Another thread on this is here: https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/manchester-council-contravention-01-st-john-st/msg95425/?topicseen#msg95425 and is basically for the same issue.My question about this is whether an appeal is likely to succeed given that there does appear to have been a violation due to not seeing or reading the clearway hours correctly and therefore assuming it was fine to park there after 8pm?

I’ve uploaded the redacted pdf to Dropbox here

So... I got a result; the review was rejected. Here is the complete (but redacted) decision letter:Is it worth taking this further?Edit: The letter image in the post appears blurry but if you right-click it and open it in a new tab it's clearer.

So I submitted the review request along with some explanation for doing this after the 14 day deadline (seeking advice and some other personal extenuating circumstances). I received the standard auto reply so will wait to see whether the request is accepted or not.

Thanks for the review. The decision letter is here and is dated in the same day as the hearing (14/07/2026) so I am one day out if I send it in now. Is there any chance that will still work?

Quote from: tincombe on 27 Jul, 2026 16:40I asked that you post the actual decision letter, is this not possible?I have no idea when your window for requesting a review ends.Apologies, I provided the document as a post as some of the images used in the Adjudicator's response were obscured on the right hand side. The redacted doc is here. If necessary, I will provide each page as an image within a forum post. Hopefully this helps with the review window evalulation.QuoteAnd pl post all the TRO which was submitted in evidence by the council.This and all Council evidence is provided in this dropbox link hereQuoteAs I explained in post #25, the alleged contravention is 'non-payment' it is NOT failing to insert the correct VRM.That part of the TRO which deals with what evidence constitutes failure to pay is NOT 25, it's 27. 27. Subject to Articles 29 and 35 of this Order, should no indication appear on the hand held device that payment of the parking charge has been made or an indication that the parking period for which payment of the parking charge was made has expired it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that either -(a) the parking charge has not been duly paid in respect of that vehicle,I can only see 25 in what you've posted. IMO,If 27 was presented, then the adjudicator reached a conclusion which was not supported by the evidence, orIf 27 was not presented, then you have 'interests of justice' grounds because this and only this establishes the alleged contravention and it was withheld by the council.Hopefully, I've provided all you need for clarity. Appreciate all the work to help me with this.

Quote from: stamfordman on 27 Jul, 2026 13:04You didn't pick up the point I made about the numberplate and translating it to the keyboard. The VRM font looks more like a zero on that keyboard than a letter O.I did state this in the actual hearing and was very explicit in my explanation of all points. I also stated this in the appeal TPT points prior to the hearing, as below:"Grounds of Appeal:   The alleged parking contravention did not occur.Explanation:   • At 09:15 on 20/02/26, my wife successfully made the required parking payment via the parking payment machine in the Arndale Car Park• The payment was successful, and I have attached a photo of the Visa payment receipt for the transaction that was issued by the machine at the time• Despite the payment being made at 09:15, she was issued the PCN at 09:52, claiming non-payment of the parking charge.• According to the Council the registration that was entered was FL15 NF0 instead of FL15 NFO. The “O” and the “0” were interchanged.• The keyboard entry 0 may denote a zero but it may properly be read in the alternative as a letter and the same applies the other way round. If someone wrote 0, it could properly be read as a zero or as the letter of the alphabet, so I believe it to be unfair to penalise someone for a valid entry that anyone could honestly use at any time• If the zero entry is not allowed, it should not be available as a button to press on the parking machine or it should be adjusted such that pressing a zero adds the correct 'O' character to avoid such situations and confusion• My wife did not gain any unfair benefit from parking here as the payment was made in good faith and so the Council lost no money or suffered any real inconvenience• Regarding the previous PCN, I understand you have a duty not to fetter discretion and must look at each case afresh. On our part we will take steps to ensure this error with the identical character won't happen again, notwithstanding the comments about the issues with the keyboard and characters that can be pressed when entering a licence plate number in the car park."

Here is the decision info:"Mr [REDACTED] attended a remote hearing before me today. The Council were represented by Mr Cahill. In summary appeal submissions, Mr [REDACTED] states: “• At 09:15 on 20/02/26, my wife successfully made the required parking payment via the parking payment machine in the Arndale Car Park• The payment was successful, and I have attached a photo of the Visa payment receipt for the transaction that was issued by the machine at the time• Despite the payment being made at 09:15, she was issued the PCN at 09:52, claiming non-payment of the parking charge.• According to the Council the registration that was entered was FL15 NF0 instead of FL15 NFO. The “O” and the “0” were interchanged.• The keyboard entry 0 may denote a zero but it may properly be read in the alternative as a letter and the same applies the other way round. If someone wrote 0, it could properly be read as a zero or as the letter of the alphabet, so I believe it to be unfair to penalise someone for a valid entry that anyone could honestly use at any time• If the zero entry is not allowed, it should not be available as a button to press on the parking machine or it should be adjusted such that pressing a zero adds the correct 'O' character to avoid such situations and confusion• My wife did not gain any unfair benefit from parking here as the payment was made in good faith and so the Council lost no money or suffered any real inconvenience• Regarding the previous PCN, I understand you have a duty not to fetter discretion and must look at each case afresh. On our part we will take steps to ensure this error with the identical character won't happen again, notwithstanding the comments about the issues with the keyboard and characters that can be pressed when entering a licence plate number in the car park.”3.        In correspondence the Council explained:4.        In their submissions the Council also state:5.        The relevant TRO provides that the vehicle’s registration must be entered in order for exemption to apply: 6.        Whilst I accept that the incorrect entry of a VIN is an easy mistake to make, I am bound to conclude that payment for parking time was not made in respect of the specific registration of the vehicle in question and such that the contravention did occur. 7.        Unlike the Council, the Adjudicator has no power to cancel a penalty notice on the basis of mitigating circumstances alone. The Council does not have to prove “intent” to commit a contravention. Whilst I accept this was a genuine mistake, the Council were entitled – in the exercise of their discretion – to take account of that fact that they had waived a PCN issued to the same vehicle on 10 December 2025 at the same location and in respect of which the same mistake – and with an express written warning that should the same circumstances arise again that the PCN may not be waived. 8.        I must accordingly dismiss the appeal."I haven't paid the ticket yet but I'm not given any option other than paying the fine when looking at the Tribunal site.

Apologies for not coming back sooner but I attended the hearing and my appeal was rejected on the basis grounds that as the council had already allowed the first appeal and given a warning, they shouldn’t be expected to accept another. Sadly, the adjudicator agreed. I’ll post the full detail up here as soon as I get some time to do so as I’ve been very busy lately. I do feel this is unfair but unless the keypads or policies change, I can easily see others falling foul of the same issue. It really does seem unjust that the characters are available on the keyboards without being valid but if the adjudicators see this as a valid PCN, what hope if there of changing things?

Quote from: tincombe on 12 Jun, 2026 23:2027. Subject to Articles 29 and 35 of this Order, should no indication appear on the hand helddevice that payment of the parking charge has been made or an indication that the parkingperiod for which payment of the parking charge was made has expired it shall be presumedunless the contrary is proved, that either -(a) the parking charge has not been duly paid tn respect of that vehicle, or(b) the parking period for which payment of the parking charge was madehas already expired, or(c) the free parking period has not been registered, or(d) the free parking period has expired.But from what I can see, you have proved and they have accepted 'the contrary'. This is about failure to comply with the provisions in an Order, so which provision do they claim was breached given that they accept that the 'owner' who they are pursuing paid. Have they highlighted the provisions which they are drawing to the adjudicator's attention? Coming back to this for pre-hearing cramming/prep...I can't see that they have highligted the provisions but have provided their statement on the matter here:The Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) recorded that the vehicle was parked in a pay-on-arrival carpark without payment for a parking session being made.The information on the car park signage states that ‘A parking session must be purchased at thetime of parking’ and a penalty charge notice will be issue for being ‘Parked without payment ofthe parking charge’ (Evidence 15-16).The CEO carried out their observations and checked for a parking payment on their handheldcomputer, however a parking session for vehicle registration FL15NFO could not be found(Evidence 3).The Council submits that the vehicle registration was entered as FL15NF0 (zero) and notFL15NFO:The Council submits that upon purchasing parking time motorists are required to accuratelyenter the full vehicle registration by using the correct letters/numbers on the keypad (Evidence17).A previous Penalty Charge Notice was cancelled when the vehicle registration was incorrectlyentered and the appellant was advised that further Penalty Charge Notices issued for the samereason may not be cancelled (Evidence 21).The Council is satisfied that the contravention occurred and the registered keeper is liable forthe outstanding charge.I've written out the following as my crib notes:Points to mention in hearing:A 0 can be used in place of a O as per in normal languageIf there's a 0 on the keypad, it can be perceived as tripping users upThey should not fetter discretionThere has been no loss by the mistakeThe font on car number plates is exactly the same for zero and letter OThe legislation doesn't indeed include zero so that the letter O is used as a zero really shouldn't be allowed e.g. The number 1 is included but not the letter I and the letter is not used presumably because of confusion but of course these two are also still confusedThe pay machine does not include 'wrong reg' as a contravention for which a penalty charge is payable.

The ref for the case is MC00061-2606. Hopefully, this is what you need. I will also update the previous posts with links that work shortly. Edit: Links updated.

The Video Hearing has now been set for 14/07/2026.

Quote from: tincombe on 11 Jun, 2026 14:50The payment was successful, and I have attached a photo of the Visa payment receipt for the transaction that was issued by the machine at the timeWhere is this pl?The receipt is below:Quote from: tincombe on 11 Jun, 2026 14:50The Council submits that upon purchasing parking time motorists are required to accurately enter the full vehicle registration by using the correct letters/numbers on the keypad (Evidence 17).17. Photographs of keyboard at paystation ??Paystation & keyboard photos are below: QuoteThe requirement to enter the VRM must be in the Order. If it isn't and all it requires is payment, then this isn't at issue and your appeal must be allowed.Where are items 19 and 20 pl?19 is here20 is hereApologies for not adding this all earlier.