Misspelt Registration Number - Zero used not O - Smart PCN

Cubeguy3

I've had a read of the Newbies board but haven't found a close enough match to answer my question. Scanning some other posts there are a lot that cover 'my other car's registration was used, etc'.

My wife has received a PCN from Smart Parking Limited, however the required payment was made to cover the time the car was parked on the land.

The issue here is the ticket was entered with a Zero instead of an O in the last three letters of the registration number; we have the ticket to prove this.

I am looking for some advice for the best approach to try and resolve this please.

Many thanks

nosferatu1001

Then you didnt read the newbies thread, which tells you NOT to look for the exact same circumstance. Its in bold. Really hard to miss.

This is smart. They fold.

FYI the VRM was not mistyped. O and 0 are the exact same on a VRM. The exact same. That their system inteprets a difference is nothing to do with you, its a flaw in their system.

Quentin

The newbies FAQ explains no need to find an exact match of circs

Follow the appeal advice in the FAQ.

KeithP

I am sure you meant to write:

The issue here is that for some strange reason the machine has printed the ticket with a Zero instead of an O in the last three letters of the registration number. We have the ticket to prove this.

Interestingly, the typeface used for UK number plates makes no distinction between a 'O' and a '0', nor between an 'I' and a '1', so why does their stupid machine?

Who is the parking company?

Cubeguy3

KeithP wrote: »

Who is the parking company?

Smart Parking Limited

Half_way

The OP said the PPC was (not that ) Smart.
however a more important question would be, Who's car park was it?

Cubeguy3

Half_way wrote: »

Who's car park was it?

There are only two retailers left there now, one is a bowling alley and the other is a Range outlet store - Matalan has moved on

System

The IAS in their 2017 Annual Report said

Of course, it is incumbent upon the motorist to take reasonable care in entering their details, and when they fail to do so properly very often a charge may be justified. However, where the mistake is so trivial that even someone applying their full attention might not realise - such as entering a ‘0’ instead of a ‘O’ or a ‘1’ instead of an ‘I’ - then it is, in my view, unfair to enforce a charge. As a consequence, I released guidance to all the adjudicators that they should have regard to the nature and extent of such mistakes in determining whether a charge is lawful.

I am pleased to say that, since issuing the guidance, there has been a visible reduction in the amount of cases where operators pursue such parking charges and far fewer (justifiably) frustrated motorists as a result.

So a senior person in the industry says it is not justifiable - and would fail the Beavis test.So challenge Smart and POPLA to say different

Cubeguy3

IamEmanresu wrote: »

The IAS in their 2017 Annual Report said

Of course, it is incumbent upon the motorist to take reasonable care in entering their details, and when they fail to do so properly very often a charge may be justified. However, where the mistake is so trivial that even someone applying their full attention might not realise - such as entering a !!!8216;0!!!8217; instead of a !!!8216;O!!!8217; or a !!!8216;1!!!8217; instead of an !!!8216;I!!!8217; - then it is, in my view, unfair to enforce a charge. As a consequence, I released guidance to all the adjudicators that they should have regard to the nature and extent of such mistakes in determining whether a charge is lawful.

I am pleased to say that, since issuing the guidance, there has been a visible reduction in the amount of cases where operators pursue such parking charges and far fewer (justifiably) frustrated motorists as a result.

So a senior person in the industry says it is not justifiable - and would fail the Beavis test.So challenge Smart and POPLA to say different

This is great, thank you.

Reading the FAQs I believe the recommended approach is to appeal with using the template beginning "I appeal and dispute your purported 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny liability and consider the PCN an absolute disgrace and pure intimidation."

I was worried about doing this as my issue contains the trivial mistake as you have mentioned above and maybe a 'softer' response/appeal is worth it.

Fruitcake

On your head be it if you change the tried and tested method of using an appeal template that we know works, and doesn't inadvertently give away the driver's identity.

You really, really, REALLY need to know what you are about if you are not going to use the information here that has been fine tuned by many people who have put in literally hundreds of hours to make it work.

Cubeguy3

Can't argue with that reasoning - thanks!