We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
PCN received but multiple tickets purchased (one incorrect registration)
Comments
-
There was minimis error in vehicle registration mark input on the second ticket where one digit on the registration was entered incorrectly.
How about replacing that sentence with something like:For some inexplicable reason the vehicle registration mark shown on the second ticket has not been printed correctly. This is clearly de minimis.0 -
I agree, and have no idea why people always accept the 'typo' was their fault, and not a fault with a sticky/faded or faulty keypad. Just as likely system failure in some way, as human error.
The error is inexplicable but very minor and certainly de minimis and just the sort of 'trivial' issue that the IPC directed IAS Adjudicators not to uphold against consumers.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »I agree, and have no idea why people always accept the 'typo' was their fault, and not a fault with a sticky/faded or faulty keypad. Just as likely system failure in some way, as human error.
The error is inexplicable but very minor and certainly de minimis and just the sort of 'trivial' issue that the IPC directed IAS Adjudicators not to uphold against consumers.
Thanks for everyone's guidance. The appeal was upheld and the charge cancelled!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards
