Only first letter of number plate entered - Quick response would be appreciated PCN Appeal

Chico_talent

Well in your case, you thought you typed in the whole reg number. You paid the fee and obtained the ticket. As far as your concerned you thought you did everything right. 
You want to push your arguement on the fact you paid the parking fee so the £100 charge has to be considered a penalty. Also, how BPA suggest the way to treat incorrect VRN's. 

Im my opinion, no matter what you say, or what proof you have, they will not drop it. The most you can hope for is that they discontinue just before the court case or be prepared to explain to a judge but from previous cases which deals with incorrect VRN but the D paid for parking the J always finds in favor of the D

KeithP

Kingmonkey77 said:

Does anyone know if it's legal to have a number plate with just a single digit on?

Well here's a few...

https://www.google.com/search?q=personalised+plates&client=opera&hs=1hQ&sxsrf=ALeKk01l8uDLQKd0d3G6QWQl_49dB2SFWg:1605625442916&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQ6arx7IntAhVPTcAKHbgAAakQ_AUoAnoECBAQBA&biw=1428&bih=927

Kingmonkey77

No, I guess it doesn't really. I have been looking through my documents this afternoon as well and in my appeal I have said that the machine wouldn't let me enter anything but an M, not that I entered the full VRN and only a M was printed. Is this going to cause a problem do you think?

Appeal said
I wish to appeal as I had a valid ticket displayed on my dashboard. I entered the carpark at 11:28 and approached the parking machine and tried to enter my number plate as it requested. It would let me put in "M", which is the first letter of my number plate, but it wouldn't let me put anything else in, it just kept asking for payment. I tried to do this for two minutes, but at 11:30 made payment as the machine was requesting and it gave me a ticket. There is an "M" printed on the ticket where I assume it should display the whole number plate. I paid £2.40 which covered my parking between 11:30-13:30. I left the car park at 13:10 so my whole parking session was covered. As the machine would not accept my number plate, I kept the ticket as I was expecting this exact situation to arise. I have attached a copy of the ticket that I purchased. Please confirm that the ticket covers my parking session and the matter is now closed. 

nosferatu1001

VRM. 

A1 is the shortest number plate to my know,edge 

Kingmonkey77

Thanks all. Does anyone think I'm going to have a problem because of what I wrote in my appeal above? It seems so long ago I forgot about it

nosferatu1001

No. You state the truth. 

Kingmonkey77

Thanks. I was just worried as the appeal states I couldn't put the full VRM in and my other correspondence says that I did put it all in and the machine didn't;t print it all

Coupon-mad

You simply need to remain consistent with the appeal wording, in your defence and witness statement, which suggests an error with the machine.  Nothing has changed but stick with the same true story and appear as an honest witness who didn't breach a term and made reasonable endeavours to comply with the machine prompts and in fact the failure of the machine frustrated that element of the contract, not an action by the Defendant.

In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.

https://swarb.co.uk/jolley-v-carmel-limited-2000/

Kingmonkey77

Coupon-mad said:

You simply need to remain consistent with the appeal wording, in your defence and witness statement, which suggests an error with the machine.  Nothing has changed but stick with the same true story and appear as an honest witness who didn't breach a term and made reasonable endeavours to comply with the machine prompts and in fact the failure of the machine frustrated that element of the contract, not an action by the Defendant.

In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.

https://swarb.co.uk/jolley-v-carmel-limited-2000/

Awesome, thank you

Kingmonkey77

Got an email from PPS this morning with the PDT printout. I’d already received this from BWL. 
On the copy BWL sent me, they blanked out the second half of the VRM’s. On the copy PPS sent me, they blanked out the first half of the VRM’s so I now have the  VRM for every vehicle that used the car park 🤦‍♂️