One Wrong Letter Won This Driver's Appeal — Here's Why It Matters

Imagine receiving a parking fine for a car you don't own. Not because someone stole your vehicle, not because of fraud — but because a council enforcement officer mixed up the letter "O" with the number "0" when typing out your number plate. It sounds trivial. It sounds like exactly the kind of thing a council would wave away with a shrug and a form letter saying "the contravention still occurred."

But in a recent appeal heard by the London Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (London Tribunals), that single character error was enough to get the entire Penalty Charge Notice cancelled. Here's what happened, why the adjudicator sided with the driver, and what every motorist can learn from it.

The Case: A Typo That Changed Everything

The driver in this case received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) from the London Borough of Southwark for parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours — one of the most common parking contraventions in London. On the face of it, the council had photographic evidence showing the vehicle was parked in the right place at the right time. Open and shut, you might think.

Except for one problem: the PCN wasn't issued to the driver's actual vehicle.

The driver's real number plate was RO20 LND — that's R, then the letter O, then 2, then the number zero, then L, N, D. The PCN, however, had been issued to R02O LND — where the letter O and the number 0 had been swapped around. To the naked eye, on a screen or a printed ticket, these two plates look almost identical. But legally, they are completely different vehicle registration marks (VRMs).

The driver spotted the discrepancy, took a photograph of the PCN as it had been served, and appealed to the tribunal.

The Arguments: Council vs. Driver

What the driver argued

The driver's case was straightforward and focused: the PCN had not been issued to their vehicle. It had been issued to a VRM that didn't match their number plate. Because the PCN named the wrong vehicle, it hadn't been validly served — and without valid service, there was no enforceable fine.

Crucially, the driver provided photographic evidence of the actual PCN that had been handed to them (or left on their vehicle). That photograph showed the transposed characters clearly.

What Southwark Council argued

The council pushed back. Their enforcement officer, they said, had not made a mistake. They maintained the PCN was correctly issued and pointed to the photographic evidence of the vehicle at the location as proof the contravention had occurred.

To bolster their case, they also carried out a check on the government's vehicle enquiry website, swapping the O and the 0 to show what would happen — their argument being that an invalid registration would be returned, suggesting the original entry must have been correct.

The council declined to exercise their discretion to cancel the PCN, and maintained their position throughout.

The Decision: The Driver Wins

The adjudicator allowed the appeal and cancelled the PCN entirely.

Despite accepting that the driver's vehicle had indeed been parked at the location — the photographic evidence from the council confirmed that much — the adjudicator concluded that the PCN had not been validly issued to the correct VRM. Because the fine couldn't be shown to have been properly served on the right vehicle, it had no legal standing.

The council's arguments were considered but ultimately found unconvincing. The appeal was allowed on the ground of procedural impropriety — a formal term for when an enforcement authority fails to follow the correct legal process.

The Legal Reasoning: Why a Single Character Matters So Much

This is where things get genuinely interesting for anyone who wants to understand how parking law actually works.

PCNs must identify the correct vehicle

Under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and associated regulations, a Penalty Charge Notice must correctly identify the vehicle to which it relates. This isn't a technicality for the sake of it — it's a fundamental requirement. The whole enforcement system is built on the premise that a fine is issued to a specific vehicle registered to a specific keeper. If the VRM is wrong, the chain breaks down entirely.

Think of it like a court summons sent to the wrong address with the wrong name on it. The underlying offence may well have occurred, but the legal document hasn't reached the right person, and it can't be enforced.

The photographic evidence worked both ways

Here's the clever bit. The council relied on photographs to prove the contravention — but the driver also used photographic evidence, specifically a photo of the PCN itself as served. The adjudicator gave significant weight to the driver's photograph because it represented the actual document that had been issued.

When the adjudicator looked at that photograph, they could see that the O and the 0 appeared to have been transposed. That was enough, on the balance of probabilities (the standard of proof used in civil cases like this), to accept the driver's account.

The council's own evidence undermined their case

The adjudicator noted something telling in the council's own paperwork. The case summary appeared to contain information about an entirely different VRM and case. A second case summary, which did reference the correct VRM, identified a completely different registered keeper. And the description of the alleged contravention referred to an entirely different vehicle again.

Rather than supporting the council's argument, this muddle in their own documentation actually reinforced the driver's point: something had clearly gone wrong with how the VRM had been recorded and processed.

The government website check didn't save them

The council's attempt to use the DVLA vehicle enquiry website as evidence was a reasonable idea in principle — if swapping the O and the 0 produces an "invalid registration" result, that might suggest the original entry was correct. But the adjudicator wasn't persuaded. The driver's photographic evidence of the PCN itself was more direct and more compelling than an indirect inference drawn from a website search.

Lessons for Drivers: What This Case Teaches You

1. Check your number plate on any PCN you receive — character by character

The letters O, I and B, and the numbers 0, 1 and 8 are notoriously easy to confuse, especially in certain fonts. When you receive a PCN, compare the VRM printed on it against your actual number plate. Don't just glance at it — look at each character individually.

2. Photograph the PCN before you do anything else

This driver won, in part, because they had photographic evidence of the PCN exactly as it had been served. Before you move the ticket, appeal it, or pay it — take a clear photograph. That document is evidence, and you may need it later.

3. A valid contravention does not automatically mean a valid PCN

Councils sometimes argue, in effect: "You were parked illegally, so the fine stands." But that's not how the law works. A PCN must be correctly issued and correctly served. If there's a procedural failure — including an incorrect VRM — the fine can be challenged regardless of whether the underlying parking was actually in breach of restrictions.

4. Don't be put off when a council refuses to exercise discretion

Southwark declined to cancel the PCN at the informal representations stage, insisting the officer had not made a mistake. Many drivers give up at this point, assuming the council must be right. They're not always right. Taking the appeal to the independent tribunal — London Tribunals in this case, or the Traffic Penalty Tribunal outside London — gives you a genuinely independent review.

5. Messy council paperwork can work in your favour

If the council's own case summary contains errors, references to the wrong vehicles, or contradictory information, point it out clearly in your appeal. It doesn't just suggest incompetence — it can actively undermine the council's credibility and the reliability of their evidence.

The Key Takeaway

A parking fine is only enforceable if it's been correctly issued to the right vehicle. One transposed character — the difference between the letter O and the number 0 — was enough to invalidate this entire PCN, even though the driver's vehicle genuinely had been parked in a restricted street. The council had the right place, the right time, and the right driver. But they had the wrong VRM on the ticket, and that was fatal to their case.

The lesson? The devil really is in the detail. Always read your PCN carefully, document everything, and don't assume that because you were technically parked in the wrong place, the fine against you is automatically valid. The law requires councils to get the paperwork right — and when they don't, drivers have every right to challenge it.