IAS Issue - The Parking Space, Manchester

[toon9]

Hi all - hopefully you can advise me on the following.

I recently received 3 PCNs from the above company.

The first two relate to entering one digit of my reg incorrectly when paying for the parking. I entered a 0 not a O, ie number over letter. I could prove I paid for the parking via my bank statement and appealed. The Parking Space said they would waive each PCN for an "admin fee" of £15 per ticket. As I paid in full for the parking in full, I didn't pay the admin full on principle and now they are sending warnings about the full amount once again. Both tickets were sent over a month from the date of parking, with nothing being placed on the car at the time. In my appeal I cannot remember if I said I was the driver or not - I've subsequently realised this is v important.

The third ticket relates to a different matter. Same car park, but machine wouldn't let me input my number. Therefore I used another machine from a car park over the road (literally 10 yards away) operated by the same company, paid in cash and put the ticket on my car. I returned exactly 8 hours later and left. I've now had a PCN for this too. I appealed to the IAS who rejected - unsurprisingly. Again notice was sent a month after the event. I asked the Parking Space was there a transaction for the amount in question, at the nearby machine on the date and time concerned, which they refused to answer.

Any advice appreciated - do I continue to ignore, having paid the company in full all three situations?

[ostell]

Let them take it to court for the zero and Oh, the character is the same on the font for number plates. In the "opposition" group of the BPA their CoP allows this to be ignored:

A) Minor Keying Errors Examples of a minor keying error could include:
• 0 instead of o.
• I instead of L.
• 1 instead of I
• Up to one letter wrong, removed, or swapped
• Up to one number wrong, removed, or swapped
• Numbers and/or letters in the wrong order (but where the correct registration is still recognisable)

These are minor errors where up to one character has been entered incorrectly, or where the registration has been entered in the wrong order. If a typing error such as this leads to a PCN being issued and the motorist appeals, the PCN must be cancelled at the first stage of appeal.


The IPC CoP is silent on this matter so I would imagine a judge could be swayed by the BPA argument.

You could write back to them, as the keeper, pointing out that the official font for number plates, the Charles Wright font, has the same Glyph for 0 (numeric zero) and O (letter O) and therefore not unreasonable for either interpretation to be entered on a keyboard. Hint that there competitors, the BPA, understand this issue, as would a judge, and automatically cancel. Point out that their CoP is silent on the matter, and therefore you expect both tickets to be cancelled.

For the 3rd ticket, do you still have a copy of it?

It's a shame that you did not realise the significance of the requirement of 14 days to deliver the notice in order to hold the keeper liable when the driver is not known.

Yesm the IAS will reject anyway.

[toon9]

Many thanks Ostell. Re the 3rd ticket, I don't have the ticket purchased unfortunately, only the PCN - sent a month later ensuring there is little chance of the actual ticket still being to hand - obviously I'll keep them all now!

The PCN arrived one month after the "offence", does this invalidate their claim as outside the 14 day requirement or have I negated this by stating I was the driver?

[ostell]

Unfortunately you have negated the protection if the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by stating you were the driver