Author Topic: Kensington & Chelsea – Code 21: Parked in Suspended Bay – Evelyn Gardens – 28/06/2025  (Read 1395 times)

0 Members and 607 Guests are viewing this topic.

The driver is the registered keeper and the DVLA details are up to date. Lets see what the council says.

I should point out that the vehicle has been sold in the meantime. The Notice to Owner has been sent to the purchasers address.

The NTO is not in the purchasers name, but the name of the driver/previous registered keeper (the one who committed the contravention).


OP, let's clear up the procedural issues pl.

Quite rightly the NTO is in the name of the RK at the time(who was driving is not relevant for these purposes). But is the address on the NTO that held by DVLA at the time? If so, what does 'has been sent to the purchaser's address' mean?




Hi H C Andresen,

To clarify,

The NTO has been sent to the address of the new registered keeper but it displays the name of the previous registered keeper. Hence, the address on the NTO is not the one held by DVLA at the time of the contravention but the address of the new registered keeper who purchased the car in the meantime. Hope this makes sense.

That's not lawful and on the face of it is a clear procedural impropriety.

From the General Regs
Notice to owner
20.—(1) Where—

(a)a penalty charge notice has been given with respect to a vehicle under regulation 9, and

(b)the period of 28 days specified in the penalty charge notice as the period within which the penalty charge is to be paid has expired without that charge being paid,

the enforcement authority concerned may serve a notice (a “notice to owner”) on the person who appears to it to have been the owner of the vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred.


From the Traffic Management Act:
“owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered;


Hi HC Andersen,

Thanks for your response.

Just to make sure I understand correctly... is the issue here that the NTO was not lawfully served, since it was sent to the wrong address (i.e. not the one of the person who appears to have been the owner of the vehicle when the contravention occurred) So this NTO is not valid even though it was addressed to correct person but sent to a wrong address?

Does this count as a procedural impropriety that can be used to challenge the PCN? How should this be raised?

Hi HC Andersen,

I hope you are well.

Just checking to see if you had any further comments.. I wanted to understand If I and how I can challenge this PCN. Thanks.

Hi all,

Does anyone have any further input on this?

How can I challenge the fact that the NTO was not lawfully served?