UPDATE - I WON
BANES repeatedly refused to provide any evidence to support the claimed first observation time. Which led to them issuing an NTO and unsurprisingly they dismissed my representations and (surprise, surprise) included a screen shot from the CEO's handheld computer (HHC).
I appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, as follows:
PCN Number:BN63456499
I initially appealed on the grounds of procedural impropriety, as it is my honest belief that the time of first observation of my vehicle was incorrect. Although regrettably and unusually, I have no evidence which I can use to support this belief.
Therefore, I repeatedly requested by both telephone and email (see attached) that BANES provide me with the evidence, to support the claimed first observation time of my vehicle, as I genuinely believed it was incorrect.
BANES provided multiple photos of my vehicle at the time and date that the PCN was issued but steadfastly refused to disclose any information regarding the procedure for logging the first observed time.
Having specifically asked for the evidence, I was puzzled as to why this relevant information was not disclosed when Mr Dunn rejected my informal appeal in the letter, which was signed on his behalf & dated 07/08/2025.
Had I been provided with explanation/evidence at this stage, I would have paid the discounted penalty as on the balance of probability and with no supporting evidence, my belief, which I still standby, has little or no credibility.
Instead, BANES and Mr. Dunn have, deliberately in my opinion, not provided the evidence at an earlier stage to increase the penalty charge. Which I alluded to in my email to Mr. Dunn on Aug 19, 3:57pm.
This opinion is reinforced by the fact that an explanation and evidence, which could have easily been provided earlier, was not presented until after I had responded to a the NTO, thus preventing me from paying the reduced penalty charge of £25.
In my opinion, this withholding of evidence to increase the penalty charge is tantamount to extortion and procedural impropriety. To support this opinion, I quote the following:
Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions – Updated 20 October 2022
This statutory guidance is published by the Secretary of State for Transport under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA).
It is in the interests of the authority and the vehicle owner to resolve any dispute at the earliest possible stage. Authorities should take account of the CEO’s actions in issuing the penalty charge but should always give challenges and representations a fresh and impartial consideration.
Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest. Failure to act in accordance with the general principles of public law may lead to a claim for a decision to be judicially reviewed.
They should approach the exercise of discretion objectively and without regard to any financial interest in the penalty or decisions that may have been taken at an earlier stage in proceedings.
The process of considering challenges, representations and defence of appeals is a legal process that requires officers dealing with these aspects to be trained in the relevant legislation and how to apply it. They should be well versed in the collection, interpretation and consideration of the evidence, writing clear but concise case-specific responses to challenges, enquiries and representations, presenting the authority’s case to adjudicators.
Authorities should ensure that their legal departments are involved in establishing a processing system that meets all the requirements of the law. They should also consult them about complex cases.
It is likely that an enforcement authority will receive informal challenges against penalty charges before they issue the NtO and authorities should consider them.
Enforcement authorities should give proper consideration and respond to these challenges with care and attention and in a timely manner to foster good customer relations, reduce the number of NtOs sent and the number of formal representations to be considered.
The consideration should take into account the grounds for making representations and the authority’s own guidelines for dealing with extenuating or mitigating circumstances.
Taking the above into account, I feel BANES and Mr. Dunn have failed to comply with the above statutory guidance, with the sole intention of deliberately increasing the penalty charge and this is the reason why I am appealing to this tribunal.
Yours faithfully,
BANES responded to the Tribunal within hours, stating that they had decided not to contest my appeal. Which means that I have won my appeal and the case is closed.
There stated reason, was:
"The Council no longer wish to pursue this case, due to the Notice of Rejection not being up to standard. This PCN has now been cancelled." Which I don't believe was the case at all, but whatever.
A good result and a big thank you to all those here who provided me with such good information. I've learnt a lot about the procedure that CE)'s have to follow.
