3. Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate  (Read 4715 times)

0 Members and 20 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« Reply #15 on: »
Quote from: chris_w on September 28, 2025, 12:31:36 pm
Another, unrelated private parking entry. It's dated later and matches up with a different matter.
OK but when was the request made to the DVLA?

Have you registered an appeal with the TPT yet?

01/09/2025 = Mon = Date of issue of Notice of Rejection
03/09/2025 = Wed = Deemed date of service of NoR and day 1 of 28 day relevant period
30/09/2025 = Tues = Day 28 of 28 relevant period and last day to pay at discount (as per NoR) or to submit an appeal to the TPT.

If not, I wouldn't hang about. Get the appeal registered and put "further evidence to follow" in the appropriate box. Make sure you ask for a telephone hearing. Not a hearing on the papers. You can always change your mind.

The DVLA log shows that the request (VQ4) was received on the 21st July 2025 and the result (VQ5) was provided the next working day, ie the 22nd July 2025 . So well outside the 28 days provided to issue and serve a PCN.

There is nothing in the DVLA record to support requests having being made on the 3rd June 2025 or at any time before the 21st July 2025. Or that the DVLA failed to respond to any such request.

The V5c registration document for the car was last updated on the 11th August 2024, so the DVLA held the registered keeper's name and address well before the 26th May 2025, the date of the alleged contravention.

The DVLA is the statutory holder and guardian of the data requested, I would suggest that the DVLA's record of enquiries is definitive. The authority might well have intended to request the registered keepers details on the 3rd June however the VQ4 was clearly not actually received by the DVLA. This further suggests a computer or electronic communication failure at the enforcement authorities end.

In any event, even assuming that a request (VQ4) was ever successfully submitted, which is not supported by the facts, to the DVLA on June 3rd 2025 there has been an unreasonable delay with follow-up by the enforcement authority when the expected response failed to arrive. The authority would know very well that a reply should be received the next working day. The authority should have followed up with the DVLA when the response (VQ5) failed to arrive. Waiting until the 27th July 2025 is plainly unreasonable and unjust.

A reasonable person would expect that the authority has routine audit programs running on it's computer systems designed to detect and capture failed transactions and procedures in place to rectify identified cases within the statutory timeframes.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2025, 02:44:41 pm by Enceladus »
Logged
Love Love x 1 View List
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« Reply #16 on: »
Thank you! I agree that this sounds like multiple process and or IT issues on the SCC end.

Quote from: Enceladus on September 28, 2025, 01:48:29 pm
Quote from: chris_w on September 28, 2025, 12:31:36 pm
Another, unrelated private parking entry. It's dated later and matches up with a different matter.
OK but when was the request made to the DVLA?

The second line 22/07/2025 for an event dated 18/07/2025. Enquiring reason "Breach of terms and conditions of a private car park"


Quote from: Enceladus on September 28, 2025, 01:48:29 pm
Have you registered an appeal with the TPT yet?
I've done that just now, with a short explaination of the grounds. I did not see an option to request a telephone hearing. Did I miss it or will I be given that choice later in the process?

I also note that in section two, on page 3, the NoR shows the wrong date for date of issue of the PCN. 26/05/2025 is shown rather than 22/07/2025. Does that have any significance?
Logged
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« Reply #17 on: »
Email the Tribunal or telephone. Ask them to change the hearing to one in person. In the case of the TPT that means telephone hearing.

When we get your evidence together mention the "issue date" on page 3. It's misleading but I'm not sure an adjudicator will give it much credence. However it's arguably evidence that the Southampton PCN case management system is flawed. Really the system should have picked up the correct issue date and date of posting of the PCN as being the 16th July.
Logged
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« Reply #18 on: »
The tribunal process has advanced. The council have uploaded their evidence and I have 7 days to request a telephone hearing. Presumably need to upload my evidence before that time.

I'll need to put my evidence together and an argument that they've behaved unjustly, as per @Enceladus post below.

Would someone on here be able to help me draft this?



Logged
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« Reply #19 on: »
In the Evidence Pack there should be
a list of contents,
and
a 2-3 page summary of why Southampton think the appeal should be dismissed.

Please post these here and the experts will tell you if they wish to see anything else.
Logged
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« Reply #20 on: »
Thanks John.

I've copied the text of the evidence summary below rather than upload as imgur doesn't work in the UK at the moment (minus identifying details)

I did not find a summary or any argument from Southampton as to why they think the appeal should be dismissed.

Evidence summary:

SNxxxxx-xxxx
MR CHRISTOPHER xxxx vs. Southampton
Case Submitted: September 28, 2025 16:42
Evidence Pack


Evidence Pack

Appellant Explanation and Authority Summary

Appellant Explanation
Further evidence and/or explaination to follow. PCN was given
outside the 28 day period allowed in law.The NoR argues that
DVLA did not provide the registered keeper details in a timely
manner. DVLA's response to a subject access request for all
requests for registered keeper information contained no record of
any request for registered keeper information between the 1st of
May, 2025 and the 21st of July, 2025. The first and only request
for registered keeper details by the Southampton City Council was
made on the 21st of July, which is already outside the 28 days
allowed to issue a PCN.

Authority Summary
The authority has not provided a summary

Evidence 1
Evidence Type: Audio/Video Clip
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:16
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: V_SN59649612_0.wmv
Description:

Evidence 2
Evidence Type: Photographs
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:18
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Photographs.pdf
Description:

Evidence 3
Evidence Type: Case Status Report/System Audit/Progression
History
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:19
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Case Status Report.pdf
Description:

Evidence 4
Evidence Type: DVLA correspondence (i.e. V5C)
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:19
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: DVLA Correspondence.pdf
Description:

Evidence 5
Evidence Type: Penalty Charge Notice
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:20
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Penalty Charge Notice.pdf
Description:

Evidence 6
Evidence Type: Formal Representation
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:21
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Formal Representation.pdf
Description:

Evidence 7
Evidence Type: Notice of Rejection of Representation
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:21
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Notice of Rejection of Representation.pdf
Description:

Evidence 8
Evidence Type: Formal Representation
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:21
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Formal Representation II.pdf
Description:

Evidence 9
Evidence Type: Other (fully describe item)
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:22
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Other.pdf
Description: Response to a second formal appeal

Evidence 10
Evidence Type: CEO Witness Statement
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:23
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: CEO Witness Statement.pdf
Description:

Evidence 11
Evidence Type: Camera Certification
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:24
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: 20250107_Moving Traffic Certification.pdf
Description:

Evidence 12
Evidence Type: Photographs
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:28
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Castle Way Photos.pdf
Description:

Evidence 13
Evidence Type: SN447 - The City of Southampton (Moving
Traffic Restrictions) Order 2022
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:25
Published By: Authority Manager
Description: Articles 4.10, 6.1 - please see next entry for
amendment to Schedule 20

Evidence 14
Evidence Type: SN465 - The City of Southampton (Moving
Traffic Restrictions) (Amendment 1) Order 2023
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:25
Published By: Authority Manager
Description: Schedule 1 - Castle Way (amendment to schedule
20 of principal order)

Evidence 15
Evidence Type: TRO/Schedule (add references in description)
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:26
Published By: Authority Manager
Description: 8(3) (b) in The Bus Lane Contraventions
Regulations 2005.“Those particulars have not been supplied
before the date after which the authority would not be entitled to
serve a penalty charge notice by virtue of paragraph (2)”,“The
authority shall continue to be entitled to serve a penalty charge
notice for a further period of six months beginning with the date
mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).”
Logged
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« Reply #21 on: »
OK, I have two more days to respond.

The only evidence I have that the council hasn't already submitted is the DVLA SAR response, so I'll be submitting that.

As far as a summary of why I think the penalty should be overturned, do I need to include anything beyond what @Enceladus outlined in his earlier reply?

Quote from: Enceladus on September 28, 2025, 01:48:29 pm

The DVLA log shows that the request (VQ4) was received on the 21st July 2025 and the result (VQ5) was provided the next working day, ie the 22nd July 2025 . So well outside the 28 days provided to issue and serve a PCN.

There is nothing in the DVLA record to support requests having being made on the 3rd June 2025 or at any time before the 21st July 2025. Or that the DVLA failed to respond to any such request.

The V5c registration document for the car was last updated on the 11th August 2024, so the DVLA held the registered keeper's name and address well before the 26th May 2025, the date of the alleged contravention.

The DVLA is the statutory holder and guardian of the data requested, I would suggest that the DVLA's record of enquiries is definitive. The authority might well have intended to request the registered keepers details on the 3rd June however the VQ4 was clearly not actually received by the DVLA. This further suggests a computer or electronic communication failure at the enforcement authorities end.

In any event, even assuming that a request (VQ4) was ever successfully submitted, which is not supported by the facts, to the DVLA on June 3rd 2025 there has been an unreasonable delay with follow-up by the enforcement authority when the expected response failed to arrive. The authority would know very well that a reply should be received the next working day. The authority should have followed up with the DVLA when the response (VQ5) failed to arrive. Waiting until the 27th July 2025 is plainly unreasonable and unjust.

A reasonable person would expect that the authority has routine audit programs running on it's computer systems designed to detect and capture failed transactions and procedures in place to rectify identified cases within the statutory timeframes.
Logged
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« Reply #22 on: »
I have been given a date for a video hearing from the tribunal: 10th of November at 13:30.

I have uploaded DVLA's response to my SAR, but have not yet submitted a detailed argument for the appeal.

Logged
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« Reply #23 on: »
Logged
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« Reply #24 on: »
It seems to me that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal couldn't care less whether councils follow the process or not. However it is extremely difficult to determine who is at fault on cases like this.

The registration number is obtained by a person viewing a video, then it will be manually transcribed into the request for the name and address held by DVLA against that registration. Clearly errors can occur, but one has to wonder if Southampton have discovered a "wizard wheeze" that gets them 6 months to serve the PCN by entering an obviously incorrect number thus getting a rejection, then waiting a few weeks, entering it again with the correct registration, and Bingo, they now have 6 months. Nice option to have if you're short-staffed.

It's also now more obvious than ever that TPT adjudicators are siding with the councils when an appeal is on a technicality rather than the issue of whether the contravention occurred or not, thus giving carte blanche to councils to do what they like despite there being the statutory grounds for cancellation of "procedural impropriety". Previously, this ground was not in the original 1991 Act. So parliament clearly intended when passing ths Transport Management Act 2004, that councils must follow the Act and its regulations where they have mandated duties.

Logged
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« Reply #25 on: »
Yeah, it would seem that way from the experience @volvo2025 had this week.

Regardless, I would still like to put up a good fight and go in as prepared as I can.

In the council's record of the history of my case, it shows what looks like something timing out automatically at 00:13 on Friday the 27th of June stating that no response has been received, then on the following Monday they allegedly received a blank response. How did they receive a blank response if DVLA have no record of ever receiving a request, and why did they receive it so long after the request, given that DVLA respond on the next business day? Conveniently immediately after their system flagged the case for manual review.

Also, how does DVLA respond to the council's request for registered keeper details? Is it electronic, or by physical mail?

Is there anything you'd add to the points below before I submit my argument?


Quote from: Enceladus on September 28, 2025, 01:48:29 pm
The DVLA log shows that the request (VQ4) was received on the 21st July 2025 and the result (VQ5) was provided the next working day, ie the 22nd July 2025 . So well outside the 28 days provided to issue and serve a PCN.

There is nothing in the DVLA record to support requests having being made on the 3rd June 2025 or at any time before the 21st July 2025. Or that the DVLA failed to respond to any such request.

The V5c registration document for the car was last updated on the 11th August 2024, so the DVLA held the registered keeper's name and address well before the 26th May 2025, the date of the alleged contravention.

The DVLA is the statutory holder and guardian of the data requested, I would suggest that the DVLA's record of enquiries is definitive. The authority might well have intended to request the registered keepers details on the 3rd June however the VQ4 was clearly not actually received by the DVLA. This further suggests a computer or electronic communication failure at the enforcement authorities end.

In any event, even assuming that a request (VQ4) was ever successfully submitted, which is not supported by the facts, to the DVLA on June 3rd 2025 there has been an unreasonable delay with follow-up by the enforcement authority when the expected response failed to arrive. The authority would know very well that a reply should be received the next working day. The authority should have followed up with the DVLA when the response (VQ5) failed to arrive. Waiting until the 21th July 2025 is plainly unreasonable and unjust.

A reasonable person would expect that the authority has routine audit programs running on it's computer systems designed to detect and capture failed transactions and procedures in place to rectify identified cases within the statutory timeframes.
Logged
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« Reply #26 on: »
Quote

Also, how does DVLA respond to the council's request for registered keeper details? Is it electronic, or by physical mail?

It’s normally electronically. In my case (and probably yours too) the council claim that they’d had issues communicating with the DVLA, and they received the response by post
Logged
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« Reply #27 on: »
How did it go?
Logged
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« Reply #28 on: »
As expected, took the council's side and treated DVLA and it's systems as unreliable, and the council's records as fact.

Here's the text of the decision:

Quote
  • Mr XXXX does not dispute the contravention itself. Instead, he argues that there have been two failures by the Council to follow the correct procedure. Firstly, he has produced evidence from DVLA that the first contact it had with the Council was on 21 July, substantially outside the 28 day time period for serving the penalty charge notice. Secondly, the Notice of Rejection incorrectly quotes the 2005 Regulations, rather than the more recent 2022 Regulations. This suggests that when it considered his representations, it applied the wrong in law.
  • The Council has produced the case status report, which is a record of when actions in the case took place. This indicates that the contravention itself occurred on 26 May, and the electronic request to DVLA for the registered keeper’s details was sent on 3 June. An incomplete response was then received from DVLA on 1 July, which resulted in the fault being automatically flagged up at the same time. On 21 July the matter was then reviewed and a further VQ4 request made to DVLA. This is the request to which Mr XXXX’s DVLA correspondence refers. I am satisfied that the initial VQ4 request was sent on 3 June, because the incomplete response from DVLA must have been served in response to receiving it.
  • I therefore find that the penalty charge notice was served outside the statutory 28 days, but since the Council had sent a VQ4 request within the first 14 days, and had not received a satisfactory response within the 28 days, the law therefore granted the Council an additional 6 months to obtain the details and serve the penalty charge notice. No procedural impropriety occurred.
  • Regarding the wording of the Notice of Rejection, the law only requires the Council to consider the formal representations received, and indicate whether or not they are accepted. If the person receiving the Notice of Rejection believes that the Council has come to an incorrect decision, or applied the law incorrectly, the remedy is to appeal against the Notice of Rejection to the Tribunal, which Mr XXXX has done. Quoting the wrong legislation in a Notice of Rejection does not mean that the Council is guilty of procedural impropriety.
  • I can therefore identify no grounds for allowing this appeal. The penalty of £70 must be paid within 28 days.
Logged
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« Reply #29 on: »
In other words:

“The council said the problem wasn't their fault and they don’t need to prove it, **** you”

I wonder if we can track down the real fault using freedom of information requests
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »
  3. Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate