Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: chris_w on July 26, 2025, 12:46:15 pm
-
Yet another egregious example of bias in the Traffic Penalty TribunaL. I am fast coming to the view that it is pointless making any appeals there as it is obvious they have become an arm of the councils to enforce their will on motorists.
That's certainly been my experience. At least this one was cheap in the scheme of things.
To top it off, the link provided on the decision page to the council's website to pay doesn't work.
Thank you for all of your help along the way!
-
Yet another egregious example of bias in the Traffic Penalty TribunaL. I am fast coming to the view that it is pointless making any appeals there as it is obvious they have become an arm of the councils to enforce their will on motorists.
-
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
-
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:
- 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.
-
How did it go?
-
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
-
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?
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.
-
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.
-
@Enceladus @Incandescent
Would you mind having a quick look through this before my hearing on Monday?
Reposting correspondence as the images on imgur are no longer available.
DVLA SAR response (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wB127hXHIC4cWf7CUA8azQMWiEwx2QDF/view?usp=sharing)
Notice of rejection of representation (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AO4lGZwtn7zAHQxdQg9BEWfcoBiAVUKT/view?usp=sharing)
Follow up with timeline (https://drive.google.com/file/d/10gj1FDKWfB2wBrMXjJPrrTc5XLlL7u4u/view?usp=sharing)
Original PCN:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ix2DF9qKzA1zc9cxetRnaliNZdLItsxo/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dtDDUiDNiATKJB34MPOuCJ5ECiV3bRcD/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pJSeU419GfEVfN2JMH_ed6kN7f6eWCqh/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bk-xoQYxRRrxN3OVA87liCb7ALEb8s9v/view?usp=drive_link
I'm yet to submit a summary of my arguments, but intend to do so before the hearing.
-
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.
-
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?
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.
-
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).”
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Thank you! I agree that this sounds like multiple process and or IT issues on the SCC end.
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"
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?
-
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.
-
Another, unrelated private parking entry. It's dated later and matches up with a different matter.
-
Southampton City Council have responded with some records showing that registered keeper details were requested on the 3rd of June with no response received, then the details were requested again on the 21st of July, with a response received the next day.
I have until the 29th of this month to make an appeal, what would you suggest? Does the council also need to demonstrate that the problem was on the DVLA side of things and not with the SCC system?
DVLA SAR response:
(https://i.imgur.com/t101JEg.jpeg)
SCC letter:
(https://i.imgur.com/7aRZfQq.jpeg)
Page 1 of the DVLA letter. What have you blanked out below the Southampton entry?
-
Southampton City Council have responded with some records showing that registered keeper details were requested on the 3rd of June with no response received, then the details were requested again on the 21st of July, with a response received the next day.
I have until the 29th of this month to make an appeal, what would you suggest? Does the council also need to demonstrate that the problem was on the DVLA side of things and not with the SCC system?
DVLA SAR response:
(https://i.imgur.com/t101JEg.jpeg)
SCC letter:
(https://i.imgur.com/7aRZfQq.jpeg)
-
DVLA SAR response received:
Date of request: 21/07/2025
Date of Event: 26/05/2025
Also a note confirming that the request was submitted electronically and the response would have been received the next business day, not that it matters when the information was requested outside the 28 day limit.
Whats my next step? Tribunal?
-
OK, subject access request submitted.
I take it that I should be requesting the same information from the council, as advised in volvo2025's thread here (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-issued-60-days-after-bus-gate-contravention-by-southampton-city-council/msg88015/#msg88015)? If so, what's the best channel through which to do this? Just replying to the email that I received with the NoR?
Any notes on this proposed response?
"Thank you for your email. I note that the Notice of Rejection makes no mention of the date the registered keeper details were requested nor the date on which those details were provided by the secretary of state, only an assertion that these details were not provided "in a timely manner". Could you please provide those dates, as "in a timely manner" does not provide sufficient information to establish that these details were not provided in a timely manner and therefore the entitlement to the exemption to the 28 day limit."
-
In parallel you could submit a Subject Access Request to the DVLA (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62692f63d3bf7f0e7d5b3dc6/make-a-subject-access-request-to-dvla-form-mis1065_270422.pdf). Ask for the dates and origin of all requests received for the Registered Keeper details since the 1st May 2025. And the dates of their responses to these requests.
FYI the requests are received and the responses are sent the following day, all via a secure EDI link. So the lengthy delay you have experienced is likely at the Council end and not with the DVLA.
-
Received notice of rejection of representations today. Apparently DVLA did not provide details of the registered keeper in time to serve the notice within 28 days, which allows a further 6 months.
Notice of rejection can be found here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AO4lGZwtn7zAHQxdQg9BEWfcoBiAVUKT/view?usp=drive_link)
Looks like this is moving in lock step with volvo2025's case (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-issued-60-days-after-bus-gate-contravention-by-southampton-city-council/) involving the same bus gate.
Are there any further steps you'd suggest, or just cough up at this point?
-
To get the video, follow the links to challenge a parking fine, enter your PCN details then it should show you the still images. Underneath those is a black box with some text over the top. Click on that and it will download a .aspx file. That's actually the video. You can then open that with a media player (I used VLC) or upload it to Google drive to play it.
I did this using a computer, not on a phone. Not sure if it's different on a mobile device.
-
Hello mate, I’m in the exact same boat as you. Same junction same two month delay… Southampton are taking the **** aren’t they?
Where did you get that video from?
For the benefit of anyone who might read this in the future, the URL given in the How to make representations against the Penalty Charge section leads to the parking fine page of the council website, which only refers to parking. Clicking through from there as if challenging a parking fine seems to work, as it finds the PCN and shows the photos and videos. There is a separate bus lane penalty charge page, not referenced in the PCN, that ultimately links through to the same form to challenge a PCN.
Thanks mate this is really helpful
-
Will do.
Yes, I am the registered keeper and my name and address on V5C are correct and have been since long before this.
For the benefit of anyone who might read this in the future, the URL given in the How to make representations against the Penalty Charge section leads to the parking fine page of the council website, which only refers to parking. Clicking through from there as if challenging a parking fine seems to work, as it finds the PCN and shows the photos and videos. There is a separate bus lane penalty charge page, not referenced in the PCN, that ultimately links through to the same form to challenge a PCN.
Actual representation submitted:
I challenge this PCN on the grounds that the PCN was given outside the 28 day period allowed in law.
Please cancel the PCN.
Thank you for your help! I'll post an update when I get a response.
-
Looks like they are unlawfully trying it on. And it works too, because >95% of people getting a PCN just cough-up !
Yes, submit reps based on procedural impropriety on the basis that the PCN has been served outside of the 28 day period allowed in law. Post up their reply when you get it.
The above is on the assumption that you are the registered keeper with your name and address on the V5C Registration Certificate.
-
Sounds like I should be selecting the "There has been a procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority option" and making a representation along the lines of:
This PCN was issued after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the alleged contravention.
In light of please cancel the PCN.
Is that the correct course of action, and are there any changes you'd suggest to my draft representation?
-
Thanks for the quick response! No, it's not a hire or lease car.
-
Is it a hire or lease car ? If so, the first PCN goes to them. If not, then they are out of time to serve the PCN
-
Hi folks,
I've just received a PCN nearly 2 months after the alleged contravention. The driver is relatively new to driving in the UK and didn't know what bus gate meant, and saw the roundabout ahead as the safest option for turning around. Not a defense, this is just what happened.
I'm wondering if there are any grounds for appeal.
From my own reading, taking 57 days to issue the notice should be sufficient to argue procedural impropriety.
I'm also not sure that all of the statutory grounds for appeal are listed on the PCN, specifically that the conduct constituting the contravention is the subject of criminal proceedings, or a fixed penalty notice is given in respect of that conduct.
Thanks in advance for any advice you are able to offer!
GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/f6hga3mWQo6AiYPY6
Video (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pa5EdjrKI6FVzKEE5l9EtD3YAccCUrhd/view?usp=sharing)
All pages of PCN:
(https://i.imgur.com/bVxbA2j.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/QbERrwR.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/1LB5Rqe.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/oTrAWxC.jpeg)