Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: volvo2025 on July 27, 2025, 02:01:13 pm
-
Sorry to hear that, @volvo2025. At least they've extended the discount.
@Incandescent, would you mind having a look over my post here (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/southampton-cc-33e-using-route-restricted-to-cereain-vehicles-castle-way-bus-gat/msg95497/#msg95497)? I have a similar case and a hearing on Monday.
-
I lost.
Adjudicator's Reasons
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The Appellant is appealing a PCN issued in respect of using a route restricted to
certain vehicles.
The Appellant has attended the hearing via Teams, as has the Council’s
representative.
The Council relies upon the contemporaneous evidence of the Civil Enforcement
Officer, a copy of the PCN, a copy of the relevant legislation and correspondence.
The Appellant contends that he received the PcN some two months after the incident
itself. He has obtained information from the DVLA (Enclosure 7) whereby the DVLA
contends that drivers’ details are sent out the day after any information request is
received. He therefore questions the veracity of the Council’s Case History, which
states that nothing was received from the DVLA until 9th June. He further questions
the veracity of the Case History, which sets out that a “blank document” was received
by the Council.
I have carefully considered all the evidence in this matter.
The CEO’s photographic capture shows the vehicle being driven into a restricted
street, in contravention of a “bus gate” restriction. The Appellant does not dispute so
driving.
The Case Status Report relied upon by the Council (Enclosure 10) purports to show
that on 9th June, a blank document was received from the DVLA. The Council’s
representative has confirmed that it appears that the PCN was initially logged as
“written off”
, due to this, and then some minutes later, that decision was reversed and
it was decided to make further attempts to obtain information from the DVLA. I find it
more likely than not that this case history accurately reflects the chain of events. This
all appears to have happened in the space of some 21 minutes. I find that there was
no prejudice caused to the Appellant and that the Council was entitled to pursue its
enquiries with the DVLA in order to ascertain the vehicle’s keepership, which was
subsequently confirmed and the PCN issued accordingly. The Appellant has
requested to see the “blank” DVLA response. However, the Council’s representative
has indicated that this response, as bearing no useful information, would not have
been kept on record. I do not find it proportionate to further investigate this issue.
Whilst I accept that the Appellant attempted to pay the discounted sum as offered
within the Notice of Rejection, and was prevented from doing so by the relevant
automated system, this does not afford him a ground of appeal. The offer was a
discretionary one and no legal obligation flows from it.
I am satisfied to the requisite standard that a contravention has taken place and that
no statutory ground of appeal or exemption has been established.
10.I must therefore refuse this appeal. The Council has today indicated that it will accept
the discounted sum of £35 in full and final settlement of the matter if such sum is
received within 28 days of the date of this de
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yf9okjmqlyk0vme8pmbld/Decision_190019_SN00142-2509-redacted.pdf?rlkey=0kbhp35shpq5j0djw3az1tuo3&st=1zabwbnj&dl=0
-
The adjudicator did say something like “procedural impropriety doesn’t apply to moving traffic cases, which is what your arguments hinge around” this gave me pause for thought as all the advice here, and on the TPT site indicate otherwise. I hope she will check this when she’s in her chambers
This is complete tosh, because the PCN was served under the Traffic Management Act which introduced the statutory grounds of "procedural impropriety".
The adjudicator needs to read this: -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/part/2/chapter/2
The TPT seems to have become captured by the councils, because there are some very strange decisions being made there. A clue is that their "Key Case" pages contain no successful appeals !
-
@chris_w
Hello mate thanks for checking in. It’s been adjourned while the adjudicator makes her decision, but it didn’t look good. She made it clear to me that she didn’t want to give any false hope, but she needs to double check her references.
She indicated that the council raising the fee early didn’t matter because the council offered to extend the discount period for another 28 days
She accepted that seeing the council’s first request on my SAR doesn’t seem right. The council say that they have been experiencing technical issues which explains the delays in the “narrative report” between making the request and reviving the response by mail. The council claim that the response they had by mail was a blank “no trace” which is enough to give them the 6 month extension
I argued that if they replied by letter then they should be able to present the letter as evidence. Adjudicator asked after the letter, council said that the letter is entered in to the system and shredded immediately. Adjudicator said there’s no reason to doubt this
The narrative also noted that my case was “written off” and then reopened. When questioned about this the council officer said “someone other than me must have cancelled it”. The adjudicator then noticed that minutes later the case was progressed manually, implying that the wrote off is probably human error.
I think the write off and progression is the sticking point she wants to think about.
The adjudicator did say something like “procedural impropriety doesn’t apply to moving traffic cases, which is what your arguments hinge around” this gave me pause for thought as all the advice here, and on the TPT site indicate otherwise. I hope she will check this when she’s in her chambers
Hopefully your case goes a bit better since there’s no record of them contacting the DVLA for you. Miss Baranovska mentioned they’ve had lots of cases like this recently, which of course made me think of you. Good luck!!!
-
How did the tribunal go?
-
Bumping one final time before my tribunal at 1215 tomorrow
-
Absent any further input from forum members, I plan to present the following argument:
1. Penalty Exceeded the Amount Applicable
- The Notice of Rejection (NoR) offered to accept £35 if I paid within 28 days of service.
- Service was deemed on 3 September 2025, meaning the discount period ended on 30 September 2025.
- On 27 September 2025, within that 28-day period, I went to the council’s official payment portal. It demanded £70 instead of £35.
- I took a screenshot that day showing the incorrect amount and emailed the council to report the issue.
- I had not yet filed an appeal. I created my tribunal appeal the following day, so the NoR condition (“if an appeal is made”) had not been triggered.
- By demanding more than £35 inside the valid 28-day period, the council exceeded the amount applicable under Regulation 5(4)(e) of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
- Under Regulation 7(5), once this ground is proven, the adjudicator must direct cancellation of the PCN.
- The council’s error removed my right to pay the discounted rate and forced me to appeal. That is substantive prejudice, not a minor technical fault.
---
2. DVLA Delay and Lack of Proof
- The council claims the PCN was delayed because DVLA did not supply my keeper details in time.
- Their own Case Status Report shows:
- 27 May 2025 – first DVLA enquiry (VQ4).
- 5 June 2025 – DVLA reply recorded as “Blank address / No Trace.”
- 15 July 2025 – second DVLA enquiry.
- 16 July 2025 – keeper address successfully received.
- My DVLA Subject Access Response (7 October 2025) confirms DVLA processed both enquiries and that electronic responses are normally issued the next working day.
- That means any delay beyond a day or two was internal to the council, not DVLA.
- The council has produced no actual VQ5 response or KADOE/WEE transaction log proving the “blank address” claim.
- DVLA’s Web Enabled Enquiry Guidance requires every local authority to keep “an auditable trail of evidence” for each enquiry for two years.
- Without that proof, the council cannot rely on Regulation 10(7)–(8) of the General Provisions Regulations 2022 to justify late service.
- Even if a genuine “no trace” existed, waiting roughly 40 days to re-query is unreasonable and contrary to DfT Statutory Guidance §7.6–7.7 (senior review of delayed PCNs).
---
3. Procedural Impropriety and Unfairness
- Failing to honour the NoR discount and taking 40 days to re-query DVLA both show poor administration and disregard for statutory duties.
- Under Regulation 2(2) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations, such failures amount to procedural impropriety.
- The council’s handling deprived me of a clear legal opportunity to pay at the correct amount and time.
---
4. Summary
- The council demanded an unlawful amount during the valid discount window.
- It blamed DVLA without producing the mandatory audit record or acting promptly after a “no trace.”
- Either failure independently justifies cancellation; together they show systemic mismanagement.
- I ask the adjudicator to allow the appeal and, if appropriate, consider a modest costs order under Regulation 13(1) for wholly unreasonable conduct—since I had to appeal only because the council ignored clear evidence of its own mistake.
-
Sorry for the double bump, but the threads gone cold and the tribunal is Wednesday!
-
Bump
@Enceladus I’d be grateful if you had any more thoughts on this
-
I have received a date for my telephone hearing - 5/11/25 12:15
I’ve attached the evidence packet below
The authority summary is
“ We apologise for the inconvenience caused by the customer's
inability to make a payment towards the outstanding penalty
charge notice. Therefore, on this occasion, we are pleased to offer
a discount of £35 for an additional 28 days following the decision
from the Adjudicator. Kind Regards, Konstancia”
I am obviously going ahead with the tribunal since the above feels like a win win for me.
The main issue I see with their evidence is their reliance on there being an issue with the DVLA. They haven’t submitred any evidence to support their claim that the dvla responded with “no trace”. The DVLA SAR shows that the DVLA responded to their requests both times.
Since it’s well known that the DVLA reply within 24 hours, I would expect that they should have some automatic system to catch this. Likewise, if manual intervention is required, why would they wait 40 days.
There’s also the fact hey raised the fee without notice. Is that gonna be a slam dunk for having the case closed?
Would the kind people of FTLA please walk me through what to expect and what to say at this tribunal?
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/0b3xw50zmbc9b7drakwx4/ANZ1Kg6W6MuQkjBUt4DjSKA?rlkey=sbhqvr823gnpawnd52lkz6g0w&st=dba4moc0&dl=0
-
Hello friends, I got my DSAR back today.
Interestingly it’s slightly different to @chris_w ‘s one, as both requests to the DVLA are shown.
It also reveals that in the meantime they were able to pull their finger out and send me a PCN on time for the second time I did it (duly paid). That’s the thing that bothered me about this situation, if they had managed to fine me on time, I wouldn’t have kept driving that way. Old habits die hard and this never used to be a bus gate!
See the DSAR here (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wyojzm2xypirtic5h2le6/Photo-07-10-2025-08-46-52.png?rlkey=ryf5dxvv83iow9gqdhpmievz5&st=tdrwgmp5&dl=0)
I’ve uploaded the DSAR to the tribunal. We are currently waiting for the council to upload their evidence.
Ps. It’s fascinating to be able to openly watch and compare two cases with identical circumstances moving at the same time
-
I have visited their Southampton website in attempt to pay and seen the fee is now £75 despite the letter stating that the fee will not increase until 28 days after the rejection of representations was served.
That's interesting, mine is still showing £35.
@Enceladus, would you mind having a look at mine, here (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/southampton-cc-33e-using-route-restricted-to-cereain-vehicles-castle-way-bus-gat/)? It is progressing slightly differently as I've received responses from both SCC and DVLA.
-
The docref date is 13 01 25, which is the same date as the 'acquired vehicle date'
-
ah it does agree with the V5C. an I (i) replaced with an L (l) I suppose the dealer couldn't read my handwriting. I didn't even notice this till now either
I don't expect the misspelling will help then. The Adjudicator will say it's done to your negligence in not checking the V5c when you first got it.
On the subject of the V5c, what's the docref date? It's down at the bottom of the details page
-
ah it does agree with the V5C. an I (i) replaced with an L (l) I suppose the dealer couldn't read my handwriting. I didn't even notice this till now either
-
How wrong? Completely different or just one letter?
Find the V5c for the car. Does the name and address on that agree with the PCN?
And yes, you should be able to change the hearing type to a telephone hearing.
-
I've just noticed they've spelled my name wrong in the original PCN too...
-
Thanks for that very detailed reply Enceladus.
I had submitted my tribunal application moments before your post. Is it too late to ask for a telephone hearing now?
-
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
01/10/2025 = Wed = 1st possible day to issue a Charge Certificate.
The offer to accept the discount rate for 28 days is unusual. Normally it would be 14. So what payment is required online right now? Actually I checked myself and it's £70 which is incorrect with reference to the NoR, should still be £35. Please take a time-stamped screenshot.
Personally I would register an appeal with the TPT, put detailed submission to follow in the summary evidence box. And request a telephone hearing rather than a decision on the papers.
So we have a PCN served out of time and no explanation. And an incorrect demand for money on the Council website
Please send the SAR to the DVLA and post up the response.
-
Tribunal submitted
-
I’ve just don’t that as well as email the council back asking for:
* the evidence to support their claim as detailed in a post above
* explaining that I had tried to pay but the fee on their website is wrong, I called but the office is closed till Monday which is too late
I will shortly send out the DVLA SAR.
I was ready to cough up on this one lads but they’ve pissed me off again!
I’m guessing that since I’ve left it so late, the tribunal is the only option left?
-
Hopefully you are still in time to lodge an appeal with the tribunal, so do it ASAP - no brainer if it's now at the full penalty anyway. You have the original delay (you need the feedback from DVLA - in the other recent case, Southampton said they had applied within the window, but there was no record at DVLA, which rather undermines their case...) plus now they appear to have overstepped the mark in hiking the charge.
-
Thanks for the useful responses guys. Unfortunately I forgot all about this until today.
I have visited their Southampton website in attempt to pay and seen the fee is now £75 despite the letter stating that the fee will not increase until 28 days after the rejection of representations was served.
The notice was served on the 1st of September, today is the 28th.
I’ve tried to phone the council but they are closed.
Any advice on what to do now?
Take a screenshot showing the dates and fee so that you have this information as it may be of use later.
-
Thanks for the useful responses guys. Unfortunately I forgot all about this until today.
I have visited their Southampton website in attempt to pay and seen the fee is now £75 despite the letter stating that the fee will not increase until 28 days after the rejection of representations was served.
The notice was served on the 1st of September, today is the 28th.
I’ve tried to phone the council but they are closed.
Any advice on what to do now?
-
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 13th Jan 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.
-
I'd write back.
If the authority are relying upon an exemption to the 28-day limit, then they are obliged to establish their entitlement: 'not in a timely manner' is insufficient.
The authority are required to show:
When they requested the keeper's details;
The date on which these details were provided by the Secretary of State.
-
Here is a link to the pdf from the council
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y9vijkh5jlgrynjxtqwd1/SN59589623-2.pdf?rlkey=oe4yvxy14ge869xh7jq2xwdnr&st=vyyvxq8c&dl=0
-
I’ve just had a ‘notice of rejection of representations’ from Southampton council citing delays from the DVLA as the reason the fine is still valid.
I don’t fully believe this because two weeks before I received this PCN, I received a different PCN for the same bus gate within a week of driving through.
Is there any recourse from here?
I have attached the email from the council
-
Hello thanks for the reply
The car is owned wholly by me. I am the registered keeper. As my circumstances seemed identical to the other poster, I simply used the same message as them:
>"There has been a procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority option"
>
>I challenge this PCN on the grounds that the PCN was given outside the 28 day period allowed in law.
>
>Please cancel the PCN.
-
Before you go rushing off to submit representations, please tell us if this is a leased or hired car. If so, the first PCN will be served to them as holders of the V5C Registration Certificate.
HOwever, I suspect somebody's turned up a load of old videos and is unlawfully serving PCNs beyond the 28 day limit allowed by law.
-
Not sure what happened with your PCN image - try this
(https://i.imgur.com/BkXaJeP.jpeg)
-
Turns out someone else on the forum has had the exact same issue!
I’ll take the advice from that thread
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/southampton-cc-33e-using-route-restricted-to-cereain-vehicles-castle-way-bus-gat/
-
Hello all
A PCN for a bus gate contravention was delivered to me 60 days after the event. It is not under dispute that the contravention occurred.
Is the notice still valid given that it wasn’t issued until 60 days after the event? I’m sure I read somewhere that the council have 28 days unless there was an issue with the DVLA.
As this is the second notice I have received for this specific bus gate in a fortnight, (Contravention date: 27/06/25, issue date 04/07/25) I feel that there was no issue with the DVLA and they’ve just dragged their feet processing a backlog of notices.
Do I have any grounds to ask for this to be dismissed on the basis of the lateness of the notice?
Thanks in advance
(https://i.imgur.com/BkXaJeP.jpeg)