Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: LT on July 29, 2025, 03:17:18 pm
-
Sorry, yes, my mistake I meant the NOR.
-
The procedural improprieties relate to the Notice of Rejection(NOR), not the NTO.
But a win is a win.
-
That's brilliant thanks.
I made the mistake of not checking the NTO and I'm too rusty on such things now to instantly spot any errors. Instead I went down the not following Statutory Guidelines route. I had also assumed, wrongly of course, that local authorities would by now have got the wording right. So a valuable lesson for the future, should I ever need it.
I was surprised by how quickly the TPT had notified BANES and that BANES had responded so promptly. Does a TPT appeal automatically go to the local authority, when you make an appeal online?
Perhaps I'm being a bit too cynical, but it has crossed my mind that BANES intentionally have a non-compliant NTO, so as they can use it as an excuse to not challenge an appeal where the procedural impropriety has been rather more serious!
-
Thanks.
2 glaring departures from the regs:
1. Failure to advise that appeals may be submitted after the 28-day period at the adjudicator's discretion.
2. A CC may be served ....and not, as here, issued.
Appeal to an adjudicator against a decision to reject a recipient’s representations
7.—(1) A recipient may appeal to an adjudicator against an enforcement authority’s decision not to accept their representations.
(2) An appeal under this regulation must be made within—
(a)the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice under regulation 6(4)(b) which states that the enforcement authority does not accept the recipient’s representations, or
(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
6) If the enforcement authority does not accept the representations, its decision notice—
(a)must—
(i)state that a charge certificate may be served on the recipient unless within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice—
(aa)the penalty charge is paid, or
(bb)the recipient appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty charge,
-
https://i.ibb.co/DDK3kctX/IMG-2329.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/TBqbPMyq/IMG-2332.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/spXTtDJx/IMG-2330.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/F4sHs5Qw/IMG-2331.jpg
-
Will do (see post below). I can't see anything untoward with the NTO, despite it being BANES reason for not contesting my appeal to the tribunal.
I'll be interested to see if you can find anything.
-
Where's their NOR pl. It's useful to examine these to add to our knowledge of BANES documents.
-
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.
-
UPDATE
A letter has arrived from BANES, dated 04/09/2025.
It has the usual references and the text says:
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
We usually aim to respond to correspondence within 10 working days; however, this may take longer during periods of high demand.
We wanted to let you know that your PCN has been placed on hold and we will write to you again when we have processed your correspondence. You do not need to take any further action until we respond.
Signed on behalf of Team Manager - Parking
So the waiting game continues!
Just to recap; BANES rejected my initial challenge with their standard letter dated 07-08-2025. This did not address my simple and clear objection, so I emailed them to explain this, as per my earlier posts.
-
7(1)(b).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/7
You have seen evidence of the contravention with BANES, it's online in the form of photos taken when the PCN was issued i.e. when the contravention occurred...
With respect, this is where you are missing the point. The alleged contravention is a Code:30 - parked for longer than permitted in a limited waiting bay.
As I have said "ad nauseum", I have, so far at least, only received confirmation of when the PCN was issued, NOT when my car was first observed.
As such I don't have evidence to prove that the a Code:30 contravention occurred. Other than a time printed on the PCN.
I'm not inclined to jump to the beat of the council's drum and pay them a financial penalty without evidence to support their claim.
-
We advise as regards the law and established practice and looking at previous posts I think this has been exhausted.
You're entitled to put your point to the authority as you have done.
But IMO belabouring your view here won't change matters.
-
I have asked BANES for evidence to support their claim.
That evidence could, for example, be a screenshot from the CEO’s HHC.
I don’t think that’s an unreasonable expectation.
-
7(1)(b).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/7
You have seen evidence of the contravention with BANES, it's online in the form of photos taken when the PCN was issued i.e. when the contravention occurred...just as Southampton do as a matter of policy, not regulatory requirement when the contravention occurs.
What you want is evidence of events before the contravention occurred in the form of photos.
No such thing.
The CEO's HHC would have recorded your car's presence and, as explained almost ad nauseam, this cannot be changed. It's there but the council is not going to jump to the beat of your drum to produce and send this at this stage.
-
^ Thanks.
My understanding is that Councils in England and Wales (I’m unsure about Scotland) must provide details and contravention photographs if you challenge the PCN within 28 days, allowing you to view them before making your informal challenge.
In this case, I am ask for details to verify the time my vehicle was first observed.
. . . and the source of your understanding is . . ???
From posts on PePiPoo.
A speedy search on Google also came up with this:
https://www.southampton.gov.uk/travel-transport/fines-and-charges/parking-fines/challenge-parking-fine/
I’d be interested to see the legislation which states Councils in England and Wales do not have to provide any details or photographs to support the issuing of a PCN. 👍
-
^ One step at a time!
Let’s see what the Council’s next reply is.
If they provide evidence to support their claim, I’d be foolish to take this case to adjudication.
-
Why not just pursue this matter through the enforcement and appeal procedures and test your theories where it counts, at adjudication?
-
^ Thanks.
My understanding is that Councils in England and Wales (I’m unsure about Scotland) must provide details and contravention photographs if you challenge the PCN within 28 days, allowing you to view them before making your informal challenge.
In this case, I am ask for details to verify the time my vehicle was first observed.
. . . and the source of your understanding is . . ???
-
^ Thanks.
My understanding is that Councils in England and Wales (I’m unsure about Scotland) must provide details and contravention photographs if you challenge the PCN within 28 days, allowing you to view them before making your informal challenge.
In this case, I am ask for details to verify the time my vehicle was first observed.
-
The bottom line on this is that it is a matter of who the adjudicator believes, using the civil law test of "the balance of probabilities". The council have no legal obligation to give you anything at all other than that the CEO saw your car and determined that it was over the allowed time and his notes reflect this. Even photographs are not a legal requirement, although most councils get their CEOs to take them nowadays.
-
Yes, the statutory period has lapsed, but using their discretion, BANES have, as they said in the email: "The case will remain on hold until we are able to provide a response. No further action is required on your part until you have received our reply."
I objected on the grounds that I did not believe my vehicle was first observed at the time stated on the PCN. To date BANES have ignored this objection.
Had BANES met my objection, I would have paid the reduced penalty and that would have been the end of the matter. If BANES do not provide any evidence, which I find unlikely but you never know, either before or at adjudication and the decision goes against me then yes, I do believe I have a strong case for only paying the reduced penalty amount of £25. As it would have only been the fault of BANES in not meeting my clear objection that this case would have ended in adjudication.
Whilst this is a civil matter, not a criminal offence and my knowledge of the law is rusty, I can't believe that as BANES are seeking a financial penalty then some fundamental rights would still apply. Most probably under the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the onus in on BANES to prove the offence occurred. So far, I only have proof (date/time stamped photographs) of the where the vehicle was parked at the time the PCN was issued.
-
As the Council has repeatedly ignored my request for proof, I think I would have a strong case for paying the reduced amount of £25.
With whom and at what stage?
The statutory discount period has lapsed. After this it's discretionary and an appeal to the adjudicator is always against the full penalty. The adjudicator has the option when rejecting an appeal of recommending that the authority exercise discretion, but it's their choice.
-
^ Thanks.
IIRC, the NTO must be issued within six months from the date the PCN was issued.
I'm at a loss as to why the Council cannot provide proof of the time my vehicle was first observed. Maybe they can't, which if it goes to adjudication will be their word against mine. I accept that if this was the case, I would most likely lose on the balance of probability. As the Council has repeatedly ignored my request for proof, I think I would have a strong case for paying the reduced amount of £25.
All of which is of course hypothetical at this strange.
I find it an interesting case though, as why should it be accepted that the CEO is correct without evidence to prove it.
-
They're not obliged by regs to put a response in writing, effectively them issuing a NTO is their response.
But they might do, at their discretion within their enforcement policies.
As you are the RK, you'll be able to wait until you receive their response whatever form this might take.
The other deadline is that for serving a NTO..which is 6 months.
-
I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.
The last email from BANES, on the 19th August 2025, clearly states and I quote: "The case will remain on hold until we are able to provide a response. No further action is required on your part until you have received our reply."
To date I have not received any reply.
-
Who is the registered keeper?
You can demand all you like, they're not obliged to provide at this stage and will in all likelihood simply progress enforcement as per the regulatory timetable.
-
^ Thank you for your response. Please see my fourth post on page one, for the link to a copy of the PCN, which you have previously commented on.
I had quoted (in bold) from the email I received. Below is the full text for you, which I hope will you help you to give me some further words of wisdom, which are much appreciated:
Aug 19, 2025, 3:57 PM
PCN: BN634564XX
Dear Mr XXXX,
Further to my telephone conversation this afternoon with Emma, who was very helpful, I am writing to once again request the documented proof of the first time my vehicle was observed.
I have repeatedly asked for this, but BANES have so far ignored my request. I have received photographic evidence as proof of the vehicle being parked at 10:43, which I do not dispute.
Surely, if I think the first observation time is incorrect, it is not unreasonable to ask for evidence to substantiate your claim?
Emma told me that the CEO recorded the tyre valve position on two of the wheels of my vehicle at 8:04. If this is the case, please let me have the documented proof. A screenshot from the CEO's handheld device with the time and date will suffice.
As you have repeatedly ignored my reasonable request and taken 8 days to reply to my last email, I cannot help but feel that BANES are deliberately withholding information with the intent of increasing the charge to £50 and that I am being pressured to take this to the Adjudicator.
I hope this matter can be resolved quickly and at no more expense to myself and BANES. If your claim is proved to be accurate, I will of course pay the discounted £25 penalty, but if your delay in providing this evidence results in that right being withdrawn, I shall use this correspondence in my defence of not paying the full £50 penalty.
I look forward to your prompt response.
Yours sincerely
XXXXX XXXXXXX
Their reply:
Aug 19, 2025, 5:22 PM
Good Afternoon Mr. XXXXX
Thank you for your further email in relation to the above Penalty Charge Notice.
Please be advised that I have added this correspondence, along with your previous emails, to the case for further review and consideration. The case will remain on hold until we are able to provide a response. No further action is required on your part until you have received our reply.
Kind Regards
XXXX XXXXX
I have yet to receive any further response, either by email or post. Which doesn't concern me, as it simply makes BANES seem even more incompetent.
-
How would we know, we haven't seen it?
Neither have we seen their email. If you simply sent your observations on their response* through the same channels then you might simply have an auto response and nothing's on hold other than possibly any extended discount period mentioned in their reply..which we haven't seen.
And we've not seen the PCN as far as I can see. Long on narrative but short on objective facts.
*- they're not obliged to respond to a comment that you didn't like their response. You can't simply extend this process at will by writing to the council.
-
I still haven't heard anymore about this since the 19th of August, when I received an email stating that- "The case will remain on hold until we are able to provide a response. No further action is required on your part until you have received our reply."
Which makes me think that either the council are just being slow to deal with this, or they cannot substantiate the time they claim my vehicle was first observed.
Just to clarify, my initial challenge was formally rejected in writing, but it made no reference whatsoever to the reason why I made the challenge.
-
Thanks for your reply.
BANES have replied, but totally failed to address my request for proof of first observation time.
As such I emailed them explaining their failure, twice.
As per my earlier post today, I have received the following response from BANES, by email:
"The case will remain on hold until we are able to provide a response. No further action is required on your part until you have received our reply".
-
You're overthinking this. It's not an episode of Perry Mason.
From what I see they've not yet replied to your informal challenge? So wait for that.
-
The implication being that a motorist in receipt of a PCN could delay the enforcement process by demanding every item of the authority's evidence!
A PCN with a Code:30 contravention is issued when a vehicle has stayed longer than the time allowed in a parking space with a time limit. I don't believe I arrived that early, hence I want the proof, before paying up.
Surely, if requested, it's entirely reasonable to see just two items of supporting evidence. Namely proof of when the vehicle was first observed and when the PCN was issued. For the latter, BANES (as with all LA's I believe) were perfectly happy to provide time stamped photographic evidence. Currently they are being suspiciously evasive when it comes to proof of first observation.
I would argue that for a LA, when requested, to not provide such evidence, is them being dystopian and not me being anarchistic.
BTW, I am perfectly happy to be proved wrong, which is a distinct possibility. After all, most of us will have make mistakes with timings at some point in our lives and I am a senior citizen. :)
-
The implication being that a motorist in receipt of a PCN could delay the enforcement process by demanding every item of the authority's evidence!
-
You can ask for the info, but at this stage they're not required to provide.
Were it otherwise, IMO it would be an armchair(or perhaps driver's seat) anarchist's charter.
Thanks for your reply.
Although I must admit that I am puzzled as to why you would think asking for supporting evidence to prove an alleged contravention is somehow anarchistic.
-
The situation as of today, after having so far ignored my requests by both email and telephone for supporting evidence of the first observation time, is and I quote: "The case will remain on hold until we are able to provide a response. No further action is required on your part until you have received our reply".
I still believe that for an alleged Code:30 contravention, it is entirely reasonable to provide the evidence for the first observed time as well as the time the PCN was issued, if requested.
-
You can ask for the info, but at this stage they're not required to provide.
Were it otherwise, IMO it would be an armchair(or perhaps driver's seat) anarchist's charter.
-
^ Many thanks for your helpful reply.
To answer your question, BANES have replied, but with no mention whatsoever of my specific query ant therefore no evidence either.
The crux of this, which I think is relevant to any Code 30 contravention, is that whilst evidence (if requested) is always provided with clear time stamped photographs when the PCN was placed on the vehicle, it seems that evidence is not readily proffered to support the time that the vehicle was first observed.
-
If the CEO has a time stamped note of when my vehicle was first observed, it would be beyond foolish to challenge that, given that I have no evidence to prove otherwise.
I would like to see the CEO’s evidence though.
Did the traffic warden make a note of the valve position of your wheels?
Did the traffic warden make notes after they issued the PCN? Are you able to see the notes?
I am trying to think of any further information I can add.
At the start of a shift, a CEO prints a 'test ticket' with their handheld. The purpose is to check that certain elements of the test ticket are correct e.g. shoulder number, date, time.
In the event that the data is incorrect, the traffic warden should not leave the office with that equipment.
-
😆 Glad I’ve humoured you, I love Blackadder.
Yes, I am the Registered Keeper.
I’m not necessarily prepared to take this to Adjudication.
If the CEO has a time stamped note of when my vehicle was first observed, it would be beyond foolish to challenge that, given that I have no evidence to prove otherwise.
I would like to see the CEO’s evidence though.
-
I'm reminded of General Melchett's phrase in Blackadder Goes Forth.
In any event, if you're prepared to take this to adjudication whatever the adverse financial consequences to you* might be, then you* might still prevail if the authority mess up procedurally.
*- are you the registered keeper with current DVLA data?
-
The hand held computer is like a mobile smartphone where the time is live and correct all the time just like your phone.
So when the CEO enters your car reg (VRM) at start of observation he doesn’t enter the time it is automatically there on the HHC , so no chance of error on touching screen regarding start of observation.
By the way I am a retired CEO but now will use my experience to explain and help forum users on here if I can.
Thank you so much, that’s massively helpful and exactly the information I was looking for.
Will wait and see what response I eventually get from the council. I still don’t believe I was parked at that time, but thanks to your input, challenging the CEO’s input is not an option.
Faulty equipment could be a slight possibility I guess, but again I have no proof and even it was, the council aren’t likely to admit it.
Thanks again.
-
Good to have hands-on experience.
In short, and on the balance of probabilities, the OP is incorrect in casting aspersions on the CEO's timings!
-
The hand held computer is like a mobile smartphone where the time is live and correct all the time just like your phone.
So when the CEO enters your car reg (VRM) at start of observation he doesn’t enter the time it is automatically there on the HHC , so no chance of error on touching screen regarding start of observation.
By the way I am a retired CEO but now will use my experience to explain and help forum users on here if I can.
-
Hello,
I am a traffic warden in London, and have been watching this forum with interest.
This is the first thread where I feel that I may have a unique contribution to make.
I observe cars under contravention code 30F, and to be honest with you, do not record the valve position, because it is too cumbersome a task.
On my handheld, I record when I first 'observe' the vehicle. I note the 'make' and 'colour' of the vehicle. I note the location of the vehicle e.g. outside Tesco Express, then save the observation.
In a shift, I can 'observe' 100 vehicles in the free parking bays, but only issue a PCN to a couple of them.
It is incredibly arduous to record lots and lots of information in an observation that I am most likely going to discard.
I can imagine that it sucks for the motorist, who may have doubts about when I really did start observing their vehicle. However, I tell them that falsifying an observation is a very serious matter, so I would like to think that colleagues don't resort to that.
I was trained to take photos after the contravention has occurred and taught that it is incorrect to take photos of a vehicle that - at that point - is not offending.
One caveat I will mention is that every local authority does seem to have its own modus operandi. With that in mind, I suspect that another warden could come along and say something entirely different from me.
Thank you so much for your input.
I doubt that the CEO intentionally falsified the time, as you say that is a very serious matter. My thinking was that it was most likely to be an error on the touch screen.
Sadly, I have no proof, which is 'Sods Law' as ordinarily I'd have had multiple witnesses as to my whereabouts. As such it's my word against theirs. BANES have yet to officially respond, but in my experience they always take a long time to do so and stand firm. Which is why I have had to defeat them four times so far at adjudication.
-
You came to the forum asking for help.
As early as Post #2 you were directed to read the forum procedures which are there for a reason.
You have not posted what's required i.e. we're still missing the VRM and back of the PCN.
You have submitted your own challenge.
Hey ho.
Thanks for your reply, I did indeed ask for help. Specifically about how a CEO make notes etc. on first observation of a vehicle.
Genuinely intrigued as to how the VRM is relevant? It has been correctly entered on the PCN as has the make and colour.
-
@
theronstar
Welcome to the forum! I'm sure yout contribuitions will be welcome.
As this section is for live PCNs (until they are hopefully cancelled!), This thread will be moved to the Flame Pit.
Apologies to all! I moved this thread in error and will return it to Civil PCNs.
-
Hello,
I am a traffic warden in London, and have been watching this forum with interest.
This is the first thread where I feel that I may have a unique contribution to make.
I observe cars under contravention code 30F, and to be honest with you, do not record the valve position, because it is too cumbersome a task.
On my handheld, I record when I first 'observe' the vehicle. I note the 'make' and 'colour' of the vehicle. I note the location of the vehicle e.g. outside Tesco Express, then save the observation.
In a shift, I can 'observe' 100 vehicles in the free parking bays, but only issue a PCN to a couple of them.
It is incredibly arduous to record lots and lots of information in an observation that I am most likely going to discard.
I can imagine that it sucks for the motorist, who may have doubts about when I really did start observing their vehicle. However, I tell them that falsifying an observation is a very serious matter, so I would like to think that colleagues don't resort to that.
I was trained to take photos after the contravention has occurred and taught that it is incorrect to take photos of a vehicle that - at that point - is not offending.
One caveat I will mention is that every local authority does seem to have its own modus operandi. With that in mind, I suspect that another warden could come along and say something entirely different from me.
-
You came to the forum asking for help.
As early as Post #2 you were directed to read the forum procedures which are there for a reason.
You have not posted what's required i.e. we're still missing the VRM and back of the PCN.
You have submitted your own challenge.
Hey ho.
-
The CEO can’t invent a start time for observations .
Once he inputs your VRM and valve positions into his or her hand held computer it registers time so it can’t be changed to suit him at a later time .
So the CEO cannot lie about start of observation
-
^ Thanks for all the replies, much appreciated.
I've challenged it and the response will interesting, unless the CEO admits their error, it will come down to their word against mine.
If that's the case, as has already been stated, on the balance of probabilities an Adjudicator would almost certainly find against me.
It's an odd scenario for sure and ordinarily I'd have had a witness or witnesses to prove my whereabouts etc. Sods law!
-
Photos are never taken at first observation only valve positions recorded.
The reason for this is the CEO might be logging in lots of vehicles and taking photos of all would use too much disc space on his hand held computer.
But at the original start of observation your VRM and valve positions would be inputted in to HHC and the time of this input CANNOT be changed .
photos are then taken at time of issue of PCN to prove that valve positions are the same as initially inputted into HHC also photos of car vrm , signs and lines
-
Hopefully my photo of the pcn will be attached.
You've obscured your VRM - why?
We can't look at photos for ourselves.
Old habits…..👍
Not sure how the VRM would be relevant to my query tbh, but appreciate your feedback.
-
Do you have an Android phone? Google timeline may well have recorded your movements
Thanks for your reply, great idea and not one that I’d thought of. Sadly, I use an iPhone.
I did wonder if my vehicles ecu could be used to provide evidence. Not sure the hassle of getting that information, if it’s possible, is worth the £25 though.
-
Hopefully my photo of the pcn will be attached.
You've obscured your VRM - why?
We can't look at photos for ourselves.
-
Do you have an Android phone? Google timeline may well have recorded your movements
-
You are clutching at straws IMO.
The CEO's evidence will be their notes. Are you suggesting that on one of their regular patrols in which notes would have been taken of numerous vehicles prior to yours the CEO issued the PCN and then counted back to the random time of 8.04? But if their notes don't show them in the road at 8.04 then they could whistle goodbye to their job. All to issue you with a PCN.
The legal test at adjudication is balance of probabilities. You've not provided any evidence, however circumstantial, that you parked nearer to 9am.
You must have a routine, you get up, you go to work, you catch a train, you open a shop.....something must have happened after you parked. You've given us nothing to work with.
I left a house where I was alone, drove my vehicle to the street and parked, then walked to house of a relative who was on holiday, where I did some tasks and left again.
No proof whatsoever, other than my word and possibly that my vehicle may have ben detected by CCTV en route. Odd I know, but hence my query regarding CEO proof. If I had evidence to prove otherwise, I wouldn't waste the time of anyone on here.
-
You are clutching at straws IMO.
The CEO's evidence will be their notes. Are you suggesting that on one of their regular patrols in which notes would have been taken of numerous vehicles prior to yours the CEO issued the PCN and then counted back to the random time of 8.04? But if their notes don't show them in the road at 8.04 then they could whistle goodbye to their job. All to issue you with a PCN.
The legal test at adjudication is balance of probabilities. You've not provided any evidence, however circumstantial, that you parked nearer to 9am.
You must have a routine, you get up, you go to work, you catch a train, you open a shop.....something must have happened after you parked. You've given us nothing to work with.
-
They sometimes record valve positions in notes.
Would they not take a photograph to do that?
No - more likely to just quickly note positions. Taking pictures of many vehicles not in contravention is not productive.
I'd have thought quicker to take a photo and delete it later than make notes, but I take your point. There are very few parking zones in the centre of Bath that are not either residents permits only or that you have to pay for.
Question is, do I have any grounds to challenge this without any tangible proof of when I initially parked?
-
They sometimes record valve positions in notes.
Would they not take a photograph to do that?
No - more likely to just quickly note positions. Taking pictures of many vehicles not in contravention is not productive.
-
They sometimes record valve positions in notes.
Would they not take a photograph to do that?
-
They sometimes record valve positions in notes.
-
The CEO's notes are sufficient to enforce a contravention.
They sometimes take pics of wheel valve positions to show the vehicle hasn't moved - are there any in the pics?
Thank you for your reply.
All the photos, including several of just the wheels are time stamped at 10:44 and 10:45. Which seems odd, as why take wheel position photographs if you didn't take any prior photographs.
-
I agree that it is entirely plausible that a CEO would begin to check cars at the given observed time. I don't agree that my vehicle was parked there then though, I would guess it was parked just before 9am, but can't prove this. I didn't actually check as I knew I'd definitely be parked there for less than two hours.
Hence my initial question; "Do I have to accept that the observed times by the CEO is taken as 'gospel' and it's a case of my word versus theirs, or is their a case to challenge it?"
As the CEO took no photographs when they first observed my vehicle, I am assuming that they made a note of my vehicle registration, which presumably is now recorded digitally.
BANES have form for procedural impropriety and I have in the past successfully challenged, at adjudication level, three Bus Lane and one parking PCN's. In the earlier days of PePiPoo I helped several people to successfully challenge the same incorrectly signed Bus Lanes.
My initial thoughts are that without supporting evidence on when I first parked, I have no case, but on the basis of 'if you don't ask' I'm here now.
-
The CEO's notes are sufficient to enforce a contravention.
They sometimes take pics of wheel valve positions to show the vehicle hasn't moved - are there any in the pics?
-
My belief is that the CEO has made an error on the first observed time. Sadly, I have no supporting evidence or witnesses to prove this.
Then on what basis do you hold this belief?
The restricted times begin at 8am, it therefore seems perfectly plausible that a CEO would begin to check cars at this time, in your case 8.04.
-
https://ibb.co/TM07ZfF1
-
Hopefully my photo of the pcn will be attached.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
This relates to a free parking zone, for two hours no return permitted within an hour.
I accidentally (website not that clear) submitted a challenge on the grounds of procedural impropriety without having submitted my reasons. I had been trying to find photographic evidence first.
This wasn’t available, so I telephoned the council who then emailed me multiple photos of my vehicle, all date and time stamped when the PCN was issued.
I emailed back asking for proof of the time my vehicle was first observed and if CCTV footage was available to support this.
The emailed reply was and I quote accurately: “CEO can only recorded vehicle that are in situate at the time in the location. I am unaware if CCTV is in operation at this location. Your appeal has bee received and will be dealt with on due course”
My belief is that the CEO has made an error on the first observed time. Sadly, I have no supporting evidence or witnesses to prove this.
Many thanks.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Read this:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
and post the stuff.
-
I have received a PCN for a Code:30 offence of being parked for longer than permitted. My belief is that the CEO has made an error on the time when my vehicle was first observed.
I have no proof to verify the time I parked and the Council have confirmed that there is no CCTV coverage of the street. they have also confirmed that there are no photographs of my vehicle at the alleged time it was first observed.
The CEO took multiple photographs of my vehicle at the time of issuing the PCN, but none at the time it was first 'observed'.
I have challenged this PCN under procedural impropriety and would be grateful for any feedback.
Do I have to accept that the observed times by the CEO is taken as 'gospel' and it's a case of my word versus theirs, or is their a case to challenge it?
Thanks in advance.