3. Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - volvo2025

Pages: [1] 2
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« on: November 17, 2025, 10:30:24 am »
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

2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« on: November 14, 2025, 02:20:46 pm »
How did it go?

3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
« on: November 07, 2025, 01:39:33 pm »
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

4
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by Southampton City Council
« on: November 06, 2025, 05:09:53 pm »
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

5
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by Southampton City Council
« on: November 05, 2025, 02:29:00 pm »
@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!!!

6
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by Southampton City Council
« on: November 04, 2025, 12:25:24 pm »
Bumping one final time before my tribunal at 1215 tomorrow

7
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by Southampton City Council
« on: November 02, 2025, 12:38:41 pm »
Absent any further input from forum members, I plan to present the following argument:


Quote


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.

8
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by Southampton City Council
« on: November 01, 2025, 03:27:11 pm »
Sorry for the double bump, but the threads gone cold and the tribunal is Wednesday!

9
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by Southampton City Council
« on: October 30, 2025, 04:48:18 pm »
Bump

@Enceladus I’d be grateful if you had any more thoughts on this

10
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by Southampton City Council
« on: October 28, 2025, 12:35:52 pm »
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

11
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by Southampton City Council
« on: October 07, 2025, 08:57:04 am »
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

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

12
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by Southampton City Council
« on: September 27, 2025, 04:34:42 pm »
The docref date is 13 01 25, which is the same date as the 'acquired vehicle date'

13
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by Southampton City Council
« on: September 27, 2025, 04:26:57 pm »
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

14
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by Southampton City Council
« on: September 27, 2025, 04:05:26 pm »
I've just noticed they've spelled my name wrong in the original PCN too...

15
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by Southampton City Council
« on: September 27, 2025, 03:59:40 pm »
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?

Pages: [1] 2