1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Proof of observed times.
« on: November 11, 2025, 03:37:14 pm »
Sorry, yes, my mistake I meant the NOR.
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.
2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Mistaken identity/what to do next
« on: November 10, 2025, 07:36:23 pm »
If it were me, I would send Bristow and Sutor an email and also a letter by recorded delivery stating that this is not your vehicle nor do you own a white transit van and that they should refer this back to their client TFL.
I would also say that if they should persist in writing to or contacting you again, unless it is to apologise and inform you that this has been dropped, you will treat it as harassment under The Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
I would also say that if they should persist in writing to or contacting you again, unless it is to apologise and inform you that this has been dropped, you will treat it as harassment under The Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Proof of observed times.
« on: November 10, 2025, 05:31:13 pm »
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!
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!
4
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Being in a Bus Lane, Milsom Street, Bath
« on: November 10, 2025, 04:50:02 pm »
Best of luck.
5
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Being in a Bus Lane, Milsom Street, Bath
« on: November 07, 2025, 08:42:09 am »
Refer to it by the date it was heard and the location.
7
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Proof of observed times.
« on: November 06, 2025, 08:04:03 pm »
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.
I'll be interested to see if you can find anything.
8
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Being in a Bus Lane, Milsom Street, Bath
« on: November 06, 2025, 05:22:41 pm »
I have just watched the video and note that BANES have changed the camera angles, so that the loading bay on George St. (to the right of the entrance to Milsom St.) is no longer shown. Sneaky, as if this bay is occupied, especially by a van or lorry, the chances of seeing the signs on your approach are nil until you've committed to turn.
9
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Being in a Bus Lane, Milsom Street, Bath
« on: November 06, 2025, 05:16:02 pm »
I won my appeal against this bus lane back in 2023. Unfortunately, I'm experiencing some computer difficulties at the moment, so can't post my appeal, but here's the Adjudicators notes on the case:
1. This case was determined on 17 October 2003 without a hearing.
2. Mr XXX appeals on the basis that the signage for this bus gate (simply a short length of bus-only street) was not sufficient to give him proper warning of the restriction in time to take avoiding action.
3. He argues that the two advance warning signs are positioned in such a way that the driver has limited time to see and understand them. The signs at the actual entry point are set back a short distance inside the turning, which makes them difficult to see them until the turn is actually commenced.
4. Mr XXX has provided various photographs of the area, which I have seen and considered.
5. The Council has provided the footage of the incident, which shows that the bus gate was entered by the vehicle turning right into the restriction.
6. Mr XXX points out that it is just possible to see a vehicle in the loading bay which is situated immediately before the turn. Mr XXX has provided a photograph at Evidence #4 showing that vehicles in the loading bay can restrict the view of a driver approaching the bus gate from that direction.
7. I have had regard to recent decisions of other adjudicators regarding the signage for this bus gate, but all of the relevant decisions involve a vehicle turning left from George Street, not turning right as Mr XXX did.
8. The test I need to apply is whether the situation, looked at as a whole, gives adequate warning to a driver in time to take avoiding action.
9. Firstly there is an advance sign in Gay Street warning that there is a bus-only restriction in Milsom Street. However that sign is obviously only useful if the driver knows the location of Milsom Street, and therefore appears to be directed at locals.
10. Secondly there is an advance warning sign just after the turn into George Street, which is a more useful map-based sign, showing that there is a bus-only restriction at the next turn right. However, after comparing the various photographs provided by Mr XXX and the Council, I do find that this sign is located only 4-5 yards after the right hand turn round into George Street from Gay Street, which gives drivers very little time to see and consider its contents.
11. The next sign that a driver might see is the entry point sign on the right-hand pavement at the bus gate junction itself. Both entry point signs have been sensibly angled so that at least one sign will be visible to a driver, whether approaching from the east or west. However, the signs are set back perhaps 3-4 yards inside the junction, which must restrict their visibility to an extent. As Mr XXX points out, there is also a loading bay immediately prior to the junction which will, if occupied, further restrict the early visibility of the signs for a driver turning right. I accept that the video footage shows a vehicle in the loading bay at the time that Mr Roberts approached.
12. Looking at the situation as a whole, I find that the first warning sign will only be significant for someone with local knowledge of the area, the second advance warning sign may well be missed by a driver negotiating the right hand turn, and, if so, a driver may only see the signs as the turn right into the restriction is commenced, with the possibility of vehicles in the loading bay further restricting vision. At that point it might well be too late to safely avoid the restriction. I therefore find the signage inadequate when approaching this restriction from the direction requiring a right-hand turn.
13. I therefore find the contravention did not occur, and I allow this appeal. I direct the Council to cancel the penalty charge notice.
Hope this helps.
1. This case was determined on 17 October 2003 without a hearing.
2. Mr XXX appeals on the basis that the signage for this bus gate (simply a short length of bus-only street) was not sufficient to give him proper warning of the restriction in time to take avoiding action.
3. He argues that the two advance warning signs are positioned in such a way that the driver has limited time to see and understand them. The signs at the actual entry point are set back a short distance inside the turning, which makes them difficult to see them until the turn is actually commenced.
4. Mr XXX has provided various photographs of the area, which I have seen and considered.
5. The Council has provided the footage of the incident, which shows that the bus gate was entered by the vehicle turning right into the restriction.
6. Mr XXX points out that it is just possible to see a vehicle in the loading bay which is situated immediately before the turn. Mr XXX has provided a photograph at Evidence #4 showing that vehicles in the loading bay can restrict the view of a driver approaching the bus gate from that direction.
7. I have had regard to recent decisions of other adjudicators regarding the signage for this bus gate, but all of the relevant decisions involve a vehicle turning left from George Street, not turning right as Mr XXX did.
8. The test I need to apply is whether the situation, looked at as a whole, gives adequate warning to a driver in time to take avoiding action.
9. Firstly there is an advance sign in Gay Street warning that there is a bus-only restriction in Milsom Street. However that sign is obviously only useful if the driver knows the location of Milsom Street, and therefore appears to be directed at locals.
10. Secondly there is an advance warning sign just after the turn into George Street, which is a more useful map-based sign, showing that there is a bus-only restriction at the next turn right. However, after comparing the various photographs provided by Mr XXX and the Council, I do find that this sign is located only 4-5 yards after the right hand turn round into George Street from Gay Street, which gives drivers very little time to see and consider its contents.
11. The next sign that a driver might see is the entry point sign on the right-hand pavement at the bus gate junction itself. Both entry point signs have been sensibly angled so that at least one sign will be visible to a driver, whether approaching from the east or west. However, the signs are set back perhaps 3-4 yards inside the junction, which must restrict their visibility to an extent. As Mr XXX points out, there is also a loading bay immediately prior to the junction which will, if occupied, further restrict the early visibility of the signs for a driver turning right. I accept that the video footage shows a vehicle in the loading bay at the time that Mr Roberts approached.
12. Looking at the situation as a whole, I find that the first warning sign will only be significant for someone with local knowledge of the area, the second advance warning sign may well be missed by a driver negotiating the right hand turn, and, if so, a driver may only see the signs as the turn right into the restriction is commenced, with the possibility of vehicles in the loading bay further restricting vision. At that point it might well be too late to safely avoid the restriction. I therefore find the signage inadequate when approaching this restriction from the direction requiring a right-hand turn.
13. I therefore find the contravention did not occur, and I allow this appeal. I direct the Council to cancel the penalty charge notice.
Hope this helps.
10
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Proof of observed times.
« on: November 06, 2025, 04:43:38 pm »
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.
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.
11
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Proof of observed times.
« on: September 10, 2025, 04:23:54 pm »
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.
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.
12
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Proof of observed times.
« on: September 10, 2025, 04:12:58 pm »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.
13
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Proof of observed times.
« on: September 10, 2025, 10:26:44 am »
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.
That evidence could, for example, be a screenshot from the CEO’s HHC.
I don’t think that’s an unreasonable expectation.
14
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Proof of observed times.
« on: September 10, 2025, 09:02:36 am »^ 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. 👍
15
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Proof of observed times.
« on: September 10, 2025, 08:30:14 am »
^ 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.
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.