URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 113968--------------------------------------------------
       TfL rejecting representation, despite overwhelming evidence 
       By: LSK Date: March 21, 2026, 4:01 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Not sure how to attach a photo on mobile, so I will paste below
       what the latest letter says:
       ‘In your representation you have stated you purchased the
       vehicle through Facebook Marketplace on 15/02/2026 at
       approximately 15:25. You have timestamped Facebook messages from
       the seller showing arrangements for the purchase and confirming
       the seller was driving the vehicle to deliver it to you. Your
       bank statement also shows the payment to the previous owner at
       15:25. You have a DVLA New Keeper Confirmation email received at
       16:19 and a DVLA tax confirmation email received at 16:24, both
       issued after the stated ULEZ contravention time. You only know
       the previous keeper's name, [redacted] and confirm that he
       delivered the vehicle to you at around 14:30 on 15/02/2026,
       several hours after the contravention at 10:58. You have
       supplied all available evidence, including Facebook messages
       with the seller, bank transaction proof showing the vehicle was
       paid for after the contravention, and DVLA emails confirming the
       keeper change and payment times. You have attached all
       supporting documents.
       Although we acknowledge the points raised and evidence provided
       in your representation, in this instance we have decided not to
       exercise our discretion as we do not consider the mitigation
       factors present to have given reason to cancel the PCN.
       This is because you have failed to provide sufficient evidence
       to demonstrate the vehicle was bought after to the date of
       contravention.
       As the registered keeper of the vehicle it is your duty to make
       yourself aware of any charges, tolls or other restrictions that
       may be in existence along your route. We have made full
       information regarding the Ultra Low Emission Zone, including its
       boundary, operating hours and payment options, available through
       our Contact Centre and online at tfl.gov.uk/ulez, as well as
       running a public information campaign.’
       So as the letter says I bought a car and the same day that I
       bought it, the seller drove through ULEZ and received up a ULEZ
       fine. I have multiple different pieces of evidence stating that
       I bought the car after the time that the fine was received
       however TFL are not budging on their stance.
       I’ve given them every bit of evidence I have proving that I was
       not the keeper of the vehicle at the time, however they are
       refusing to accept my representations.
       Since the seller delivered the vehicle to my house, I only have
       his name, not his address, which I have provided, to no avail.
       What else can I possibly give them?
       #Post#: 113971--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TfL rejecting representation, despite overwhelming evidence 
       By: fraser.mitchell Date: March 21, 2026, 5:19 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       All you can now do, if TfL are obdurate, is to register an
       appeal at London Tribunals. The test here is the civil law "on
       the balance of probabilities". You have presented TfL with
       evidence that they call "mitigation"; what tosh !!
       So I think you have quite a strong case, but of course must risk
       the full PCN penalty, not the discount.
       #Post#: 113984--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TfL rejecting representation, despite overwhelming evidence 
       By: tincombe Date: March 22, 2026, 4:19 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Can I try and simplify this.
       The person liable is the 'keeper' (registered keeper for this
       purpose at the moment) at the time of the contravention. So, are
       you saying that both the seller and you were registered as
       keepers on the same day and that the issue is at what time they
       ceased to be keeper and you became the RK and how this change is
       recorded by DVLA?
       Ownership in the normal sense is not relevant so I would leave
       this to one side for the moment. TfL only act on the basis of
       info provided by DVLA.
       #Post#: 114054--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TfL rejecting representation, despite overwhelming evidence 
       By: mickR Date: March 23, 2026, 3:46 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       is the sellers address not on the V5 (log book) ??
       #Post#: 114089--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TfL rejecting representation, despite overwhelming evidence 
       By: RichardW Date: March 23, 2026, 7:39 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=mickR link=topic=10311.msg114054#msg114054
       date=1774255614]
       is the sellers address not on the V5 (log book) ??
       [/quote]
       Not any more...data protection!
       #Post#: 114140--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TfL rejecting representation, despite overwhelming evidence 
       By: mickR Date: March 23, 2026, 1:16 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=RichardW link=topic=10311.msg114089#msg114089
       date=1774269580]
       [quote author=mickR link=topic=10311.msg114054#msg114054
       date=1774255614]
       is the sellers address not on the V5 (log book) ??
       [/quote]
       Not any more...data protection!
       [/quote]
       pretty sure youll find the RK's Name and Address are on the
       front of the V5.
       ill hazard a guess the OP didnt bother to check the V5 details
       (and clearly didnt record them) in order to ascertain the seller
       was even the Registered Keeper.
       #Post#: 114151--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TfL rejecting representation, despite overwhelming evidence 
       By: RichardW Date: March 23, 2026, 3:02 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Talking at cross purposes maybe - the V5C has the current
       keeper's details on it, but not the former keeper's details  -
       well it didn't in mid 2018: my Wife's car, bought in Feb '18
       gives the previous keeper's details, but mine, bought in Jun '18
       merely gives the number of former keepers - and the box where
       previous keeper details was talks about data protection.
       Unlikely this has reverted since...  If you had the whole
       original V5C you would have the former keeper's details on it,
       but the seller is only supposed to pass on the new keeper part
       (which doesn't).
       #Post#: 114159--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TfL rejecting representation, despite overwhelming evidence 
       By: tincombe Date: March 23, 2026, 3:28 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Definitely at cross purposes IMO!
       As the PCN was sent to the OP, the current owner(RK) is the OP
       and the previous owner was(presumably) the seller whose details
       the OP would have and which they need to use when relying upon
       the grounds of 'I was not the owner at the time'.
       We need to hear from the OP.
       The first post rather obscures the key facts IMO:
       Contravention: 10.58
       Vehicle delivered at OP's address: 14.30
       Payment for car: 15.25
       DVLA confirmation of OP as RK: 16.19
       The previous owner relinquished possession to the OP at 15.25
       until which time the 'keeper' (who is the person by whom the car
       was kept) was IMO the seller.
       And yet DVLA gave the authority the OP's details. I suggest the
       OP gets on to DVLA.
       #Post#: 114282--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TfL rejecting representation, despite overwhelming evidence 
       By: TheParkingmeister Date: March 24, 2026, 3:58 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Yeah, I had this from TfL, until I realised I could win the
       London Tribunal as the contravention had not occured as per the
       law. So, I won the Tribunal and now quote the case in my
       appeals, and I have had the last 3 from them cancelled on
       initial appeal.
       *****************************************************