DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 94311--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain
vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
DIR By: chris_w
Date: October 16, 2025, 7:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks John.
I've copied the text of the evidence summary below rather than
upload as imgur doesn't work in the UK at the moment (minus
identifying details)
I did not find a summary or any argument from Southampton as to
why they think the appeal should be dismissed.
Evidence summary:
SNxxxxx-xxxx
MR CHRISTOPHER xxxx vs. Southampton
Case Submitted: September 28, 2025 16:42
Evidence Pack
Evidence Pack
Appellant Explanation and Authority Summary
Appellant Explanation
Further evidence and/or explaination to follow. PCN was given
outside the 28 day period allowed in law.The NoR argues that
DVLA did not provide the registered keeper details in a timely
manner. DVLA's response to a subject access request for all
requests for registered keeper information contained no record
of
any request for registered keeper information between the 1st of
May, 2025 and the 21st of July, 2025. The first and only request
for registered keeper details by the Southampton City Council
was
made on the 21st of July, which is already outside the 28 days
allowed to issue a PCN.
Authority Summary
The authority has not provided a summary
Evidence 1
Evidence Type: Audio/Video Clip
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:16
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: V_SN59649612_0.wmv
Description:
Evidence 2
Evidence Type: Photographs
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:18
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Photographs.pdf
Description:
Evidence 3
Evidence Type: Case Status Report/System Audit/Progression
History
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:19
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Case Status Report.pdf
Description:
Evidence 4
Evidence Type: DVLA correspondence (i.e. V5C)
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:19
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: DVLA Correspondence.pdf
Description:
Evidence 5
Evidence Type: Penalty Charge Notice
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:20
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Penalty Charge Notice.pdf
Description:
Evidence 6
Evidence Type: Formal Representation
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:21
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Formal Representation.pdf
Description:
Evidence 7
Evidence Type: Notice of Rejection of Representation
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:21
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Notice of Rejection of Representation.pdf
Description:
Evidence 8
Evidence Type: Formal Representation
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:21
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Formal Representation II.pdf
Description:
Evidence 9
Evidence Type: Other (fully describe item)
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:22
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Other.pdf
Description: Response to a second formal appeal
Evidence 10
Evidence Type: CEO Witness Statement
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:23
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: CEO Witness Statement.pdf
Description:
Evidence 11
Evidence Type: Camera Certification
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:24
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: 20250107_Moving Traffic Certification.pdf
Description:
Evidence 12
Evidence Type: Photographs
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:28
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Castle Way Photos.pdf
Description:
Evidence 13
Evidence Type: SN447 - The City of Southampton (Moving
Traffic Restrictions) Order 2022
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:25
Published By: Authority Manager
Description: Articles 4.10, 6.1 - please see next entry for
amendment to Schedule 20
Evidence 14
Evidence Type: SN465 - The City of Southampton (Moving
Traffic Restrictions) (Amendment 1) Order 2023
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:25
Published By: Authority Manager
Description: Schedule 1 - Castle Way (amendment to schedule
20 of principal order)
Evidence 15
Evidence Type: TRO/Schedule (add references in description)
Published Date: October 15, 2025 10:26
Published By: Authority Manager
Description: 8(3) (b) in The Bus Lane Contraventions
Regulations 2005.“Those particulars have not been supplied
before the date after which the authority would not be entitled
to
serve a penalty charge notice by virtue of paragraph (2)”,“The
authority shall continue to be entitled to serve a penalty
charge
notice for a further period of six months beginning with the
date
mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).”
#Post#: 94763--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain
vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
DIR By: chris_w
Date: October 20, 2025, 4:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, I have two more days to respond.
The only evidence I have that the council hasn't already
submitted is the DVLA SAR response, so I'll be submitting that.
As far as a summary of why I think the penalty should be
overturned, do I need to include anything beyond what
[member=38]Enceladus[/member] outlined in his earlier reply?
--- Quote from: Enceladus link ---
>
>
> The DVLA log shows that the request (VQ4) was received on the
21st July 2025 and the result (VQ5) was provided the next
working day, ie the 22nd July 2025 . So well outside the 28 days
provided to issue and serve a PCN.
>
> There is nothing in the DVLA record to support requests having
being made on the 3rd June 2025 or at any time before the 21st
July 2025. Or that the DVLA failed to respond to any such
request.
>
> The V5c registration document for the car was last updated on
the 11th August 2024, so the DVLA held the registered keeper's
name and address well before the 26th May 2025, the date of the
alleged contravention.
>
> The DVLA is the statutory holder and guardian of the data
requested, I would suggest that the DVLA's record of enquiries
is definitive. The authority might well have intended to request
the registered keepers details on the 3rd June however the VQ4
was clearly not actually received by the DVLA. This further
suggests a computer or electronic communication failure at the
enforcement authorities end.
>
> In any event, even assuming that a request (VQ4) was ever
successfully submitted, which is not supported by the facts, to
the DVLA on June 3rd 2025 there has been an unreasonable delay
with follow-up by the enforcement authority when the expected
response failed to arrive. The authority would know very well
that a reply should be received the next working day. The
authority should have followed up with the DVLA when the
response (VQ5) failed to arrive. Waiting until the 27th July
2025 is plainly unreasonable and unjust.
>
> A reasonable person would expect that the authority has
routine audit programs running on it's computer systems designed
to detect and capture failed transactions and procedures in
place to rectify identified cases within the statutory
timeframes.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 95497--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain
vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
DIR By: chris_w
Date: October 25, 2025, 3:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have been given a date for a video hearing from the tribunal:
10th of November at 13:30.
I have uploaded DVLA's response to my SAR, but have not yet
submitted a detailed argument for the appeal.
#Post#: 97112--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain
vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
DIR By: chris_w
Date: November 6, 2025, 12:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=38]Enceladus[/member] [member=12]Incandescent[/member]
Would you mind having a quick look through this before my
hearing on Monday?
Reposting correspondence as the images on imgur are no longer
available.
DVLA SAR response
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wB127hXHIC4cWf7CUA8azQMWiEwx2QDF/view?usp=sharing
Notice of rejection of representation
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AO4lGZwtn7zAHQxdQg9BEWfcoBiAVUKT/view?usp=sharing
Follow up with timeline
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/10gj1FDKWfB2wBrMXjJPrrTc5XLlL7u4u/view?usp=sharing
Original PCN:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ix2DF9qKzA1zc9cxetRnaliNZdLItsxo/view?usp=drive_link
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dtDDUiDNiATKJB34MPOuCJ5ECiV3bRcD/view?usp=drive_link
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pJSeU419GfEVfN2JMH_ed6kN7f6eWCqh/view?usp=drive_link
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bk-xoQYxRRrxN3OVA87liCb7ALEb8s9v/view?usp=drive_link
I'm yet to submit a summary of my arguments, but intend to do so
before the hearing.
#Post#: 97155--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain
vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: November 6, 2025, 5:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal couldn't care
less whether councils follow the process or not. However it is
extremely difficult to determine who is at fault on cases like
this.
The registration number is obtained by a person viewing a video,
then it will be manually transcribed into the request for the
name and address held by DVLA against that registration. Clearly
errors can occur, but one has to wonder if Southampton have
discovered a "wizard wheeze" that gets them 6 months to serve
the PCN by entering an obviously incorrect number thus getting a
rejection, then waiting a few weeks, entering it again with the
correct registration, and Bingo, they now have 6 months. Nice
option to have if you're short-staffed.
It's also now more obvious than ever that TPT adjudicators are
siding with the councils when an appeal is on a technicality
rather than the issue of whether the contravention occurred or
not, thus giving carte blanche to councils to do what they like
despite there being the statutory grounds for cancellation of
"procedural impropriety". Previously, this ground was not in the
original 1991 Act. So parliament clearly intended when passing
ths Transport Management Act 2004, that councils must follow the
Act and its regulations where they have mandated duties.
#Post#: 97225--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain
vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
DIR By: chris_w
Date: November 7, 2025, 7:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, it would seem that way from the experience
[member=6386]volvo2025[/member] had this week.
Regardless, I would still like to put up a good fight and go in
as prepared as I can.
In the council's record of the history of my case, it shows what
looks like something timing out automatically at 00:13 on Friday
the 27th of June stating that no response has been received,
then on the following Monday they allegedly received a blank
response. How did they receive a blank response if DVLA have no
record of ever receiving a request, and why did they receive it
so long after the request, given that DVLA respond on the next
business day? Conveniently immediately after their system
flagged the case for manual review.
Also, how does DVLA respond to the council's request for
registered keeper details? Is it electronic, or by physical
mail?
Is there anything you'd add to the points below before I submit
my argument?
--- Quote from: Enceladus link ---
>
> The DVLA log shows that the request (VQ4) was received on the
21st July 2025 and the result (VQ5) was provided the next
working day, ie the 22nd July 2025 . So well outside the 28 days
provided to issue and serve a PCN.
>
> There is nothing in the DVLA record to support requests having
being made on the 3rd June 2025 or at any time before the 21st
July 2025. Or that the DVLA failed to respond to any such
request.
>
> The V5c registration document for the car was last updated on
the 11th August 2024, so the DVLA held the registered keeper's
name and address well before the 26th May 2025, the date of the
alleged contravention.
>
> The DVLA is the statutory holder and guardian of the data
requested, I would suggest that the DVLA's record of enquiries
is definitive. The authority might well have intended to request
the registered keepers details on the 3rd June however the VQ4
was clearly not actually received by the DVLA. This further
suggests a computer or electronic communication failure at the
enforcement authorities end.
>
> In any event, even assuming that a request (VQ4) was ever
successfully submitted, which is not supported by the facts, to
the DVLA on June 3rd 2025 there has been an unreasonable delay
with follow-up by the enforcement authority when the expected
response failed to arrive. The authority would know very well
that a reply should be received the next working day. The
authority should have followed up with the DVLA when the
response (VQ5) failed to arrive. Waiting until the 21th July
2025 is plainly unreasonable and unjust.
>
> A reasonable person would expect that the authority has
routine audit programs running on it's computer systems designed
to detect and capture failed transactions and procedures in
place to rectify identified cases within the statutory
timeframes.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 97233--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain
vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
DIR By: volvo2025
Date: November 7, 2025, 7:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
>
>
> Also, how does DVLA respond to the council's request for
registered keeper details? Is it electronic, or by physical
mail?
>
--- End Quote ---
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
#Post#: 98166--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain
vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
DIR By: volvo2025
Date: November 14, 2025, 8:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How did it go?
#Post#: 98430--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain
vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
DIR By: chris_w
Date: November 17, 2025, 4:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As expected, took the council's side and treated DVLA and it's
systems as unreliable, and the council's records as fact.
Here's the text of the decision:
--- Quote ---
>
>
>
- Mr XXXX does not dispute the contravention itself. Instead, he
argues that there have been two failures by the Council to
follow the correct procedure. Firstly, he has produced evidence
from DVLA that the first contact it had with the Council was on
21 July, substantially outside the 28 day time period for
serving the penalty charge notice. Secondly, the Notice of
Rejection incorrectly quotes the 2005 Regulations, rather than
the more recent 2022 Regulations. This suggests that when it
considered his representations, it applied the wrong in law.
>
>
- The Council has produced the case status report, which is a
record of when actions in the case took place. This indicates
that the contravention itself occurred on 26 May, and the
electronic request to DVLA for the registered keeper’s details
was sent on 3 June. An incomplete response was then received
from DVLA on 1 July, which resulted in the fault being
automatically flagged up at the same time. On 21 July the matter
was then reviewed and a further VQ4 request made to DVLA. This
is the request to which Mr XXXX’s DVLA correspondence refers. I
am satisfied that the initial VQ4 request was sent on 3 June,
because the incomplete response from DVLA must have been served
in response to receiving it.
>
>
- I therefore find that the penalty charge notice was served
outside the statutory 28 days, but since the Council had sent a
VQ4 request within the first 14 days, and had not received a
satisfactory response within the 28 days, the law therefore
granted the Council an additional 6 months to obtain the details
and serve the penalty charge notice. No procedural impropriety
occurred.
>
>
- Regarding the wording of the Notice of Rejection, the law only
requires the Council to consider the formal representations
received, and indicate whether or not they are accepted. If the
person receiving the Notice of Rejection believes that the
Council has come to an incorrect decision, or applied the law
incorrectly, the remedy is to appeal against the Notice of
Rejection to the Tribunal, which Mr XXXX has done. Quoting the
wrong legislation in a Notice of Rejection does not mean that
the Council is guilty of procedural impropriety.
>
>
- I can therefore identify no grounds for allowing this appeal.
The penalty of £70 must be paid within 28 days.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 98433--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southampton CC 33E Using route restricted to cereain
vehicles, Castle Way bus gate
DIR By: volvo2025
Date: November 17, 2025, 4:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In other words:
“The council said the problem wasn't their fault and they don’t
need to prove it, fuck you”
I wonder if we can track down the real fault using freedom of
information requests
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page