DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 91753--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by
Southampton City Council
DIR By: volvo2025
Date: September 27, 2025, 10:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The docref date is 13 01 25, which is the same date as the
'acquired vehicle date'
#Post#: 91755--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by
Southampton City Council
DIR By: chris_w
Date: September 27, 2025, 10:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: volvo2025 link ---
>
>
> I have visited their Southampton website in attempt to pay and
seen the fee is now £75 despite the letter stating that the fee
will not increase until 28 days after the rejection of
representations was served.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's interesting, mine is still showing £35.
[member=38]Enceladus[/member], would you mind having a look at
mine, here
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/southampton-cc-33e-using-route-restricted-to-cereain-vehicles-castle-way-bus-gat/?<br
/>It is progressing slightly differently as I've received
responses from both SCC and DVLA.
#Post#: 93162--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by
Southampton City Council
DIR By: volvo2025
Date: October 7, 2025, 2:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello friends, I got my DSAR back today.
Interestingly it’s slightly different to
[member=6371]chris_w[/member] ‘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
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wyojzm2xypirtic5h2le6/Photo-07-10-2025-08-46-52.png?rlkey=ryf5dxvv83iow9gqdhpmievz5&st=tdrwgmp5&dl=0
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
#Post#: 95894--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by
Southampton City Council
DIR By: volvo2025
Date: October 28, 2025, 7:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/0b3xw50zmbc9b7drakwx4/ANZ1Kg6W6MuQkjBUt4DjSKA?rlkey=sbhqvr823gnpawnd52lkz6g0w&st=dba4moc0&dl=0
#Post#: 96206--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by
Southampton City Council
DIR By: volvo2025
Date: October 30, 2025, 11:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Bump
[member=38]Enceladus[/member] I’d be grateful if you had any
more thoughts on this
#Post#: 96438--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by
Southampton City Council
DIR By: volvo2025
Date: November 1, 2025, 10:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the double bump, but the threads gone cold and the
tribunal is Wednesday!
#Post#: 96512--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by
Southampton City Council
DIR By: volvo2025
Date: November 2, 2025, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
>
>
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96746--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by
Southampton City Council
DIR By: volvo2025
Date: November 4, 2025, 6:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Bumping one final time before my tribunal at 1215 tomorrow
#Post#: 96908--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by
Southampton City Council
DIR By: chris_w
Date: November 5, 2025, 8:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How did the tribunal go?
#Post#: 96910--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by
Southampton City Council
DIR By: volvo2025
Date: November 5, 2025, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=6371]chris_w[/member]
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!!!
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page