DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 96912--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by
Southampton City Council
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: November 5, 2025, 8:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> 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
--- End Quote ---
This is complete tosh, because the PCN was served under the
Traffic Management Act which introduced the statutory grounds of
"procedural impropriety".
The adjudicator needs to read this: -
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/part/2/chapter/2
The TPT seems to have become captured by the councils, because
there are some very strange decisions being made there. A clue
is that their "Key Case" pages contain no successful appeals !
#Post#: 97102--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by
Southampton City Council
DIR By: volvo2025
Date: November 6, 2025, 11:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yf9okjmqlyk0vme8pmbld/Decision_190019_SN00142-2509-redacted.pdf?rlkey=0kbhp35shpq5j0djw3az1tuo3&st=1zabwbnj&dl=0
#Post#: 97110--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued 60 days after bus gate contravention by
Southampton City Council
DIR By: chris_w
Date: November 6, 2025, 12:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to hear that, [member=6386]volvo2025[/member]. At least
they've extended the discount.
[member=12]Incandescent[/member], would you mind having a look
over my post 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/msg95497/#msg95497?<br
/>I have a similar case and a hearing on Monday.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page