DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 89366--------------------------------------------------
Re: Proof of observed times.
DIR By: LT
Date: September 10, 2025, 10:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 97099--------------------------------------------------
Re: Proof of observed times.
DIR By: LT
Date: November 6, 2025, 10:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 97113--------------------------------------------------
Re: Proof of observed times.
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 6, 2025, 12:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Where's their NOR pl. It's useful to examine these to add to our
knowledge of BANES documents.
#Post#: 97131--------------------------------------------------
Re: Proof of observed times.
DIR By: LT
Date: November 6, 2025, 2:04 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.
#Post#: 97134--------------------------------------------------
Re: Proof of observed times.
DIR By: LT
Date: November 6, 2025, 2:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.ibb.co/DDK3kctX/IMG-2329.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/TBqbPMyq/IMG-2332.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/spXTtDJx/IMG-2330.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/F4sHs5Qw/IMG-2331.jpg
#Post#: 97219--------------------------------------------------
Re: Proof of observed times.
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 7, 2025, 6:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks.
2 glaring departures from the regs:
1. Failure to advise that appeals may be submitted after the
28-day period at the adjudicator's discretion.
2. A CC may be served ....and not, as here, issued.
Appeal to an adjudicator against a decision to reject a
recipient’s representations
7.—(1) A recipient may appeal to an adjudicator against an
enforcement authority’s decision not to accept their
representations.
(2) An appeal under this regulation must be made within—
(a)the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of
the decision notice under regulation 6(4)(b) which states that
the enforcement authority does not accept the recipient’s
representations, or
(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
6) If the enforcement authority does not accept the
representations, its decision notice—
(a)must—
(i)state that a charge certificate may be served on the
recipient unless within the period of 28 days beginning with the
date of service of the decision notice—
(aa)the penalty charge is paid, or
(bb)the recipient appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty
charge,
#Post#: 97594--------------------------------------------------
Re: Proof of observed times.
DIR By: LT
Date: November 10, 2025, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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!
#Post#: 97614--------------------------------------------------
Re: Proof of observed times.
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 10, 2025, 3:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The procedural improprieties relate to the Notice of
Rejection(NOR), not the NTO.
But a win is a win.
#Post#: 97698--------------------------------------------------
Re: Proof of observed times.
DIR By: LT
Date: November 11, 2025, 9:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, yes, my mistake I meant the NOR.
*****************************************************
Page 7 of 7
DIR Previous Page