DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 123180--------------------------------------------------
Mum parked in this bay assuming it was a normal disabled bay
DIR By: sandwiches
Date: June 28, 2026, 6:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My mum parked in this bay with her blue badge assuming it was a
normal disabled bay, she received a ticket. Is there any grounds
for appealing it because it was a genuine mistake.
HTML https://ibb.co/rKGMpF8c
HTML https://ibb.co/hx7BmTHW
#Post#: 123184--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mum parked in this bay assuming it was a normal disabled bay
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: June 28, 2026, 6:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We've had some success with these bays as the road legend
'disabled' can mislead but here the permit number is also part
of the legend and the sign is clear about the permit, and the
contravention is a code 16 no permit.
I'll try and dig something out but they must consider discretion
at least.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/FbKyyPf0/image.png
#Post#: 123196--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mum parked in this bay assuming it was a normal disabled bay
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 28, 2026, 8:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The PCN states that the bay is reserved to permit holders, in
this case permit DB308.
It is therefore a permit bay.
The road marking DISABLED DB308 is NOT prescribed(AKA not
permitted unless the authority has obtained DfT authorisation).
In addition, IMO the bay's dimensions are too narrow for a
'DISABLED' bay, which adds to the conclusion that this is a
permit bay.
The regs which apply to road markings as here(the specimen in
the regs is marked with 'DOCTOR' and what follows deals with
prescribed alternatives:
1.—(1) ”DOCTOR” may be omitted.
(2) “DOCTOR” may be varied to: “BUSES”, “CAR CLUB”, “CYCLE
HIRE”, “DISABLED”, “ELECTRIC VEHICLES”, “ELECTRIC VEHS”,
“ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES”, “ELECTRIC M/CYCLES”, “ELECTRIC M/Cs”,
“LOADING”, “LARGE OR SLOW VEHICLES”, “PERMIT HOLDERS”, “SOLO
MOTORCYCLES”, “SOLO M/CYCLES”, “SOLO M/CS”.
(3) “ONLY” may be added after “DOCTOR” (or after a word or
phrase used pursuant to sub-paragraph (2)).
(4) Where the bay is reserved for an individual disabled badge
holder, an alphanumeric identifier, with or without the word
“ONLY” may be added after “DISABLED”.
[but this bay isn't reserved to a disabled badge holder, it's
reserved to a permit holder]
......
And this reference from the Traffic Signs Manual:
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf<br
/> See s13.11
So, the road marking 'PERMIT HOLDER DB308' is permitted provided
that where an upright traffic is placed this also states 'P'
Permit Holder DB308 without a wheelchair symbol.
Or, 'DISABLED DB308' is permitted as a marking provided that the
width of the bay meets the statutory requirements and where an
upright sign is placed this carries the information above AND a
wheelchair symbol.
There is no third way as shown here which is a road marking
using the word DISABLED, a bay which doesn't meet minimum width
requirements and an upright sign which omits the wheelchair
symbol.
In short: if you mark a bay with the word DISABLED' then the bay
must be reserved to a disabled badge holder(s)(who may or may
not also hold a permit) AND carry the wheelchair symbol.
But what would an adjudicator make of this?
Is the photo of the actual car in situ, or simply a photo
showing the bay?
#Post#: 123199--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mum parked in this bay assuming it was a normal disabled bay
DIR By: sandwiches
Date: June 28, 2026, 9:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That’s my mums car in the picture.
#Post#: 123201--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mum parked in this bay assuming it was a normal disabled bay
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: June 28, 2026, 10:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I noticed the omission of the wheelchair symbol on the sign but
otherwise the bay conforms to the signs manual guidance I think.
This case shows that where the permit number is put on the sign
is a factor but Islington have got it right plus it's on the
road legend in the correct order.
------------
Case reference 226008931A
Appellant xxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM DG09EDV
PCN Details
PCN HG50426430
Contravention date 12 Nov 2025
Contravention time 11:10:00
Contravention location The Mews
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked in disabled bay without displaying badge
Referral date -
Decision Date 18 Jun 2026
Adjudicator Chez Cotton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Introduction
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued
for being parked in a disabled bay without displaying a badge
(Code 40).
2. This a postal appeal.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is that they are a Blue Badge holder and
had both the badge and timer properly displayed whilst parked in
the relevant bay. Although the Enforcement Authority (EA) has
stated that the disabled bay was for a specified Blue Badge
holder, this was not obvious from the signage.
4. The Appellant asks for the PCN to be cancelled on the basis
of that they were validly parked, and due to the inadequacy of
the signage in relation to what the EA state it is meant to
convey.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
5. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on photographic evidence
to show the contravention occurred. A plan and photographs of
the signage has been provided. The EA says this shows the
restriction is signed and clear, and, further, enforceable under
a valid Traffic Management Order (TMO), a copy of which is
provided.
6. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations. The EA
state, ‘The disabled bay where the appellant had parked their
vehicle, is for Disabled Badge holders that have a Permit DB014.
Evidence in Photos attached.’
7. The EA does not wish to exercise their discretion.
8. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
9. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully. I
make the following findings based on a balance of probabilities.
10. Based on the photographic evidence provided, and additional
evidential materials from the EA, I am satisfied the Appellant’s
vehicle was in the relevant location, at the relevant time. This
is not in dispute.
11. I am satisfied the Appellant is a Blue Badge holder, and had
their Blue Badge and timer displayed at the relevant time. These
can be seen in the windscreen of the Appellant’s vehicle in the
Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) photographs.
12. A question I must decide relates to whether the signage in
place was substantially compliant, clear and adequate. In this
respect I note there is ‘Disabled’ marked on the road surface at
the bay. The signage states ‘P’, with a wheelchair logo,
‘Disabled badge holder only’. Underneath this is a black
rectangle with ‘DB014’ in white writing and letters.
13. I accept this is inadequate to convey that the disabled bay
is intended for the use of an individual badge holder, rather
than for disabled badge holders generally. This is because the
way the signage is set out could reasonably be interpreted as
the ‘DB014’ being a location code, or another type of official
identification. Currently, the sign reads,
14. ‘Disabled badge holder only’ DB014.
15. For it to be clear that the bay is intended for an
individual badge holder, I find the reference ‘DB014’ needs to
come before ‘only’. This would mean the sign read:
‘Disabled badge holder DB014 only’
16. I therefore find the signage at the relevant location is not
substantially compliant, clear and adequate. I find it was
reasonable for the Appellant to interpret the current signage on
the basis that they were entitled to park there as a disabled
badge holder, with the badge and timer correctly displayed.
17. Further, although the TMO sets out that disabled bays are
created the relevant location, the EA has not directed to any
section that allocates the bay to a particular disabled badge
holder. As I have made a finding based on the inadequacy of the
signage, I have not had to determine in relation to this point,
but I note it for the decision record.
18. For these reasons I find a contravention did not occur and
the PCN has not been validly issued.
Decision
19. The appeal is allowed for the reasons set out.
#Post#: 123205--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mum parked in this bay assuming it was a normal disabled bay
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 28, 2026, 11:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Which IMO supports the reasoning I put in my previous post.
In the cited decision:
A question I must decide relates to whether the signage in place
was substantially compliant, clear and adequate. In this respect
I note there is ‘Disabled’ marked on the road surface at the
bay. The signage states ‘P’, with a wheelchair logo, ‘Disabled
badge holder only’. Underneath this is a black rectangle with
‘DB014’ in white writing and letters.
13. I accept this is inadequate to convey that the disabled bay
is intended for the use of an individual badge holder, rather
than for disabled badge holders generally. This is because the
way the signage is set out could reasonably be interpreted as
the ‘DB014’ being a location code, or another type of official
identification. Currently, the sign reads,
14. ‘Disabled badge holder only’ DB014.
15. For it to be clear that the bay is intended for an
individual badge holder, I find the reference ‘DB014’ needs to
come before ‘only’. This would mean the sign read:
‘Disabled badge holder DB014 only’.
I feel a little sympathy for the authority in that case because
their traffic sign conformed to the TSM example.
But IMO the adjudicator's reasoning applies in this case i.e.
for the traffic signs to be substantially compliant the upright
traffic sign and the road marking traffic sign must be
consistent. In the cited case they weren't and neither are they
here i.e. DISABLED traffic sign on the road but not in the
upright sign.
OP, for info:
As regards a council's duty to sign restrictions:
the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such
positions as the order making authority may consider requisite
for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the
order is made available to persons using the road;
(b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order
remains in force
64General provisions as to traffic signs.
(1)In this Act “traffic sign” means any object or device
(whether fixed or portable) for conveying, to traffic on roads
or any specified class of traffic, warnings, information,
requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description—
(a)specified by regulations made by the [F1relevant authority] ,
or
(b)authorised by the [F1relevant authority] ,
and any line or mark on a road for so conveying such warnings,
information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions.
My emphasis.
#Post#: 123219--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mum parked in this bay assuming it was a normal disabled bay
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: June 28, 2026, 1:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So you think the absence of the disabled symbol could swing it?
Even though that if anythng reinforces the permit nature of the
bay.
These are decisions here - there are two such bays adjacent
there.
OP - any compelling mitigation?
--------
Case reference 2230556019
Appellant Atef Amin
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM AP19XXN
PCN Details
PCN IZ27511744
Contravention date 19 Sep 2023
Contravention time 14:51:00
Contravention location Digswell Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked in permit space without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 01 Mar 2024
Adjudicator Anju Kaler
Appeal decision Appeal refused with recommendation
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid
within 28 days.
Reasons The agreed facts are that the vehicle was at the stated
location and a Penalty Charge Notice was issued. The vehicle was
parked ion a disabled bay displaying a disabled badge. The bay
is marked for badgeholder DB308 as displayed on the upright sign
and the roadmarkings.
The Appellant says he is a doctor with a disabled badge and had
to attend an emergency assessment of a patient at Highbury
Magistrates Court. His case is supported by an email from the
Mental Health Trust. The Authority rejected the representations
as there was insufficient mitigation and the says the Appellant
should have made suitable arrangements to park correctly.
I am satisfied that the bay is correctly marked for the holder
of a specific disabled badge. I acknowledge that the Appellant
was unfamiliar with this notion. It is plain that he is the
holder of a disabled badge and was in fact attending court in
his professional capacity when the contravention occurred. I
find that there is compelling mitigation and this is a situation
where the Authority should have exercised their discretion. The
Adjudicator cannot allow an appeal because of mitigation but
does urge the Authority to carefully consider the circumstances
and to exercise their power not to enforce.
Recommendation cancel the Notice to Owner.
------------
Case reference 2250280271
Appellant Mulinda Xavier
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM LS24XJN
PCN Details
PCN IZ34265455
Contravention date 04 Mar 2025
Contravention time 10:13:00
Contravention location Digswell Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked in permit space without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 05 Sep 2025
Adjudicator Martin Hoare
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid
within 28 days.
Reasons Ms Xavier attended her video appeal hearing. The
Authority did not attend.
Ms Xavier relied on her appeal notice which explained ‘disabled
bay besides Islington and Highbury Courthouse and parked my
vehicle so I could go and use the toilet. However, when I
returned, I witnessed an Enforcement Officer placing a ticket on
my vehicle. I asked the Officer what are you doing? I have
displayed my disabled Badge and clock. The Officer reports that
the disabled Bay is for residents only. I replied how would
someone like me who is Dyslexic know this? There is disabled
writing on the floor and a disabled sign. The sign does not say
these disabled bays are for Islington Residents Only’.
Ms Xavier explained that her medical condition required her to
stop and use the bathroom.
The civil enforcement officer present should have warned her.
The civil enforcement officer’s notes and photographs establish
that this vehicle parked, displaying a Blue Badge , in a
disabled permit holder’s bay. The signage indicated that the bay
was for the use of a specific disabled permit holder only. The
conspicuous surface lettering and sign plate referred to the
permit number. Ms Xavier did not hold a disabled permit with
this number or at all.
The civil enforcement officer’s notes record the car was parked
in this bay between 10.08 and 10.13. The officer’s photographs
of the vehicle were taken between 1014 and 10.15
According to the Blue Badge booklet
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-blue-badge-scheme-rights-and-responsibilities-in-england/the-blue-badge-scheme-rights-and-responsibilities-in-england#places-where-
‘Places where you cannot park
The Blue Badge is not a licence to park anywhere. Like other
road users, you must obey the rules of the road, as laid out in
the Highway Code. Here is a list of places where you must not
park………………………...Parking places reserved for specific users’.
An officer is not under a duty to warn.
Ms Xavier’s representations amount to mitigation and are noted.
Adjudicators are not permitted to take into account mitigation
when considering whether a contravention occurred.
The appeal is refused.
-------
Case reference 2250378456
Appellant Jemma Rose
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM LF24NWY
PCN Details
PCN IZ34630266
Contravention date 31 Mar 2025
Contravention time 08:34:00
Contravention location Digswell Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked in permit space without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 11 Dec 2025
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid
within 28 days.
Reasons The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that
this vehicle was parked in a permit space without a valid
permit. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the
vehicle was parked in a designated disabled permit holder bay
for the use of permit holder number DB308 only, as is clearly
stated on signage. I acknowledge that there was a blue badge and
time clock displayed in the vehicle's windscreen, and I accept
that the appellant intended to park correctly, but only the
designated permit holder is permitted to use this bay. There is
no exemption that allows blue badge holders to do so. This
contravention has occurred. The appeal must be refused.
#Post#: 123259--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mum parked in this bay assuming it was a normal disabled bay
DIR By: sandwiches
Date: June 29, 2026, 3:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So do you think it’s worth trying to appeal it or not? We had a
court appearance and was running late, she saw disabled and
didn’t think anything of it, not that it’s an excuse. She also
needed the toilet so she was in a rush.
#Post#: 123263--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mum parked in this bay assuming it was a normal disabled bay
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 29, 2026, 4:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You're not 'appealing' (this is what you do to the adjudicator),
you are making representations, first informal then, if a NTO is
served, formal.
IMO, you reps should put the legal issues to the authority. IMO,
none of the failed appeals does this and several aren't relevant
because they relate to 'disabled' bay grounds, which is not the
case here.
Perhaps....
I saw the bold road marking 'DISABLED' and acted accordingly,
that is I parked, displayed my Blue Badge and clock and left. I
did catch sight of the upright sign, but given that there is no
permitted traffic sign which, when used in combination with the
road marking 'DISABLED', could prevent me from parking within a
disabled bay provided I displayed my BB correctly, I did not
read its detail.
The council claim that this is in fact a permit bay and that the
upright sign is consistent with this and of the prescribed form.
This might be correct, but it does not represent the totality of
the signage because the road marking traffic sign also falls
within the scope of regulation 18 of The Local Authorities’
Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations. The
issue here remains under what authority has the council placed
the road marking traffic sign 'DISABLED' to mark a 'permit' bay?
I have read Schedule 7 to the Traffic Signs etc. Regs and also
s.13 of the Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3 and neither
prescribes the road marking traffic sign placed by the council
for use with a 'permit' bay but only DISABLED bays.
Item 6 in the Part 4 Sign Table of Schedule 7 to the regulations
gives the form of parking place used here and para. 1 of Part 5
lists the prescribed variants of road marking. I draw your
attention specifically to 1(4) which provides:
(4) Where the bay is reserved for an individual disabled badge
holder, an alphanumeric identifier, with or without the word
“ONLY” may be added after “DISABLED”.
This does not create a 'permit' bay, it creates a bay reserved
for a specified DISABLED badge holder and any contraventions may
only relate to parking in a disabled bay where not permitted.
In short, the road marking may include the term 'DISABLED', but
if it does then any upright traffic sign must include the
'wheelchair' symbol and any contravention may only relate to
unauthorised parking in a DISABLED bay.
In this case, the upright sign is improper and the contravention
grounds in the PCN are incorrect. The PCN must therefore be
cancelled.
Given the time and effort expended by me in researching these
representations, I would expect the council to respond similarly
and not simply that 'the signage is compliant'.
Some thoughts.
#Post#: 126793--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mum parked in this bay assuming it was a normal disabled bay
DIR By: sandwiches
Date: August 4, 2026, 7:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I challenged this. I received no response but just this letter
today saying the fine is now £160.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page