DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 124600--------------------------------------------------
Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: July 14, 2026, 6:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
I recieved a PCN for parking in a disabled bay, across teh road
aroudn 6 houses down, which was the only bay available on the
entire street. We had to load a computer desk.
HTML https://ibb.co/wNwsbCQY
HTML https://ibb.co/4nRVTk58
Contravention 165 - Parked in a permit space or zone without a
valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical
permit where required (dedicated disable bay)
I appealed, stating this, with pictures of the desk, the road
showing no parking, highlihgting, I had two choices, block the
road as i loaded, park up on disabled and load carefully. The
warden may have just missed us as we parked and walked to get
the desk, otherwise I believe he would have allowed us to load.
My first appeal to the LA:
"I am writing to formally appeal against the Penalty Charge
Notice issued for my vehicle while it was parked in a resident
permit holder disabled bay.
At the time the PCN was issued, I was actively engaged in
loading heavy goods to/from my property on the same road.
Due to the nature and weight of the items, it was necessary to
park as close as possible. Unfortunately, there were no
available spaces directly adjacent to my property, and the
nearest available space was the disabled bay further down the
road.
I would like to highlight that:
* My vehicle holds a valid resident permit for this zone;
* Resident of the same road where the vehicle was parked;
* The vehicle was being used solely for the purpose of
loading/unloading large/heavy items;
* The activity was continuous and required me to move between
the property and the vehicle.
I fully appreciate that disabled bays are intended for specific
users and would not ordinarily park in such a space. However, in
this instance, the lack of available parking meant that using
the nearest bay was necessary for a short and reasonable period
in order to carry out the loading.
I also understand that Traffic Management Orders allows for
loading and unloading in such bays for a reasonable duration,
particularly where the activity is continuous and necessary. I
believe my actions fall within this exemption.
To support this, I have attached photographic evidence showing:
* The entire road was full at the time, including a view from my
property demonstrating the lack of available parking nearby;
* The items being loaded, illustrating that they were
heavy/bulky and required the vehicle to be positioned as close
as possible.
Additionally, I spoke with the Civil Enforcement Officer after
the PCN was issued, who indicated that had they observed the
loading activity taking place, the PCN would not have been
issued. Unfortunately, as I was loading from a short distance
away, they were not aware of the situation at the time.
Given these circumstances—namely that I was engaged in genuine
loading activity, that I hold a valid resident permit, that no
closer parking was available, and that the use of the bay was
necessary and temporary—I kindly request that discretion be
exercised and that the PCN be cancelled."
Councils Response:
HTML https://ibb.co/4wytCNg6
HTML https://ibb.co/fzHrz717
I have requested the TMO for the bay, which states the following
under 11.1.g and 11.1.h (sorry was unable to upload a PDF), this
is what we were doing litereally, so this is the exemption that
would apply surely?
HTML https://ibb.co/JjHhhCsj
Question is if this would fall under adjacent, as in are they
literally saying the house has to be 180 degrees ifront of the
bay? as my house was across the road but 6-7 houses away.
#Post#: 124610--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 14, 2026, 7:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They are talking nonsense - loading is an exemption in a
designated permit bay or indeed in a standard disabled bay.
But we can try and check the traffic order to be sure.
#Post#: 124611--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: July 14, 2026, 7:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> But we can try and check the traffic order to be sure.
>
--- End Quote ---
How can I attach a PDF (TMO) to this post, don't see an
attahcment for files :/ or maybe im blind.
#Post#: 124614--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 14, 2026, 7:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you got a web link to it.
Or put it on say Google drive, Dropbox etc. and set to public.
#Post#: 124649--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: July 14, 2026, 9:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
See Attached, two TMO's one cannot be read without the other
they've said, basically the first one contains the main order.
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/brcj5xxmabfhpwzcbjabp/2017-14-EH-DRPH-SPA-No-1-2005-Am-11-Order-2017.pdf?rlkey=0etqe0c4s7z1lx7ddj7tcqqwh&st=k6k8fv8p&dl=0
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/o2kkqpn2js0t4xcsd1yje/2005-27-East-Ham-Disabled-Residents-No-1.pdf?rlkey=hkyw071tq4l9evyk7tkmmf3rm&st=6zq0zwgm&dl=0
#Post#: 124680--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 14, 2026, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The order clearly exempts loading.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/jvf62m4B/Screenshot-2026-07-14-at-19-23-15.png
#Post#: 124686--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: July 14, 2026, 1:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Exactly the two clauses i saw and was goigng to respond with to
the NTO... It says house/premise adajecent to the parking place,
I assume this isnt literally, ie as long as its on the same road
and walking distance? as the parking place was further down from
the premise/vice versa by apprix 6 or so houses.
A shame the councils must know this yet blatently ignore this,
waste their time and ours.. I'd understand if it was a genuine
case of not loading/unloading, but no descretion applied even
when evidence supplied with the fact there is a exemption.
#Post#: 124693--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 14, 2026, 1:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They don't wast their time, just yours. They ruthlessly game the
system by refusing all representations knowing that if they do,
most people (like greater than 95%), then just cough-up being
scared of possible huge penalties at adjudication. Of course
there are no "huge penalties" at all at adjudication, but one
must pay the full penalty rather than the discount if one loses.
Again, most people don't know the ins and outs of parking law,
so just pay the discount to make it all go away. In doing this,
they confirm councils in their disgraceful practices that are
totally against all government guidance
#Post#: 124697--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: July 14, 2026, 2:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yep a shame! sometimes the right people need to be in power to
put these lot in their place! and that'd only happen with hefty
fines for them! back to the topic :) I'll go ahead and using the
2 clauses, and assuming the adjacent is a broader term for
across the road somewhere near or further down.
#Post#: 124817--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 165 - Disabled Bay
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: July 15, 2026, 11:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Going to send across the formal appeal later today with the
below, feel like having a dig and aim at them!
I would ask the Council to explain how it can justify and
support the following statement made in its response to my
appeal:
"The loading exemption you referred to does not apply in
Disabled Residents Permit bays. These bays cannot be used for
loading or unloading, even for short periods, and even where the
activity is continuous. Parking in such a bay without displaying
the required permit is a contravention, regardless of the reason
for stopping."
This statement is inconsistent with the relevant Traffic
Management Orders, namely TMO '27 East Ham Disabled Residents
No. 1 Order 2005, read together with TMO 2017 No. 14 (EH) (DRPH)
(SPA) (No. 1, 2005) (Amendment No. 11) Order 2017.
Those Orders clearly provide multiple exemptions under which a
vehicle may lawfully wait in a Disabled Residents Permit bay. In
particular, Articles 11.1(g) and 11.1(h) expressly permit a
vehicle to wait in the bay for the purpose of loading or
unloading, including the removal of furniture to or from a
dwelling house, provided that the vehicle does not wait for more
than 20 minutes. These provisions are explicit exemptions that
apply during the prescribed hours and directly contradict the
Council's assertion that loading and unloading are never
permitted in such bays.
I request that the Council explains the legal basis upon which
it claims that no loading exemption exists, despite the clear
wording of the applicable Traffic Management Orders.
I also request that the Council cancel this Penalty Charge
Notice immediately.
Finally, I strongly recommend that the Council provides
appropriate training and guidance to the officers responsible
for considering representations. The response I received
demonstrates either a fundamental misunderstanding of the
applicable legal exemptions or a failure to properly consider
the legislation relevant to this case. Neither outcome is
acceptable and undermines confidence in the fairness of the
Council's enforcement process.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page