DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 70129--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney (Code 40), Parked without displaying disabled
person's badge in prescribed manner, Hillman Street
DIR By: AnnePN
Date: May 6, 2025, 12:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TrixBear link ---
>
> I already submitted before the suggestions today so I didn't
tell them to 'see attached' in the letter but I did upload them.
Will see what they say and keep you updated.
>
> Thanks all.
>
--- End Quote ---
Good morning I am very interested to see the results of your
representation please
#Post#: 70467--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney (Code 40), Parked without displaying disabled
person's badge in prescribed manner, Hillman Street
DIR By: TrixBear
Date: May 7, 2025, 5:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: AnnePN link ---
>
> [quote author=TrixBear link=topic=3773.msg50359#msg50359
date=1734526281]
> I already submitted before the suggestions today so I didn't
tell them to 'see attached' in the letter but I did upload them.
Will see what they say and keep you updated.
>
> Thanks all.
>
--- End Quote ---
Good morning I am very interested to see the results of your
representation please
[/quote]
They cancelled my PCN but in a very telling off 'don't do it
again' manner, ::) They also said I wouldn't be let off in the
future. Here's their response:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/beP9Fui
#Post#: 70469--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney (Code 40), Parked without displaying disabled
person's badge in prescribed manner, Hillman Street
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 7, 2025, 5:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is a disgraceful letter.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/HLSonZU.png
#Post#: 70492--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney (Code 40), Parked without displaying disabled
person's badge in prescribed manner, Hillman Street
DIR By: Grant Urismo
Date: May 8, 2025, 4:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's the first time I've seen a council fettering their
discretion before issuing a PCN.
I'd be sorely tempted to use the GDPR right to rectification
HTML https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/individual-rights/right-to-rectification/<br
/>to insist the council corrects that letter and all their other
records of the case, it might teach someone a lesson in
accuracy.
#Post#: 70502--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney (Code 40), Parked without displaying disabled
person's badge in prescribed manner, Hillman Street
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 8, 2025, 5:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As we're looking at a number of blue badge cases in disabled
bays how about this decision yesterday that Mr Mustard
represented and only won on a different issue.
I think the adjudicator misdirected himself on the regulations
he cites - do they apply to waiting restrictions not parking
bays? But I haven't looked in detail.
The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled
Persons) (England) Regulations 2000
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/683/made#:~:text=Regulation%208%20relates%20to%20exemptions,Road%20Traffic%20Regulation%20Act%201984.
-------------
Case reference 2250101088
Appellant Abigail Seltzer
Authority London Borough of Barnet
VRM EU69HFB
PCN Details
PCN AG47057893
Contravention date 20 Nov 2024
Contravention time 20:47:00
Contravention location The Riding
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked in disabled bay without displaying badge
Referral date -
Decision Date 07 May 2025
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to
Owner.
Reasons The appellant's authorised representative, Mr Dishman,
attended the video hearing of this appeal today. The council did
not attend the hearing, it not being expected to do so.
I reserved my decision.
The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this
vehicle was parked in a designated disabled person's parking
place without displaying a valid disabled person's badge in the
prescribed manner.
The vehicle was parked on a 3 hour maximum stay bay.
There is no dispute that there was a disabled badge displayed in
the vehicle unaccompanied by a disc that, on the authority's
case, being a requirement.
Mr Dishman submitted that there was no such requirement under
the Traffic Management Order, (TMO).
I refer to Regulation 8 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders
(Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000.
Reg 8 (4) provides:
Where the period of the prohibition exceeds 3 hours the
exemption shall be for a period of 3 hours subject to the
conditions that–
(a) the period of exempted waiting does not begin less than one
hour after a previous period of exempted waiting by the same
vehicle in the same road on the same day;
(b) a parking disc is displayed in the relevant position on the
vehicle marked to show the quarter hour period during which the
period of exempted waiting began.
This prohibition applies 24/7 it thus exceeding 3 hours.
Although the TMO does not require the display of a disc, it is
created under section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act
1984, so the 2000 Regulations, and thus Regulation 8 thereof,
apply.
Notwithstanding that on the appellant's case the vehicle was not
parked for more than three hours I am therefore satisfied that
for the Regulation 8 exemption to apply, a parking disc must be
displayed. Given it was not the exemption is not applicable.
I therefore reject Mr Dishman's submissions around this issue.
------
I am however persuaded by the submission he makes as to the
failure of the council to provide to me a copy of the PCN said
to have been issued in these proceedings, as it is required to
do under the Regulations, only the first page thereof being
produced.
I am satisfied that that breach of the regulations amounts to a
procedural impropriety, and I must accordingly allow the appeal.
#Post#: 111097--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney (Code 40), Parked without displaying disabled
person's badge in prescribed manner, Hillman Street
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: February 25, 2026, 5:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Harman is still sure a clock must be displayed in a time
limited disabled bay.
-----------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
within 28 days.
Reasons
3-hour maximum stay disabled badge holders bay without clearly
displaying a valid disabled badge.
There is no dispute that there was a disabled badge displayed in
the vehicle's windscreen.
Notwithstanding the appellant's claim that she parked for less
than the three hours, there is a requirement when parking in a
time-limited bay such as this that a disabled badge be
accompanied by a time clock, set to show the arrival time of the
vehicle. Given that was not the position here the appellant's
disabled badge did not provide valid cover for her vehicle, and
I must accordingly find this contravention proved. None of the
appellant's submissions raise a defence to that contravention.
The council reset the reduced payment period in its initial
letter to the appellant of 11/07/25. I acknowledge the
appellant's explanation for why she wasn't able to respond to
that letter within that reset reduced payment period, but I have
no power to direct the council to further reset it. I cannot
prevent the council from enforcing this penalty charge at the
full statutory rate.
The appeal is refused.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page