DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 79316--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 2, 2025, 3:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A BB is not a clock.
#Post#: 79324--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: July 2, 2025, 5:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> A BB is not a clock.
>
--- End Quote ---
Don’t quite get your point? My point is there were more than
satisfactory reason for discretion and cancelling but they
didn’t.
#Post#: 79955--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: July 7, 2025, 12:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can anyone else offer their input please?
@cp8759
#Post#: 80006--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 7, 2025, 6:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jamran link ---
>
> [quote author=H C Andersen link=topic=5281.msg79316#msg79316
date=1751489257]
> A BB is not a clock.
>
--- End Quote ---
Don’t quite get your point? My point is there were more than
satisfactory reason for discretion and cancelling but they
didn’t.
[/quote]
Maybe so, but discretion means they have a choice to apply it or
not to apply it. They have decided not to apply discretion. Only
if you can prove there was no contravention, or they have
mismanaaged the process, would you have any case to take to
London Tribunals, who cannot consider discretion.
#Post#: 80016--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 8, 2025, 1:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What is the date of the NOR. The discount was time-limited and
if it's expired then you might as well go to tribunal.
#Post#: 80050--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: July 8, 2025, 5:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> What is the date of the NOR. The discount was time-limited and
if it's expired then you might as well go to tribunal.
>
--- End Quote ---
Still have time. Was dated 30th June
#Post#: 80755--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: July 12, 2025, 6:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So should I just pay? :'(
#Post#: 80849--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 13, 2025, 3:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You can have a go as long as you are prepared to pay the full
amount.
I'd say there is a reasonable chance they won't contest, or if
they do the adjudicator could make a recommendation to cancel
(which is non-binding) but the tribunal can't apply mitigation.
#Post#: 81374--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: July 16, 2025, 9:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all. I found the councils own cancellation policy. Please see
point 6 on page 6. Do I have a case? AI seems to think I have a
strong case? lol
Here is AI’s defence write up:
Grounds for Appeal
1. Procedural Impropriety (Failure to consider evidence,
baseless criminal allegation).
2. Inadequate Signage (Sign failed to specify Blue Badge clock
requirement after 19:00).
3. Council’s Failure to Apply Own Policy (Valid Blue Badge held
but clock not displayed).
4. Misapplication of Blue Badge Law (Badge used lawfully with
holder present).
Detailed Arguments
1. Procedural Impropriety & False Allegation
The council’s rejection letter falsely alleged Blue Badge
"misuse" – a criminal accusation. This is unlawful because:
- Regulation 9(1)(b) of the Disabled Persons (Badges for
Vehicles) Regulations 2000 permits use of the badge by a third
party when the disabled person is present.
- Fact: My mother (the badge holder) was in the vehicle during
the journey and parking.
- The council provided no evidence of misuse and ignored this
statutory exemption. This prejudiced the entire process.
2. Legally Deficient Signage
The sign at the location breaches TSRGD 2016:
- It states restrictions for "Business permit holders" and "Pay
by phone" after 19:00 but omits all information about Blue Badge
concessions.
- No mention that a parking clock must be displayed alongside
the Blue Badge after 19:00.
- Legal Precedent:
>Where signage fails to specify a condition (e.g., clock
display), the penalty is unenforceable."
> Moses v Barnet LBC [2005] EWHC 1900 (Admin)
A reasonable person would assume displaying the Blue Badge alone
was sufficient (as in daytime pay-and-display bays).
3. Council’s Breach of Cancellation Policy
Tower Hamlets’ own [Policy: Cancellation of PCNs (p.6,
§6)](553208338-Tower-Hamlets-Council-Policy-Cancellation-of-PCNs.pdf)
states:
> The Council will consider using its discretion to cancel the
PCN... [if] the motorist had a valid permit or other required
item... but the item was not displayed.
- I held a valid Blue Badge and was entitled to park for 3 hours
on single yellow lines.
- The only failure was not displaying the clock – a minor
technical oversight covered by this policy.
- The council’s refusal to exercise discretion was unreasonable
and irrational.
4. De Minimis Breach
- The PCN was issued at 19:27– just 27 minutes after
restrictions began.
- I had substantive entitlement to park under Blue Badge rules.
- Penalising a technical oversight ignores the spirit of the law
(*Davies v Camden LBC*).
---
Remedy Sought
Cancel the PCN because:
1. The badge was used legally (holder present).
2. Signage failed to warn of the clock requirement.
3. The council breached its policy by not cancelling for a
forgotten item.
4. The "misuse" allegation tainted the process with procedural
unfairness.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 81380--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 17, 2025, 3:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I sadly got a ticket on my windscreen today. We parked on a pay
and display with a blue badge, which allows unlimited parking.
As a result, I did not display the clock. The thing I didn’t
know was that after the hours of enforcement (0700-1900) it
changes to an enforced single yellow line from 1900-0700.
The four corners of this contravention are that the car was
parked in contravention on a SYL having been thus parked for
more than 2 hours. The parking place is not germane to the
contravention: it's simply that the car was parked on a SYL. A
BB was displayed but in order to rely upon this exemption a
clock must also be displayed. But it wasn't.
To say again: the parking place is irrelevant as regards the
in-situ signs(whether these are supported by a traffic order,
who knows?)
The parking place is not germane to the contravention: it's
simply that the car was parked on a SYL. A BB was displayed but
in order to rely upon this exemption a clock must also be
displayed. But it wasn't.
That's it IMO.*
So as regards your itemised points:
1. Procedural Impropriety (Failure to consider evidence,
baseless criminal allegation). They did consider the evidence
i.e. there wasn't a clock. Whether the BB itself was being
misused isn't central because it's immaterial given the absence
of a clock unless IMO you could prove that this caused the
council to not exercise discretion pursuant to their policy
which otherwise they WOULD have done.
2. Inadequate Signage (Sign failed to specify Blue Badge clock
requirement after 19:00). Doesn't have to. A SYL is a SYL. The
holder of a BB is instructed on this in the Rights and
Responsibilities booklet and the driver is presumed to know by
virtue of holding a driving licence.
3. Council’s Failure to Apply Own Policy (Valid Blue Badge held
but clock not displayed). The right to the exemption on a SYL
arises under legislation, nothing to do with council policies.
4. Misapplication of Blue Badge Law (Badge used lawfully with
holder present). Wrong as explained above.
*- where's their cancellation policy for SYL?
- the only link is that the signs are on the same post. The
defence of confusing signage could still be put forward if you
are at tribunal.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page