-
Wakefield Wood Street - Parking in Permit Holders Only Bay
Posted by
cyrilljww
on 24 Jul, 2026 19:50
-
NOTICE OF REJECTION OF INFORMAL CHALLENGE
The Traffic Management Act 2004 s78
Penalty Charge Notice Number: WP10696770
Date of Contravention: 30/04/2026 at 14:27
Location: Wood Street, Wakefield
Parking in Permit Holders Bay
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for the letter dated 12th June 2026 - Notice of Rejection of Representations.
I strongly disagree with the allegation made in the letter - “parking in a permitted space without displaying a valid permit” and there are quite a few reasons why the vehicle was genuinely believed to be lawfully parked having displayed an eligible permit on Wood Street within the permit holders bay.
On the day of the PCN issuance, the car did have a valid Blue Disability Badge permit on clear display and it was at all times our understanding that such a permit is eligible throughout the Wakefield town centre given the nature of the road restriction and language used on the signage. The road markings and signage on Wood street itself was worn unclear and therefore ambiguous.
Given the attached evidence articles and references in relation to the Wakefield Pedestrian Zone, it can be seen that there is a similar restriction in operation (see photo of the sign order restriction). The restriction states explicitly: “Pedestrian Zone. No vehicular access except for buses, permit holders and loading.” Myself along with many other Blue Disability Badge permit holders have accessed and navigated the Pedestrian Zone for at least the past 5 years - the only way of doing so is by driving in the zone itself; but solely on the advice of the local traffic wardens and their own understanding of the local sign restrictions and orders and they independently have confirmed their understanding of the term "Permit Holders." To be clear the local traffic wardens have on a multitude of occasions advised on the scope of "Permit Holders" in relation to the Pedestrian zone and generalisation of Wakefield town centre. Furthermore within the Pedestrian Zone itself there are dedicated parking spaces specifically for Blue Disability Badge permit holders (see photo of the signs). This would ensure that a car navigating within the Pedestrian Zone is lawful and permitted in accordance with the road signs restriction orders and markings.
Attached are various examples of vehicles displaying the relevant Blue Disability Badge permit whilst parked compliantly on Lower Warrengate, Westmorland Street and the Springs located within the Pedestrian Zone (see photos). These vehicles are parked here within the Pedestrian Zone under the granted exemption of qualifying under the eligible permit holders language used in the restriction order. The only way to navigate a vehicle into these streets is to actively drive a car into the street on the basis of the road signage and explicit exemption permissible for permit holders (in this case a Blue Disability Badge permit).
My understanding is that having consulted with a multitude of the patrolling local traffic wardens over the past 5 years; that an eligible permit holder does include local residents with relevant issued permit, business premise owners within the zone, contractors performing duties with the relevant permit and Blue Disability Badge permit holders.
Therefore the local patrol wardens understand that wherever the road restriction signage uses “Permit Holders” then an eligible permit includes the Blue Disability Badge. This is why there have been zero PCNs issued in relation to inappropriate use of a Blue Disability Badge permit within the Pedestrian Zone to date by any traffic warden and confirmed by the Wakefield Council enforcement team and furthermore via a Freedom of Information Act request (see attached email).
Furthermore, Wakefield Cathedral (a government owned entity) has similar guidance on parking matters in the context of eligibility of Blue Disability Badge permit holders and corroborates the permit eligibility status (see website image - this guidance clearly states that parking access is permitted within the Pedestrian Zone given the use of a Blue Disability Badge permit). Please also see the email from the Wakefield Council Legal team following a Subject Access Request to seek information on the upholding of the Road Traffic Act and local planning laws within Wakefield centre. Clearly, an eligible permit does include a Blue Disability Badge permit for the cases outlined and appears to be the case within the local planning laws.
If Wakefield Council were to enforce the PCN it potentially would be a matter of inconsistent application of the Road Traffic Act regulations given the evidences, emails and sources of information provided as outlined above and uneven application of the law.
If the term “permit holders” apply to one particular set of roads and for the eligibility to include Blue Disability Badge permit holders and then for another road only 50 meters away for the same to not then apply - this is a direct conflict and 2 tiered legal framework. The road signs should be made much more clear and unambiguous given my understanding of these circumstances because there are contradicting narratives being provided by Wakefield Council itself, the signage used and the sources of information contained within my appeal.
This means that application of the legal terms would not be uniformly consistently applied across Wakefield town centre and therefore it would have subjective meaning across the entirety of Wakefield (which I hope would not be applicable).
Given that this is my first PCN and combined with the evidences provided I would like to think that Wakefield Council would be willing to cancel this for a first time offender of such a restriction.
My understanding was and always has been that whenever the term “Permit Holders” is used under the Road Traffic Act and Local Planning Law restrictions within Wakefield, then that would include a Blue Disability Badge permit holder as being eligible. I am generally a considerate person and do engage with the local traffic wardens over the years and they each did independently confirm the same perspective on the eligibility scope of "Permit Holders." If they are mistaken or they have conveyed incorrect information then I can only apologise.
Kind Regards,
-
-
-
Sorry, but I have to ask why, when your informal challenge to a PCN served, (presumably), has been rejected, you have written back to them. They are under no legal obligation to respond to your second informal submission.
The enforcement process is that if you want to take the matter further, you must wait for the Notice to Owner, and submit a formal representation against this. This begs the question - are you the owner, and is the address on your V5C Registration Certificate up-to-date.
Assuming you are the owner, at the NtO stage the discount option is lost, although many councils do re-offer it when rejecting formal representations. If representations against an NtO are rejected, and no re-offer of the discount is made, then it becomes a complete no-brainer, to take them to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, because the penalty remains the same, and there are no additional costs.
Therefore to help us, please post up the PCN, all sides, and your original representations. Redact nothing except name and address on all documents you post. We don't often see PCNs from outside London, and the "small print" on them can sometimes be so wrong as to make it void. PCN content is mandated in regulations, hence the need to see all of it.
-
-
#2 Reply
Posted by
cyrilljww
on 24 Jul, 2026 23:45
-
Apologies, a bit misleading initial post. That post was actually the Tribunal representations in the initial post.
My informal challenge was rejected by Wakefield Council - probably because I was being a bit brash with them because their online document upload process is entirely not functional:
"Hello,
Missing evidence as your website is corrupted, has an error, not functional and not fit for purpose.
If there are inadequate road markings, causing known interpretation problems because the road markings are unclear and not marked properly and especially for a person with a known disability then that's the Council's own fault for being incompetent at maintaining the road.
Regards"
To give more wider context, and not to go off on a tangent too much, this alleged offence is somewhat interrelated with another PCN (which was cancelled by the Police) because there appears to be conflicting road restrictions specifically in the Pedestrian Only Zone: part of which is owned by the Police and the other part owned by the Council and "nobody wants to own up to it." Dare I say it that due to the Police cancelling the PCN they have admitted that the road signage is incorrect. One party is assigning blame to the other party.
Since there appears to be a road signage error, like on an exam paper where you get "Error Carried Forward" this is affecting other parts of the Road Traffic Order restrictions, specifically on the definition of "Permit Holders."
I know this doesnt help you and the other experts, but I dont have the full PCN actual document with me right now. Can I try to describe the nature of the PCN in question itself?
-
-
-
Sorry, we really do need to see documents. You say this: -
another PCN (which was cancelled by the Police)
The police do not issue PCNs which come under civil law, they issue Fixed Penalty Notices, which come under the criminal law.
and also this -
the Tribunal representations in the initial post.
So you have been as far as adjudication ? Then the matter is closed.
So sorry, can't help unless you can tell us more and provide documents because at the moment, I am baffled.
-
-
#4 Reply
Posted by
cyrilljww
on 25 Jul, 2026 09:13
-
Ok, I will upload the documents when I am able to be hopefully over this weekend (just they aren't physically with me at present as I didn't take photos of them yet).
But, you have hit the crux of the matter:
(Police) Civil Law Fixed Penalty Notice For violation of restriction: “Pedestrian Zone. No vehicular access except for buses, permit holders and loading.” - This FPN was cancelled because of the road signage error.
(Council) Restriction Permit Holders Only offence “parking in a permitted space without displaying a valid permit” - This PCN is still under dispute.
So there is an apparent conflict over the common term used here "Permit Holders" which is reflected on the road signage restrictions, namely you cannot have such signage on display and have it have different scope because it would be determined in the local authority TRO if I am not mistaken (i.e. a common generic term)? If there is a precedent set for the definition scope of "Permit Holders" it must be consistent? Otherwise it would be ambiguous. The way how they would reduce the potential for ambiguity would be like they do in London where they would qualify the exact type of Permit on the road signage itself (for example type M, P1, L etc for residents whom reside in a specific geographical postcode) - something which in this case Wakefield Council didn't do on the road sign in question (its generically stated Permit Holders Only (without qualifying the permit type))
Yes there was an adjudication hearing yesterday.
-
-
#5 Reply
Posted by
tincombe
on 25 Jul, 2026 10:46
-
Yes there was an adjudication hearing yesterday.
In which case, all that matters at this stage is the adjudicator's decision and reasons. Do you have these?
As I understand it, there isn't a legal requirement for councils to exempt BB parking in parking places otherwise reserved to specific users e.g. permit holders etc. They may choose to do so of their own volition, but otherwise BB holders are not exempt(from permit holder restrictions).
-
-
#6 Reply
Posted by
cyrilljww
on 25 Jul, 2026 11:24
-
Thanks for your replies.
May I ask what is the UK legal definition of a permit (or that which usually applies in England & Wales)? My understanding is that sometimes a Blue Disability Badge is a permit and sometimes it is a badge - it depends on the scheme that the local authority has adopted and effected in its local TRO?
However, if observationally speaking there are multiple frequent contradictions of such definitions (namely what was expected formally written in the TRO definition versus the actual reality of the situation due to frequent violations of the road signage in practice "which go unpunished yet compliant" (because in fact the road signage is incorrect and an error carried forward)), a conflict has seemingly occurred because a new precedent has been set in law (due to observation) since the facts contradict the definition? Sorry if this is unclear but I can give you a clear example by what I mean if necessary.
-
-
-
Until we know the result of your adjudication, it is pointless trying to advise, sorry. Best if you post-up the adjudication decision as soon as you get it.
-
-
#8 Reply
Posted by
tincombe
on 25 Jul, 2026 12:00
-
+1, but for your benefit:
Traffic Orders create restrictions;
Reg. 18 of this requires such restrictions to be signed adequately:
These Regulations prescribe the procedure to be followed by local authorities in England and Wales for making the main types of traffic and parking orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984...
Part V (specifically s64) of this specifies 'traffic signs':
An Act to consolidate the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 and certain related enactments, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission.
These are the applicable regulations (with limited exceptions) for Great Britain as regards prescribed signs, their definitions, size, format, variations and directions as regards siting etc:
This Instrument consolidates, with substantial amendments, the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997, the Traffic Signs (Temporary Obstructions) Reg...
In addition, the Secretary of State may authorise traffic signs.
-
-
#9 Reply
Posted by
cyrilljww
on 26 Jul, 2026 16:40
-
Ok, I will upload the documents when I am able to be hopefully over this weekend (just they aren't physically with me at present as I didn't take photos of them yet).
But, you have hit the crux of the matter:
((Police) Criminal Law) Statutory Civil Penalty of Fixed Penalty Notice For violation of restriction: “Pedestrian Zone. No vehicular access except for buses, permit holders and loading.” - This FPN was cancelled because of the road signage error (specifically on the basis of the permit holders eligibility)
(Council) Civil Law) Restriction Permit Holders Only offence “parking in a permitted space without displaying a valid permit” - This PCN is still under dispute.
So there is an apparent conflict over the common term used here "Permit Holders" which is reflected on the road signage restrictions, namely you cannot have such signage on display and have it have different scope because it would be determined in the local authority TRO if I am not mistaken (i.e. a common generic term)? If there is a precedent set for the definition scope of "Permit Holders" it must be consistent? Otherwise it would be ambiguous. The way how they would reduce the potential for ambiguity would be like they do in London where they would qualify the exact type of Permit on the road signage itself (for example type M, P1, L etc for residents whom reside in a specific geographical postcode) - something which in this case Wakefield Council didn't do on the road sign in question (its generically stated Permit Holders Only (without qualifying the permit type))
Yes there was an adjudication hearing yesterday.
-
-
#10 Reply
Posted by
cyrilljww
on 26 Jul, 2026 16:43
-
Typo from above apologies and clarification:
((Police) Criminal Law) Statutory Civil Fixed Penalty Notice For violation of restriction: “Pedestrian Zone. No vehicular access except for buses, permit holders and loading.” - This FPN was cancelled because of the road signage error (on the basis of eligibility of the permit (Blue Disability Badge Permit))
((Council) Civil Law) Restriction Permit Holders Only offence “parking in a permitted space without displaying a valid permit” - This PCN is still under dispute.
-
-
-
Yes there was an adjudication hearing yesterday.
When you get the result, please post it here.
-
-
#12 Reply
Posted by
cyrilljww
on 28 Jul, 2026 17:36
-
Hello,
Still not had a decision by the Tribunal even though the adjudicator suggested there were no grounds for appeal. That was until I showed the adjudicator the West Yorkshire Police cancelling the Fixed Penalty Notice relating to the Pedestrian Only Zone with the exemption for Permit Holders (on the basis of the Blue Disability Badge permit being eligible).
I still don't have the original physical document PCN with me just yet, but when I do, I shall upload it at the earliest opportunity.
Here is what Wakefield Council claim on the Tribunal portal:
"The vehicle was parked in a permit holders only parking bay as detailed on the nearby signs and there was no valid permit on display in the vehicle, which is why the PCN was issued. The Council accepts that there is a disabled badge on display in the vehicle, however the disabled badge does not exempt vehicles from permit holders only restrictions.
The Council agree that the words that were written on the highway are worn, however the lines demarcating the bay are clear. There is also a clear upright sign that reads “Permit holders only” and the vehicle was parked adjacent to this signage. The signage which covers this permit holders only parking bay meets the requirements of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.
Mr xxxxxx has referred to different traffic restriction signs for pedestrian zones in Wakefield City Centre. These signs read “Pedestrian Zone, except for buses, permit holders and loading.” The Council understands that one of the grounds of the appeal is that Mr xxxxxx believes disabled badge holders are exempt from these moving traffic restrictions, meaning they would be included as a "permit holder, " therefore Mr xxxx believes the term "permit holder" would include disabled badge holders in relation to parking restrictions also.
Disabled badge holders are not exempt from this moving traffic restriction, therefore the term "permit holder" does not include them in this situation either. If disabled badge holders are exempt from a moving traffic restriction, this would be specified on the signage as “Disabled badge holders”. The Council understands Mr xxxxxx says he and other disabled badge holders have driven through pedestrian areas several times to park and has provided a photo of what appears to be an off-street parking area within one of the pedestrian areas. The Council understands Mr xxxxx says that traffic wardens have advised him that he can drive through a pedestrian zone, though not exempt. Whilst the Council cannot confirm if this is the case, Civil Enforcement Officers (CEO)s are not expected to offer advice on whether vehicles can drive through a moving traffic restriction as they do not enforce these restrictions. CEOs are also aware that a Disabled Badge does not exempt vehicles from parking in permit holders only parking places and it is unlikely that they would advise a motorist otherwise.
Moving traffic restriction enforcement is the responsibility of the Police; If disabled badge holders have driven through a pedestrian area and with no exemption and have not received a penalty from the Police, this does not mean it is allowed. The Council believes this ascertains that there is no evidence of inconsistent use of language by the Council, particularly with the term “permit holder” when referring to traffic management.
Mr xxxx states there have been "zero PCNs issued in relation to inappropriate use of a Blue Disability Badge permit within the Pedestrian Zone to date by any traffic warden and confirmed by the Wakefield Council enforcement team and furthermore via a Freedom of Information Act request". Having viewed the response to the FOI request, it appears Mr xxxxx was advised the Council did not hold this information; This does not mean there were 0 PCNs recorded but it means the Council could not provide the information that had requested.
The screenshot showing the Wakefield Cathedral website is not controlled by Parking Services and therefore does not have any bearing on this case. However, the Council advise again that whilst vehicles are exempt from certain parking restrictions when displaying a disabled badge in the correct manner, this does not mean they can contravene a moving traffic restriction to do so.
Evidence number 28 shows the Traffic Regulation Order for waiting restrictions and street parking places. Part VII, 7.25 details the form of a permit.
PCNs issued for parking contraventions are issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Council do not agree that there has been any inconsistent application of this. PCNs for parking contraventions are not issued under Planning Law. Mr xxxxxx's evidence does not show the Council advising that a Disabled Badge holder is classed as a permit holder.
To conclude, the Council are not aware of any part of the Traffic Regulation Order that classifies a Disabled Badge holder as a Permit Holder.
The Council understands that the appellant may not have intended to park in contravention, and appreciates it may be a first offence, however the Council do not consider this as grounds to cancel the PCN, should the adjudicator find that the contravention occurred."
-
-
#13 Reply
Posted by
tincombe
on 28 Jul, 2026 20:02
-
We can look back at what occurred after you receive the decision.
-
-
#14 Reply
Posted by
cyrilljww
on 30 Jul, 2026 22:19
-
Here are the original paper ticket PCN details, both sides:
-
Google Docs