PCN BY BRIGHTON COUNCIL FOR PARKING/stopping? IN DISABLED BAY

Photos aren't required under the Act but if taken as a matter of council policy then the adjudicator might ask questions on this point and draw inferences.

 Every interaction had with a CEO is recorded on the PCN case 'vehicle parked in disabled
bay. asked driver to move and they said they were dropping off. started to issue a PCN and
told them the PCN would come in the post. driver drove off so PCN is a reg 10 with 4 pics
taken.'

You say: The CEO never had any interaction with the driver. No conversation ever took place.

So take this to tribunal, have a personal hearing and convince the adjudicator that your version is correct. If accepted, then IMO you would succeed because it's the fundamental part of their reasoning.

Did you include the dropping off in your reps

Please show us  a copy of the pdf you sent and also a copy (not a transcript) of Brighton's reply.
I can see that there is part of the rejection missing from the transcript.

Below is the appeal I made;

"Formal Representation Against PCN [BH89007150] for Vehicle [BC18 UVS]

I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice [BH89007150] issued on 22/10/2025 for an alleged contravention of Code 40 - Parked in a designated disabled bay without displaying a valid Blue Badge.

The basis for my challenge is that the evidence provided by the council does not prove the contravention occurred at the time stated on the PCN.

The PCN states the contravention took place at 08:53am. However, the photographic evidence supplied with the PCN and which would be relied upon in any proceedings by the authority shows the following::

1. Image 1, 2(Timestamp 08:52:): Shows my vehicle at the location.
2. Image 3 (Timestamp 08:53): Shows the disabled bay is vacant. My vehicle is not present.

This evidence clearly demonstrates that my vehicle was not parked in the disabled bay at 08:53am, the precise time cited for the contravention.

For a Penalty Charge Notice to be upheld, the council must provide conclusive evidence that proves the contravention on the balance of probabilities. The timestamps on your own photographs create a direct contradiction with the details on the PCN. The image from 08:53am, in particular, proves my vehicle was not committing the contravention at that time.

I would like to add that the driver was not parked in bay but waiting briefly for traffic to clear and the council's pictures also show the car had moved forward.

Therefore, as the core allegation on the PCN is not supported by the evidence, I request that you cancel the PCN.

I have attached a copy of the PCN and have annotated the provided photographs for clarity. I look forward to your confirmation that this penalty charge has been cancelled."

Please see the above rejection letter.

The CEO never talked to the driver at all, but we have no evidence to prove this...We probably won't be able to cope with the stress to go to court either...Not mentally strong enough to cope with stress to be honest...

It's not court, it's adjudication.



Have a read before you make a decision.

And who was driving? If not you, then they can be a witness to the facts at your telephone hearing. Credibility and whose account is believed would seem to be at the heart of this case.

dropping off being an exemption is at the heart of the case

They say there was interaction with the driver about dropping off - this doesn't seem to be the case?

I guess the appeal is now not parked as such but if the council insist then daughter did exit while waiting so alighting then in play (but no words with CEO?). 

The driver was not me. I am the keeper. There was no interaction with the driver. No talk ever took place between the CEO and the driver. The driver never left the car or opened the window. In addition, the driver's one ear is deaf, so there is no possibility of having a talk with a CEO standing far away whilst staying in a car.

Brighton and Hove council does not share their CEO handbook and based on google research, variations are possible by local authority. That's why I did not mention this alighting in the appeal letter. However, based on the rejection, it seems to emphasise that alighting would be regarded as parking.

I will go though the link on adjudication. Not familiar with this at all. Both the driver and myself are under a lot of work pressure. We may not have the energy and strenghth to go through a legal proceeding, to be honest.

Good evening, I found below from the adjudication website;

"In the majority of cases, an online decision can be made on your appeal, based on the evidence uploaded by you and the authority."

Can I ask if I could make a written appeal in stead of having a telephone hearing? I searched on 2004 TMA. Although no photo evidence is specified, but clearly CEO is  using photos to prove contravention in practice. The argument seems to me is whether their photos are conclusive to prove contravention.

Even we fail the adjudication, the charge on the PCN should remain unchanged, right?

The full PCN penalty is always in play at the adjudicators, but nothing more. If you lose you pay it, or pay nothing if you win.

The authority's evidence is a first-hand account by a CEO as to what they observed, namely the vehicle parked in a disabled bay and when the driver was challenged they drove away.

Your written appeal would be second-hand evidence as to what another person did and observed.

In a personal hearing by phone the authority is unlikely to attend but even if it did it would not be the CEO. At a personal hearing you would have the opportunity to present evidence and context verbally both to bolster your written reps and to respond to the adjudicator's questions.

IMO, your(the driver's) account and the authority's(the CEO's) are at such variance that you would be putting the adjudicator in the position of Solomon who at least had the opportunity to speak to the protagonists.

If you go for a hearing on the papers then IMO you would not succeed.

Credibility is at the heart of this IMO because if the adjudicator disregards your account as a fabrication dreamt up by a remorseful driver who was caught by a CEO in the course of their duties then none of your story would be examined in detail and claims regarding an alighting exemption or traffic would be dismissed because the CEO does not record anything about this and you'd not be in a position to explain.

Hearings are not inquisitorial.

On a point of procedure, as I understand it if you intended to allow your wife to 'attend' on the phone then you would need to clear this in advance with the tribunal.

Thank you all for your kind help and invaluable advice!!