Free Traffic Legal Advice

Date of NTO is 7 April so need to get on with this.

HC Andersen may oblige. If not I'll help.

Thank you!!

At this stage the authority are judges in their own cause. C'est la vie.

Stamfordman has identified some tribunal decisions which show that the authority's position is incorrect in law.

Sadly, the authority don't recognise this.

Why? Ignorance or bullying? Sorry if this shatters your illusions about your local council, but you just can't get the staff these days....as opposed to my day! 

Contravention did not occur
Procedural impropriety

The authority's position is that the traffic sign in situ - Disabled badge holders only 4 hours; No return 2 hours - conveys the requirement that a motorist must display a 'parking disk' (AKA clock) to show when parking commenced thereby allowing the authority to establish when the 4-hour limit is breached. However, there is no legal support for this position. The issue is the effect of the sign and not whether a traffic order might require display, not that this applies in this case, and the law is clear: there is no requirement imposed upon a motorist to display a parking disc therefore not displaying one cannot be a contravention.
The authority either accept this argument or not. But if not, then they are obliged to support this with legal argument and not simply an assertion.

Procedural Impropriety
The PCN does not comply with Regulation 9(7)(b) of the General Regulations, namely regulation 3(1) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations.

Thanks so much H C, very eye opening stuff. Should I rewrite based on the information you've said above or do you think the above will suffice in sending as a formal representation?

I was also going to add the following:
Regulations 11 and 12 of the Disabled Person’s (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000 sets out the requirements for the display of a Blue Badge. There is no reference in the Regulations to a parking clock or disc. Therefore, no contravention has occurred.

Further supported similar cases attached ‘Miss Michelle Dhillon - v - Leicester City Council’ (2019) and ‘Mr William Watson - v - St Helens Council’ (2020), where it was successfully ruled contravention did not occur based on 'There is no requirement to display a time clock in addition to a blue badge in a time limited parking place'

Furthermore Procedural Impropriety
The PCN does not comply with Regulation 9(7)(b) of the General Regulations, namely regulation 3(1) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations. The mandatory warning regarding 'if representation are made but a Notice of Owner is still issued the owner must respond to the Notice of Owner' is missing from the PCN.

Frustratingly I have received a rejection for the representation. I've tried uploading the letter but can't attach more than 4. Here are the direct links:








This is the representation I sent them:
I am disappointed you are trying to enforce this PCN, despite my initial challenge pointing out I was using the bay legitimately for 2 hours while taking my mother, a disabled person with a blue badge, for a meal.

I now must draw your attention to your position that the traffic sign in situ- Disabled badge holders only 4 hours; No return 2 hours - conveys the requirement that a motorist must displáy a 'parking disk' (AKA clock) to show when parking commenced thereby allowing the authority to establish when the 4-hour limit is breached. However, there is no legal support for this position. The issue is the effect of the sign and not whether a traffic order might require display, not that this applies in this case, and the law is clear: there is no requirement imposed upon a motorist

to display a parking disc therefore not displaying one cannot be a contravention. I draw your attention to key cases attached 'Miss Michelle Dhillon - v - Leicester City Council' (2019) and 'Mr William Watson - v - St Helens Council' (2020), where it was successfully ruled contravention did not occur based on 'There is no requirement to display a time clock in addition to a blue badge in a time limited parking place'

As an authority you either accept this argument or not. But if not, then you are obliged to support this with legal argument and not simply an assertion. Furthermore

Procedural Impropriety. The PCN does not comply with Regulation 9(7)(b) of the General Regulations, namely regulation 3(1) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations. The mandatory warning regarding 'if representation are made but a Notice of Owner is still issued the owner must respond to the Notice of Owner' is missing from the PCN.





[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

As I posted previously, they're judges in their own cause at present and, as here, will tell you that black is white or vice-versa if it suits them without any regard for the law.

It's shocking, but there you are. The problem is actually nothing to do with parking legislation, it's a problem of local authority finances and accountability. For info, the reason for this is that penalty charge income (despite dwarfing all other third party income other than council tax!)is NOT treated as debt for the purposes of internal financial scrutiny, therefore every Do Not Contest at adjudication, every cancellation, every adverse adjudication decision escapes the scrutiny of internal audit who otherwise want to know the whereabouts of every biro with a gnawed top!

You just have to see it through to the end by appealing and make this end the bitterest you can for them by asking for costs against the authority.

Thank you H C, its astonishing they do not acknowledge or instill the law even when presented. This whole process really has opened my eyes how badly run these authorities are.

"Cost against authority"  I will most definitely take this to adjudicator. Should I add anything extra other than the representation I provided? It seems to cover the points pretty clearly